First be aware that the freeway cited in that post can back up to bumper-to-bumper traffic at times. Based on my recollection (take it for what its worth), there was a time that there were frequent URs at that interchange that showed waze would route off/on there, but that was largely solved by removing the city names from the freeway. I don't recall any recent URs about off/on routing there although MysticCobra was routed that way a month or so ago*. We could use the crossed ramps at this interchange if the off/on routing seems to be a problem.

* Based on MysticCobra's description that he was going from 97 into Ft Meade, I had thought he was routed around the 1298 m westbound freeway segment over 1370 m of ramps (although, there have been some edits to interchange so the configuration may have been slightly different).

MysticCobra wrote:You mixed me up with another poster. My issue was I495/DC beltway Exit 39 / RT 190 / Potomac MD headed south into NOVA. There was another user reporting this issue in Severn MD.

Oops, sorry. That was Mohawk55a that was having the issue on MD-32. Sorry to misattribute that to you.

The name of the road changes from "I-5 S" to "I- 5 S" That is from without the space after the hypen to with the space after the hyphen. If the name remains the same waze shouldn't route this way.

jhfrontz wrote:Is the "Continue on..." relatively new?

As bigbear notes the "continue on" state does not trigger an instruction in the client.

jhfrontz wrote:There are several intersections in Ohio where the main route peels off on what seems like an exit, leaving some smaller route continuing on the straight-away. I've always heard that we should vary the spelling/spacing on the peel-away segment to induce a proper TTS instruction to "stay right" -- but I thought if the straight-through didn't have any discernible angle that there would be no instruction.

There is no instruction where the next segment is the "best continuation" from the last segment if the angle of deflection is less than 45 degrees. If the name and street type remain the same for a segment that peels off on what seems like an exit and the segment that continues straight has a different name and street type, then I get no turn instruction for the road that peels off and I do get a turn instruction for the road that goes perfectly straight.

Reading through this thread I see no such consensus jhfrontz, rather just the opposite, the consensus is heavily in favor of the straight through restrictions being mandatory even when explicitly legal. The only silence I see is silence about just allowing straight thru travel to occur. In fact you are the only one to really speak for toning down the language recommending the turn restriction. Jason did agree that maybe we don't need to add them where there aren't problems, but pretty much everybody else has been strongly in favor of restricting straight through travel. And I also favor the restrictions. I still run across UR's where the restriction isn't in place where people got the off and on routing. I think I've seen on Map problem due to someone driving through a turn restrictions, versus dozens and dozens of UR's about off-on's.

Straight thru restrictions are a good thing because the penalty in the system isn't sufficient for it to work correctly. Nobody should every be given an off on route.

This is where the problem usually comes in....if there's an accident on an overpass, Waze *could* try to route traffic off a ramp and then back on, however, Waze *shouldn't* ever make this suggestion, as it may or may not be illegal. If it's a situation where the highway is closed and there's no other options, we have to rely on the common sense of the driver to follow the instructions of the police directing traffic, or all of the other cars making the bypass.

If we don't make these restrictions, something else will inevitably get screwed up causing this type of routing and we're going to have to fix it anyway.

To answer BlazeTool's question, yes, it may generate a problem report if someone actually goes straight, but no more than frequently violated illegal turns.

When the road crossing the freeway is split, I do the crossed exits trick, which prevents off-and-on routing and eliminates the need to restrict any turns.

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=7&lat ... TTTFTTTTFT

jhfrontz wrote:Ugh, that's hard on the eyes (though I thought the same thing about bow-tie intersections when I first saw them, so maybe the crossed-exits trick will grow on me). Ignoring that, I'm still at a loss as to why there would be routing through that intersection (vs. the freeway). The average speeds seem to favor the freeway. Were there lots of complaints at this intersection or was it by chance a one-off wayward GPS that confused the routing server into thinking that the driver was actually going down the ramp?

There was a problem at one point at a few exits, so I did this to every Interstate interchange with a split crossroad in Louisiana, and along I-10 in Mississippi also. The ones that aren't split get a red arrow to prevent traffic from being routed straight.

jhfrontz wrote:So, should I take the silence here as being consensus on toning down the "Be sure to restrict the straight through" on the wiki page?

Perhaps to something like

In some cases, editors have found it necessary to restrict straight-through motion. If you are encountering inappropriate routing that seems inexplicable, please post details of it on the forums so that other editors can help identify what might be causing the problem -- and get support form waze developers if needed.

I don't want to make any gung-ho edits...

I wouldn't leave any of them with the option for a straight through if possible. Certainly don't remove that restriction if it's there now. There's really no need to go inserting them everywhere unless there's been a problem, but if you're reworking interchanges, you might as well put them in while you're at it.

BlazeTool wrote:

skbun wrote:By the way...are we all in agreement that the correct name for interstates now is "I-XXX", with no space, and we should make a project of seek and destroy wherever found?

Has the problem with shields only being displayed if the space is included been fixed?

Shields have displayed on segments without the space for nearly a year. However, right now, if you make any change to the name, regardless of how you change it, it will most likely break the shielding.

One thing is for certain is that the naming should be consistent. If you run the Livemap Navigation script down that section of I-5, you'll see a "Continue on..." instruction at every segment where the name changes.