Sort by
Author
Post time
Subject
Display
All posts
1 day
2 weeks
1 month
3 months
6 months
1 year
Post Reply

Tolls for National Park Service

Post by NJMedic2535
As discussed in the Discord server (USA; wazeopedia_usa) we now have the functionality to display toll prices, which includes the actual entry fee when driving into/through a National Park Service location.

I've proposed an addition to the National Park Service Wazeopedia page: https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Na ... rk_Service . The scope of this page is only geographic areas managed by the NPS.

My proposal ( https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Us ... S_Toll_HOV )involves mapping thru-routes as toll so that users will a) get notification they may need to pay on their route through a park and b) see detailed price information consistent with the rest of the Toll Price system.

The concern was raised that we could be starting a slippery slope to mapping small single-entry locations and even parking lots, however the proposed guidance covers only those roads in/through NPS locations with emphasis on parks where a user can be routed through on the way to some other destination. I've added a phrase suggesting that local leadership should be consulted when mapping a single-entry/exit location.

Of note is the current issue whereby if Waze cannot route you *to* your destination the routing server will pick a point *close enough* and end your route there. Unfortunately this can leave users miles away across a mountain ridge or other wilderness. This has been brought up in the Discord routing channel for consideration to bring to staff's attention as it seems to be a symptom of a larger problem and is beyond the scope of properly mapping tolled segments.

Thank you for your consideration!

***
Current Wazeo page for NPS: https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Na ... rk_Service
Proposed section to add to the above: https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Us ... S_Toll_HOV
Prior discussion, before 'new' toll prices: viewtopic.php?f=1636&t=223531&start=30
Toll prices Wazeo: https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Toll
A fee-free NPS park: https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/whyfree.htm
NJMedic2535
State Manager
State Manager
Posts: 576
Answers: 1
Answers: 1
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 98 times

POSTER_ID:17148376

1

Send a message

Re: Tolls for National Park Service

Post by DwarfLord
NJMedic2535 wrote:
DwarfLord wrote: Concern #2 is that drivers arriving at a destination may be unprepared for destination fees, and that we should therefore adapt Waze's toll feature to advise them of such even when through routes are not involved. Am I hearing that correctly? Is that a direction we want to go?
No, I'm saying we want to use the toll feature to announce entry fees. Leave that up to local leadership though as some people might see it as a sort of toll to drive into a National Park. Now that we have the ability to show the price, it could be nice-to know.
To me, a passage toll and a destination entry fee are two different things. I'm all for using Waze's toll feature to help drivers choose a through route, but I would balk at using it to alert drivers that their destination will charge an entry fee.

In the case of Yosemite, these two separate goals overlap as long as the toll is marked on the entry segment, and we're in functional agreement.

Were we to adopt the temporary workaround of marking the toll on the exit segment, however, then it seems like the complaint is that there would no longer be a destination entry fee alert. What I'm saying is I don't agree with that use of the toll feature, so the loss of the destination entry fee alert doesn't bother me.

In any event, I think we need to learn more about the failure mode before we discuss further. Marking tolls on exit segments instead of entry segments has awkward downsides. I only suggested it as a sort of "outside the box" temporary workaround, but I don't think we should try any workaround at all until we understand the problem better.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Re: Tolls for National Park Service

Post by DwarfLord
dfortney wrote:Putting the toll on the exit segments would not solve this particular issue, as exiting Wazers could get routed on the forest roads
My understanding is that the problem of concern is not, actually, connected forest roads that lead to and from the park. The solution to that problem is to disconnect those unmaintained forest roads.

Rather, what I'm hearing is that when all but the proper access roads have been disconnected, Wazers avoiding gate tolls (intentionally or not) will be routed to someplace close to the park as a sort of "next best route". As if the tolled roads did not exist at all. For large wilderness parks in particular, "someplace close to the park" often turns out to be an unmaintained forest or fire road.

I have not encountered this issue personally and don't know how widespread or serious it is. However, if it's happening, and we want to stop it, then putting the tolls on the exit segments will do so as long as avoid-tolls merely imposes a severe penalty. If the avoid-tolls penalty is infinite, then routing out of the park will of course fail altogether. But at least it will fail in a way that will be obvious to the user at the time! Unlike routing incoming drivers to unmaintained roads just outside the park boundaries.
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Re: Tolls for National Park Service

Post by DwarfLord
voludu2 wrote:We've seen a couple of cases where there is a persistent routing problem for drivers who have selected "avoid tolls". These would then be exceptions to the rule. exit segment tolling is a workaround, and should only be considered in consultation with the state management team. There are some downsides (confusing messages about tolls for those starting or ending their drive within the national park).
Agree 100% with this. Exit tolling was an outside-the-box workaround for a specific (and apparently rare?) issue. I don't like it any more than anyone else, I offered it as a "least bad" option, not a "good" option. :mrgreen:

A completely separate issue is whether we want to extend the application of Waze's toll feature to advise drivers of destination entry fees. It sounds like the suggestion of this thread is that the wiki document this as a possibility that should be considered.

