Could not agree more however on this topic there is an impasse. Some believe the Waze map should be drawn to deny rat running and others think the map should be drawn to reflect what is legally allowed.
Previously on these types of questions we have maintained the view that we map what is legally allowed. I personally support this as it takes the subjectivity out of it.
Right now we have the current situation where one editor goes through and adds a bunch of "gates" and then another comes along and removes them!
Should we have a vote?

Yes if Waze has NO other option it will override a restriction but if it just means sitting in the traffic for 10mins then I dont think it will route through the private road segment as it does have another option.

You are also correct that Waze doesnt prevent anyone from doing anything but it WILL avoid them always if it has another option and that option is to sit in the traffic. The driver cant know which side street to go down but Waze will. On a stretch that I drive Waze regularly takes me down a different side street along the 5km stretch of road depending on the traffic on the road I am on and also the traffic on the road it is trying to step me across to. Sometimes it avoids both roads and I rat run all the way (not through "local only areas" I admit)

As for the PR it hasn't seemed to have mattered in the past
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la ... story.html
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/12/1 ... -residents
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/27/r ... s-may-say/

I would also say we aren't setting up the map to ENCOURAGE the use of "local only" areas. It will only be used if Waze thinks it is faster.

For GG if we ever get help from Waze HQ I will fall down in amazement. There was Global Champ revolt a while back. Didn't seem to change anything...

On ituajr's second point yes I think it is a good solution and doesn't break any Waze rules that I am aware of and is a lot neater than the SA example further down.

On the first point is there any debate about the legality of driving down a "local only street". I think we have shown that the signs don't carry any "regulatory weight" (in QLD) therefore it is not illegal to drive down the street and therefore meets the Waze requirement to not do anything illegal. If this is true then the question is does the Waze map have a moral (or if that is too strong "neighbourly") obligation to not route drivers down local only streets.

I think it is also important to be clear that Waze will NOT route through there when there is another option regardless of the delay (as the penalty is too high) thus any time saving through that area would be lost as if the roads weren't there. The only thing I could think of on the day (if there was an accident that closed the road) that a driver could do would be to put in a "closure" report ahead and then Waze would probably choose to go that way.

So I think the question is does Waze have a moral obligation that outweighs its stated mission of getting a driver from A to B the fastest way possible. Based on what has happened elsewhere in the world (see my previous links) I don't think HQ thinks so otherwise they would have changed the algorithm.

So if Waze HQ through their inaction appear not to care then why should we care? What other implications other than bad PR and map vandalism (which you could prevent by locking) are there?

If the local streets are left without the gates then do we not leave the moral and other decisions (safety, legality) to the driver and provide a legal suggestion?

Your hypothetical could occur on any street so it is a bit of a strawman.

GG has raised a good point. Barclay St Deagon
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&lo ... =297978089

It has a local traffic sign at one end just after a 60 sign. A bit further down there is a sign to the railway station carpark and then the street runs along side the railway line so has houses only one one side. Doesnt fit the mould of other "local street" areas we have seen so how would this be handled?

You cant just gate one end. If the local street thing is going to work the whole area has to be "gated" off otherwise it totally stuffs up the routing. I remember now that Kaiglynn was trying to do this "gate" thing elsewhere but I cant find the street. It was a single street that was signed as "local" but all the streets that came off it weren't. The problem then was Waze would not route the 6m across the "gate" it would take the 3km journey around the other side of the suburb to come in as there wasn't a "gate" there. This would happen here:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=row&lo ... 645&zoom=4
This area has "local traffic only" on a lot of but not all streets. For example Anson St and Hamilton Rd from the West. Therefore, you either have to "gate" those streets even though they aren't posted or you will get bad routing which will always enter from those non-gated points.

The of course when you "gate" off streets that aren't "local traffic only" you will get URs from people saying why isn't Waze taking me this way? Then if you are going to "gate" some streets that aren't posted then why not "gate" every suburban street and keep everyone on the main roads. Seems to be self-defeating?

As for being "neighbourly" we don't have a tidal wave of complaints about Waze encouraging rat-running so is this even a problem that needs to be solved? If so, what exactly is the problem?

P.S.

ituajr wrote:clearly put there for safety reasons

I don't think it is clear. I would have said it was put there because enough people complained about the amount of noisy traffic driving down their street and they didn't like it. If it was anything else then why isn't every single suburban street "local traffic only"

ituajr wrote:Emotive:

Because you constructed a hypothetical extreme case scenario which I think was designed to cause fear of repercussions in the editors reading this. As your example could happen on any street anywhere I dont think it helps the argument.

As for Barclay St it only has a "local traffic only" sign at one end. So the reason it was used as an example is where in that area would you put the "gates". If the answer is only at one end then that wont work. If you are going to do both ends of Barclay then all that will do is move the traffic off this "primary street" onto the more minor streets to the north east. How is that helping?

