sketch wrote:As for the content, I think more detail is needed regarding the handling of suffixed exits and more urban situations. I've only seen N/S in New York; other states may do this, but at any rate, many use A/B when different ramps feed different directions, so the examples should more clearly state this with sample screenshots as well. Also, naming should follow signs in such situations. If there is a sign that says "Exit 13", then later signs say "Exit 13A" and "Exit 13B", then the Place should be "Exit 13". But if the first sign says "Exit 13B-A" (presumably "Exit 13A-B" coming the other way), the Place should be named "Exit 13A-B".

However, not all A/B exits are actually the same interchange, so the draft should also account for this with examples. The various exits 235 and 236 on I-10 in New Orleans are mostly separate from each other some kind of way, and these should have separate places, of course. It may seem intuitive, sure, but I guarantee someone will come on by and say "well the wiki says A-B-C exits should just be 'Exit 235'..."

Moving on, I am a little puzzled by this:

The street the exit terminates at should not be included in the name unless it alleviates confusion or no numbering system is in place (ie “Exit 449 - 72nd Street”).

I don't think there is really any occasion where this is appropriate. Your example shows an exit number, so a numbering system is in place. Either the exit is numbered or it isn't.

tonestertm wrote:Sorry, but I personally have to violently disagree with this practice. The more words that are put on the screen, the more time eyes have to spend there to read them. Studies are already showing that the impact of distracted driving (which includes any activity that takes a driver's eyes off the road, and particularly tasks that involve reading text) is increasing crash (and death) rates. In this case, trying to make out tiny text on the map only makes it worse and more dangerous than looking away from the road in the first place, and since the time when this addition might be of use is while driving... bad idea.

jm6087 wrote:

HBiede wrote:While I agree that distracted driving is an issue, I don't believe that something at most 8 characters long is a cause for concern when we consider the amount of information we include on other places/segments such as ramps with names like "to US-281 / N-2 / to I-80 / Hastings / St. Paul, Grand Island, Nebraska"

The name on the ramp is not necessarily for visual purposes as much as it is for audio purposes. It is so the driver can hear all that information, not read it.

jm6087 wrote:But it is only shown when exit is part of the route. It is not displayed on the map constantly.

kyhtak wrote:I've really appreciated all the thought that is going into this discussion. While I can see pros and cons for both sides of the discussion, I don't feel like I have enough experience to make any kind of informed contribution. Just reading through all of your well-thought-out points (for and against), though, is giving me a glimpse into the complexity of editing the Waze map that I have not had up to this point. Thank you!

Kartografer wrote:But if you didn't notice them, how are they a net negative? I was thinking that the reason for opposition was that they would be too noticeable and distracting

johnsninja58 wrote:I like the IEAs (although the acronym does not roll off the tongue right)