Nice job Lisa. At least for me, the biggest problem in mapping contraflow was visualizing how everything worked. I have some images I took from the MUTCD that might be helpful. I also think your thumbnails could be enlarged a bit. I think it might be good to have a section on extending entrance and exit ramps for contraflow too. When I mapped a contraflow near Columbus I saw a bunch of URs, because the whole mainline had a closure along its length, and people were saying "Hey I-70 E isn't closed, it just got shifted." Once we reduced the number of closed segments to only what was necessary people quit freaking out. So perhaps a sentence on setting only the minimum closures required to prevent routing would be good. Lots of work today, but I may have some time tonight to work on the page a bit.

I added a few images that I think may be helpful. I do think we need some more guidance on when it is ok to not map contraflow.

I did a two-way crossover in a residential area, and it worked fine there, but it seemed a bit more complicated to set up. Have you noticed that?

Yeah I shouldn't have said it's more complicated. The residential thing was complicated just because the crossovers were at existing intersections and I had to draw extra segments for correct instructions.
Two-way is a lot simpler to draw; just need to make sure to restrict exits and entrances in the opposite direction, or else bad things could happen And do you name it without the cardinal direction (like I-94)? I'm thinking it would be good to keep both directions as alt names (I-94 E, I-94 W) to keep BDP working

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

Lonewolf147 wrote:Oh the pages that exist in the Wiki. I'm always learning of new stuff on there. Did not know about that one, Subs. And you're right, that would be the best place to have more details for contraflow, especially since it actually mentions contraflow in the first paragraph.

That page actually started from a contraflow idea and yes, the title of the page is scheduled reconfiguration, so advance notice of the reconfig is assumed. The assumption is that with an unscheduled (not known in advance) reconfiguration, you just change the map to reflect the current reality. Maybe we need a caveat in the lead to say that?

And I totally agree that we should discourage RTC use in contraflows. I have run into several problems both within Google Maps and Waze because of this. In GMaps, a freeway can get shut down. In Waze, users get confused and think a freeway is shut down because they see closure bubbles and candy canes on it, so they drop unnecessary comments and URs.To problems in GMaps, normally I would also say "too bad, shoulda used Waze brah," but if our actions are causing freeways to be broken, it's just not right. Besides, we can allow for correct routing in Waze while not screwing up GMaps by just using TBSRs and TBTRs with contraflow situations when drawing the contraflow. As for one-way vs two-way setups, you still have to draw new segments for the crossover points even if using two-way, and you should remove the cardinal direction on the two-way segment, but you don't have to adjust geometry, and it seems like it would look nicer. We should probably recommend one or the other in the page.

I'd recommend publishing a separate page for contraflow, as it's a special situation, and as Scott said, is often unannounced in certain states. Once that is published, we can put links between it and the scheduled reconfig page. Also, I've been thinking about how roundabouts are a special case for scheduled and unscheduled reconfig. We should probably add information on building those in the roundabouts page too.

But if the TBSRs are maintained to end when the project is expected to be complete and updated as new information is released, then Waze can still be accurate to the day

I'm not talking about relying on tile updates.

Say you have info that a contraflow situation will start August 28 and end September 28. Today, you map the crossover with a TBSR from now to 8/27 and then another TBSR from 9/28 to whenever. You add a TBSR on the normal roadway from 8/28-9/27. Then maybe you get a notice on 9/20 that the project is delayed a week. Adjust TBSRs accordingly, and let them play out.

This is assuming that a timely source of project information is available. It is where I live, but maybe I'm spoiled. Even if not, IMO inaccurate contraflow instructions for a few days (or even 10, yes) is a much smaller problem for people than shutting down a freeway in Google Maps, as much as I love Waze and want people to switch to it.

subs5 wrote:It is interesting that some would rather provide bad routing to Waze users for several hours to several days than to potentially adversely affect users of another product.

This statement seems to assume that the tradeoff involves equal adverse effects. It does not. If it did, of course I would say just make Waze work, since I like Waze, I think it's better than GMaps, and I want people to switch to it.

I just had to make this decision today with a contraflow in Columbus. The mainline is not being used for through traffic anymore, only the contraflow lane is now. However, within a few minutes of putting a closure on the mainline, it copied over to Google and totally broke southbound routing on the interstate. I know that some Wazers may get keep right rather than keep left instructions for the next few days, as we are in a tile update delay right now, but they are in a construction zone, and there are signs everywhere telling people how to continue on 270. On the other hand, Google Maps users would not get routed on the interstate at all and probably not even know why, for longer routes. These consequences are not comparable

subs5 wrote:Are any exits skipped?

The counterflow just west of Flafstaff, AZ has been working just fine for the last few weeks with an RTC and from what I see there is not a Google maps shutdown of the freeway. There Waze would be routed the incorrect way since you can't make two exits from the counterflow. Same situation exact opposite results from your one above. This is up to Google to fix.

If you want to put the two options and someone can decide which is best for the situation that is fine with me, but in the Arizona situation, you have it where Waze users get the "not comparable" situation vice the Google users.

In your example, looks like the closure on this segment has been copied to GMaps and has shut down I-40 E to cause this routing. Fortunately, there is a pretty good detour at that point. What about just putting closures on the exit and entrance ramps that get skipped?