I would strongly resist "nudging" language that offers this as a possibility even if it goes on to say check for prohibitions with local leadership and guidance. Such language puts the onus on every disagreeing region to add counter-guidance, which is extra work for local wiki maintainers and risks (encourages?) adoption of the practice by default. The national guidance should clearly prohibit. If and when a region decides to extend the toll feature to advise of destination entry fees, we can adjust the national language to say "prohibited, but check guidance in case one's region supports it".
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 2512
Has thanked: 1065 times
Been thanked: 1451 times
Send a message

Re: Tolls for National Park Service

Post by FzNk
To clarify, Waze has in testing routed to a "close enough" segment if Avoid tolls is on and the destination's actual-closest segment is only accessible by passing through a toll. Some tests on tolled parks have also generated routing failures if there isn't a "close enough" segment.

It bears repeating, "this can leave users miles away across a mountain ridge or other wilderness". I think it's premature to enact this guidance before that serious bug is squashed. The risk this poses drivers in its current state is something we need to avoid and it's certainly not worth it for the implementation of a non-essential feature.
FzNk
Coordinators
Coordinators
Posts: 670
Has thanked: 296 times
Been thanked: 265 times
Send a message

NWR Assistant Regional Coordinator :: Oregon State Manager
Waze Beta Leader (Android) :: WME Beta

Re: Tolls for National Park Service

Post by Happy_Lyn
DwarfLord wrote:Would it work to set the toll on a one-way exit segment instead of at the entrance? Counterintuitive, but would mirror how PR and PLR incur penalties on exit instead of entrance. Drivers beginning at the park and leaving would be told there is a toll, but since the only ways out would be tolled/penalized the same, they should still get a valid route. I’m probably missing something...
That is an interesting idea. I am not familiar with whether tolls get used "as a last resort" like parking lots do. If they do not, the driver would hopefully at least get a "continue to the route," or whatever the wording is rather than a routing server timeout.
Happy_Lyn
State Manager
State Manager
Posts: 152
Has thanked: 190 times
Been thanked: 56 times
Send a message
Happy_Lyn

Michigan State Manager
WV Large Area Manager
PA Area Manager

https://s.waze.tools/c5s.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/beta.png

Saving routing, one soft turn and city name at a time.

Re: Tolls for National Park Service

Post by jm6087
turbomkt wrote:I wonder how Waze would handle routing if the toll is set up as entry/exit. If it doesn't go through both (it only goes through the entrance), what happens?
That is the same suggestion that Daliah gave me for mapping DFW Airport throughway.

I don't believe it will show a price if your destination is in the middle.
jm6087  
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 9527
Answers: 21
Has thanked: 837 times
Been thanked: 2964 times
Send a message
Thanks,
John
US Global Champ


Re: Tolls for National Park Service

Post by jm6087
DwarfLord wrote:A completely separate issue is whether we want to extend the application of Waze's toll feature to advise drivers of destination entry fees. It sounds like the suggestion of this thread is that the wiki document this as a possibility that should be considered.

I would strongly resist "nudging" language that offers this as a possibility even if it goes on to say check for prohibitions with local leadership and guidance. Such language puts the onus on every disagreeing region to add counter-guidance, which is extra work for local wiki maintainers and risks (encourages?) adoption of the practice by default. The national guidance should clearly prohibit. If and when a region decides to extend the toll feature to advise of destination entry fees, we can adjust the national language to say "prohibited, but check guidance in case one's region supports it".
Strongly agree with this. My concern is that if we start added destination entry fees for national parks and then it wants to blossom to parking fees at amusement parks and more. I don't feel that is the intent of the feature at all.
jm6087  
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
Posts: 9527
Answers: 21
Has thanked: 837 times
Been thanked: 2964 times
Send a message
Thanks,
John
US Global Champ


Re: Tolls for National Park Service

Post by NJMedic2535
DwarfLord wrote:Would it work to set the toll on a one-way exit segment instead of at the entrance?
I don't think this is a good idea at all. If your destination is within a national park you won't get notified of the toll on the way in, but will on the way out.
Unlike the PR setup for gated areas, this hack would be visible to users in the route display (the toll and toll amount) and would lead to confusion.
NJMedic2535
State Manager
State Manager
Posts: 576
Answers: 1
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Send a message

Re: Tolls for National Park Service

Post by NJMedic2535
For parks without a through road I propose leaving it up to the local leadership. I'd rather not say "don't do it at all" because there could be some locations where it's not clear your destination involves a large entry fee.

The hack would be visible to those entering the park and stopping at a destination there (or, not visible as the toll would not be displayed nor indicated) and then leaving for somewhere from within the park.

I think the real question is: Has this issue been brought to Staff, and is there a way (and a plan) to fix it, or is Waze routing going to continue to be broken this way for the foreseeable future? I feel very strongly we shouldn't be hacking around something that should be fixed on the back end. Especially for something that has widespread implications all across the USA.

***

I'd like to bring up this odd example:
Yosemite West is outside Yosemite NP, but only reachable by driving into the park. You must pass a fee station, but do not actually exit the park on the thru-road.
7396 Yosemite Park Way, Yosemite West, CA 95389 as an example address.
What then does our hack do for users going to places like this?
NJMedic2535
State Manager
State Manager
Posts: 576
Answers: 1
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Send a message
Post Reply