[Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges  Topic is solved

Moderators: MapSir, USA Champs

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges

Postby Kartografer » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:26 pm

From a long discussion on Discord among PesachZ, sketch, voludu2, dBsooner, myself and others, we have agreed that it's best to change some of the text in the section on ramp geometry to:
When placing the beginning of an exit ramp, first place a geometry node of the ramp segment at the nearest point to the exit from among:

* If there's no solid white line, at the gore point (where the painted lines diverge)
* If there's a solid white line, at its beginning (single lane exit)
* The beginning of the solid white line of the exit lane closest to the middle of the road (on a multi-lane exit)
* where it is legal to cross a solid white line:
** 1/4 mile before the gore point, on exits with a longer solid white line (use SWL as defined in previous 2 statements)
** Halfway between the gore points of the exit and the previous exit

PesachZ expressed concern that in some states crossing a solid white line risks being ticketed by police. Does anyone object to this change?
[ img ]
Galaxy S9 running Pie on Mint
SM Ohio, AM New Mexico, South Dakota
Wazeopedia projects
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
-John 8:32
Kartografer
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:32 pm
Location: Westerville, Ohio, USA
Has thanked: 538 times
Been thanked: 773 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges

Postby Kartografer » Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:41 am

johnsninja58 wrote:I find this challenging having so many different scenarios for the National wiki. Ultimately the concept is the last legal spot one can take the ramp. Then have bullet points as guidance based on common scenarios. How do we then provide guidance on which states one can legally cross a solid white line? Should this be on a national page or state page? Should scenarios with lengthy solid white lines involve local leadership for best practice?

It's complicated, because interchanges take many forms of course. However, I really believe we're over-analyzing the legal aspects of this. The language proposed by sketch implies consulting local leadership if you are unsure, but still I haven't heard of any states where it is per se illegal to cross a single SWL. Not OH, LA, MI, NY, AZ, PA, TX, CA... The federal MUTCD is clear that the intended purpose of a single SWL is to discourage crossing, whereas double SWL forbids crossing. Cops can ticket drivers for any number of actions that they deem reckless, and I can see how they would pull people over who swerve into an exit lane at the last second in front of other cars. But, as we know, drivers are drivers, Waze is a navigation service, and we don't hold people's hands. Besides there are many preceding prompts, and the road signs also mark the distance to and the point of the exit, regardless of SWL. So this wording is the best compromise among different considerations and interchange layouts IMO
[ img ]
Galaxy S9 running Pie on Mint
SM Ohio, AM New Mexico, South Dakota
Wazeopedia projects
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
-John 8:32
Kartografer
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:32 pm
Location: Westerville, Ohio, USA
Has thanked: 538 times
Been thanked: 773 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges

Postby KC-Guardrail » Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:33 pm

I know I'm late to the party, but why did we change the Entrance geometry to 20 degrees, when it serves no purpose? It seems like it will create extra work for editor and not gain any advantages.

I understand that the Exit geometry change was needed, but with a majority of the ramps in my area already being set to 20 exit/10 entrance, the change of the entrance to 20 will make all those ramps out of compliance. (Don't worry, I have a lot of more pressing things that need my attention, I'm not rushing out to change all the ramps)
[ img ][ img ][ img ] [ img ]
Area Manager - Kansas City Metro
KC-Guardrail
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:05 am
Location: Bonner Springs KS
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges

Postby KC-Guardrail » Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:36 pm

I agree with the change, going back to the original guidance for entrance ramps (ramps entering the highway).
[ img ][ img ][ img ] [ img ]
Area Manager - Kansas City Metro
KC-Guardrail
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:05 am
Location: Bonner Springs KS
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges

Postby ldriveskier » Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:23 pm

I'd like to propose changing the guidance for the angle to the entrance ramp to a range of 10-15 degrees.

Summarizing some discussion that took place Discord about the entrance ramp geometry:
    * changing entrance ramps to 20 degrees to be consistent with the new guidance for exit ramp geometry only creates more work without solving any problem; only the exit ramp closures are affected by the departure angle
    * entrance ramps should be properly placed and reasonably geometrified
    * we should have a range as guidance so editors have a consistent geometry to stay within
    * 10 degrees worked well for zoom timing; 20 degrees was a change that really served no purpose and might affect the zoom out effect
    * 20 degrees causes a pronounced jog in the map that isn't necessary and will cause jarring display turning; it should be a smooth motion as you enter the freeway and the display zooms out
    * suggested “10-15” as a guideline
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
USA LC/CM, MAR MSM, WV SM, NE OH LAM (resident of Ohio)
ldriveskier
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:05 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio, United States
Has thanked: 1471 times
Been thanked: 984 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges

Postby ldriveskier » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:59 pm

[quote="dfortney"... follow the actual road geometry, typically 10-15°.[/quote]

I definitely disagree with those saying we shouldn't recommend any angle and just say to do what looks good to the editor. Whatever is done, it should be consistent. Letting every editor decide what they want to do will lead to an inconsistent experience for users, which will look unprofessional. Just reading Kartografer's suggestion above, there could be a 0-20 degree difference in entrance angles with the possibility that some editors might want to do larger angles.

If we're not going to say "should be 10-15 degrees", then at least use wording that dfortney suggested in the quote to give some sort of guidance. Personally, I think 20 degrees is way too jarring.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
USA LC/CM, MAR MSM, WV SM, NE OH LAM (resident of Ohio)
ldriveskier
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:05 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio, United States
Has thanked: 1471 times
Been thanked: 984 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges

Postby ldriveskier » Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:38 pm

Now that this is a month old with no further comments, can we change the WOP either back to 10-15 degrees or to something like "reasonable geometry for the entrance ramp while ensuring that we have a smooth auto-zoom transition"?
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
USA LC/CM, MAR MSM, WV SM, NE OH LAM (resident of Ohio)
ldriveskier
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:05 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio, United States
Has thanked: 1471 times
Been thanked: 984 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges

Postby ldriveskier » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:03 pm

Since there are no further replies, I am going to assume everyone agrees to remove the 20 degree entrance angle and I will update the wiki page accordingly.

*Edited to change exit to entrance angle (typo).
Last edited by ldriveskier on Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
USA LC/CM, MAR MSM, WV SM, NE OH LAM (resident of Ohio)
ldriveskier
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2016 9:05 pm
Location: Northeast Ohio, United States
Has thanked: 1471 times
Been thanked: 984 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges

Postby Machete808 » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:09 am

On the ramp inheritance part, I see that there is a workaround for cases in which the final fork name is very different from what's on the exit signage. But I do wonder if editors might be inclined to skip that step if they judge it not to be "significantly" different, with some drivers find the mismatch confusing.

That said, casting it as more of an option to use in select cases would make this less of a concern.

BTW, just noting here that the images use the old road-type color scheme.
Aloha,
Vicki
Hawaii State Manager
Area manager, Los Angeles, NYC
Country manager, U.S.,Thailand
[ img ] [ img ]
Need support?
support.google.com/waze > Popular topics > FAQs > Other > Open a ticket
Welcome, new editors:
Here's a good place to start!
Machete808
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: Mon May 28, 2012 12:36 am
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Has thanked: 310 times
Been thanked: 332 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide/Interchanges

Postby Nagamasa » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:31 pm

I think you're going to need a more diagram and/or real-life link for pseudo-wayfinder stub.
[ img ]
AM3: North Bay (+Sacramento +Stockton), CA
AM3: Northwestern Washington
Beta tester for WME & Android
Nagamasa
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 2369
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:11 am
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Has thanked: 229 times
Been thanked: 287 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Wiki Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ardan74, Chronos74