Again exactly what is the problem trying to be solved?

ituajr wrote: I can't quite grasp your point. Are you saying that sometimes obeying the sign leads to longer routes? Isn't that the whole point which triggered this discussion?

The point is if you don't "gate" off an entire area and someone is navigating into that area then Waze will always enter via the non-gated streets. This will generate URs.

Hopefully that explains the Barclay St example. If you only gated Barclay St in that area and then were leaving the train carpark (for example) then Waze would never exit via Barclay St it will head off onto the other streets to the NW. This will generate URs. The only way to solve that is to "gate" the whole area even though those streets aren't marked as "local traffic only".

Edit: spelling, grammar

ituajr wrote:It seems that safety is at least one of the issues raised by people in relation to local traffic areas.

Yes but whether that is true or not cannot be determined. Just because the local populace petition on the basis of safety does not mean that it is their primary or sole motivation.

I was trying to keep tight on the topic but you are right I should have responded to your points.

ituajr wrote:"waze's role is to provide the fastest route [...}
Shown to be false.

No I disagree. You quoted the Waze mission as to provide the "best" route. "Best" is a subjective term. So I would point out that in the app settings you have a choice of "Fastest" or "Shortest". Therefore I would say Waze's definition of "best" is either fastest or shortest depending on your preference.

"Private roads are not meant to be used to link street to street here where the route is legal"
Shown to be false

I would agree. There is nothing stopping you from add a small private segment to achieve the aim of preventing routing through an area. I made this point before that should the decision be to gate off areas that I think this is the neatest option. I think this agreement covers some following points so I won't quote them.

""Compliance with warning signs is always recommended", and you choose to believe this means "ignore the sign". How well do you think that would work in court?"
The question was ignored.

Your point here is really directed to the person who chooses to continue past the "local traffic only" sign which I do't think has a bearing on the Waze map. This is because if you the goal of the Waze map is to reflect what is "legal" then we have already agreed that it is not illegal to drive into the area. It might be many other things but not illegal. If we, however, agree that the Waze map should not only be legal but also neighbourly then that is a different question but I think opens issues such as the Barclay St example.

"You are asking me to prove why the incorrect should stay. I don't feel I should have to."
Refusal to work towards agreement.

No I think it fair to ask both sides to prove what they say. You make the statement that not "gating" these areas is "incorrect" but I don't think that has been established. It depends on what "correct" means and I said in the last point if "correct" is legal then the Waze map is correct.

"How the TMR answer would hold up in court, again, has nothing to do with the topic."
Shown to be false.

I disagree. Nothing has been "shown". I think the original point about the TMR staff was establishing the legality of driving past the sign. Ituajr, you then went onto construct a hypothetical and linked the two. Again I think the hypothetical is moot because the example could happen anytime anywhere and therefore does not particularly add to the discussion as to how the Waze map should be constructed.

So for mine I think everyone agrees that it is not "illegal" to drive down these streets. The discussion should be around why the Waze map should be changed and if it was changed what problems could this cause. As a result of that the benefits and risks can be weighed.

Already stated in posting: Should Waze discourage the use of "local traffic only" roads for through traffic?

No that is a solution to the problem. I am asking what do we think the root problem is. That is, why are we proposing this solution? We agree it is not that the Waze map is drawn illegally (and therefore needs to be fixed).

ituajr wrote:No one could have said "why did you ignore the sign", or "why did Waze encourage drivers to use that road in violation of the sign", no one could have said "the editor caused Waze to direct the driver on a route in violation of the sign", no-one would have needed to say "but it was only an advisory" or "we tell our drivers to obey all signs", and the coroner could not have criticised Waze for risky routing.
In other words, every aspect of the case shows that it could not have been brought as a result of an incident "on any street anywhere".

Yes but the central tenant of what I took away was that "Hey map editors what you are doing could get you sued so you had better not doing anything that could even appear to be "not right"". So if the reason for editing the map (that is, the problem we are trying to solve) is to avoid getting sued as editors then I think that applies to the whole map and doesnt add to the discussion.

Nice use of emotive language to make an exaggerated claim. It was actually designed to refute the assertion that there could be no legal repercussions. I said as much in the example: "What legal implications are there..."

I don't think I could take anything else away from it. You hypothetical shows how far litigation goes and you end it with the editor destroying evidence, being dobbed in by Waze HQ and being tracked down through his ISP. So I am going to maintain my statement that this (if not designed) could be reasonably seen to cause fear.

So is your point "Some situations are difficult/impossible to implement so we shouldn't do it anywhere"?

If the reason for changing the map is due to fear of litigation then yes. This is because if I accept I am exposed to litigation and I cant protect myself from being sued everywhere then there isnt much point. Indeed I would stop editing.

EDIT: But this is largely moot. I would much prefer as I said before to discuss "why the Waze map should be changed and if it was changed what problems could this cause. As a result of that the benefits and risks can be weighed."