As we understand it now, ONE Wazer's movements can define, update or remove traffic jams in Waze. Yes, this is highly subject to error and a bad way to measure traffic.

Of course this is why we see false traffic jams all over the map.

If Waze cannot generate enough data via Wazers and wants to have a viable solution, Waze needs to partner with another provider who has enough flow rate data to more accurately reflect the traffic conditions.

fvwazing wrote:...or throw in the "Are you in a car, experiencing traffic?" in case there is doubt that the trafficreport that is about to get generated is a valid one. Answer can be via voicerecognition ("yes" is yes, silence or "no" or "humhum" is no) and only a positive answer publishes the event. All other cases automatic.

Would beat most of the false alarms and even more important: on experiencing/recognizing a false alarm every wazer could assume there is a human playing the system and not the system playing us humans.

I think this was the intent with the 'are you in traffic prompt'. But that is a failure since that does not stop an automated traffic report from being generated. It only allows the Wazer to post a manual report which then makes the automated traffic reporting mechanism 'more sensitive' or 'gives it double weight' to being created.

The first post in this thread is asking for examples where your driving actions have created a false traffic jam on a nearby road when you are stopped at a POI - gas station, parking lot, etc.

Kuhlkatz wrote:So if one Wazer can 'create' a jam or slowdown and increase the average road speed again by driving the same segment again, what would the effect be of motorcyclists that does Lane Splitting through an actual jam?
Would the road around you and the other 20 Wazers stuck in the jam suddenly be cleared if the averages of the car vs biker numbers were the same, or would Waze use the slowest of these numbers?

It's our general understanding that the segment is updated per the data from the last Wazer through. If there are multiple Wazers on the segment at the same time it's more complicated.

So in general, yes a Wazer that is moving at a speed that is different (slower or faster) than the average traffic speed can impact the jam display, routing, and ETA.

invented wrote: Nope, has to be a physical road. Although I think you've come up with a great idea.

Per Waze, the Parking Lot and Gas Station landmark types suppress traffic jam reporting.

Jpere wrote:Noticed this one today caused by me after stopping at a restaurant to pick up some food. Didn't stay longer than two minutes.

I don't know that this is what Waze considers a 'ghost traffic jam'. It's a jam that was created by you when you stopped for food and kept Waze running. As far as Waze knows you were in a traffic jam.

This is longstanding issue. Waze simply is not doing enough to filter out bad data from Wazers who are not moving with the speed of traffic. There have been many ideas put forth to help to mitigate this issue but Waze doesn't seem to be concerned. Their thought is that the next Wazer through that is moving with traffic will clear the jam or it will go away on it's own, eventually.

In the mornings I can see spates of traffic jams all over side streets, but when I go by them physically there isn't a car in sight often.

Jpere wrote: The area I was parked in actually has a "Restaurant/Bar/Coffee Shop" landmark on it. Not sure if that's supposed to suppress automated traffic reports.

Nope, has to be a physical road. Although I think you've come up with a great idea.

Still seeing tons of these. Got one this afternoon on a nearby street, saying it was going 22 km/h, there wasn't a car on it.

jenncard wrote:I forgot about that. There is an "understanding " that no jams are created at 50 meters around a junction, right

If this was the case, you'd never get a jam anywhere in a dense downtown type area where the blocks are only 100 m. Or maybe my idea of 100m is distorted.

How big is a city block?