Kuhlkatz wrote:What still concerns me, is that despite a lot of the thread participants also being against it, the current method the US adopted still includes the 'to '.
Kuhlkatz wrote:I agree that the Ramps should be uniquely named, but I would really like some more participation from other local editors on this issue.
Kuhlkatz wrote:Just to be sure, I did also pop off the question to support. Even though the UK uses the 'Entry ' format, I want to be 100% sure that dropping the 'to' would not break any functionality that Waze had intended in the past or may have intended in the future for this.
mithrandi wrote:Okay, I had a look at that thread, and it seems like a lot of the participants don't like the "to" either; the only major concern raised is the Select Entire Street issue, which I think is simply not an issue in South Africa.
I'm withdrawing my objections against dropping the "to" prefix, and I've updated my draft wiki page accordingly.
WeeeZer14 wrote:Re: Question on "to " in ramp naming
Sent at: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:44 pm
To: AlanOfTheBerg KuhlkatzKuhlkatz wrote:Kuhlkatz wrote:
Alan / WeeeZer,
Just a quick question on the "to ..." in Ramp Naming conventions.
The "to" is droppped in TTS for onramps. Is there any particular reason for retaining the "to" part in naming onramps vs just an actual Ramp name / description based on the normal conventions ?
Are any of you aware of special functionality attributed to this that we might break if we adopt a naming convention that drops the "to " bit in South Africa ?
It seems a waste of space and looks 'cheap' in the client if displayed as the next instruction vs the normal instructions.
I would appreciate any input you might have on this.
The main thing it does is guarantee that the ramp name is different from the roads connected to it. Here in the US, we may have a road named "I-40 E". The simplest ramps to it may only be signed as "I-40 E" with an arrow to the ramp. So the ramp name COULD be "I-40 E" just like the road. But the problem is that if you are working on the ramp or the main highway and do a "select entire street" in the editor, you will get ALL of the ramp AND highway segments at the same time which is usually NOT what you want to happen.
Of course the US standard also includes using the "control city" (next major city in that direction) for ramps, so the simplest ramp should be "I-40 E / Knoxville" for example, so the "to" isn't needed to create the uniqueness compared to the highway.
Keep in mind non-freeway cases as well. There may be an un-numbered exit going to "Main St". If the exit ramp is just named "Main St", we have the same uniqueness issue. So it would need to be "to Main St" or "Exit to Main St" to keep it separate from the road itself.
The fact that TTS ignores "to" has come up before. Ideally I think TTS should use it since to me there is a big difference in making a turn "at" a certain road vs. making a turn going "to" that road.
All that said, if you think things can deal with the uniqueness requirement and never use the word "to", I do not know of any issue with that if you can get agreement amongst the main editors in SA. I am pretty sure the UK does not use the word "to" in their directions. In their format as I understand, my "to I-40 E / Knoxville" example would be something like "I-40(E):Knoxville".
Please let me know if you have ay questions about what I said (I typed this quickly so I may have made a mistake).
mithrandi wrote:1) "To Road Name" looks even more ridiculous -- or at least I think it does -- than "to Road Name", because the "to" is not really part of the name of the road (even though we are putting it in the "Name" field in Waze...).
mithrandi wrote:2) It is important for the ramp to be named differently to the actual road segment for a number of reasons (navigation instructions, select all segments, traffic reports)
mithrandi wrote:4)...By comparison, an exit instruction sounds like "exit left onto Exit 104: M1 Johannesburg" which sounds okay to me. On the other hand, "Entrance: M1 Johannesburg" or similar seems absurd, and I don't have any other ideas in this vein.
I'm currently trying to determine if there are any other technical reasons (as opposed to aesthetic reasons) for the current standard in place in other regions; if there's nothing else, then I think I could be persuaded to go for the "naked" style (ie. like "M1 Johannesburg"). It seems like ever time I change a ramp's name I end up changing it again 2 days later, anyway, so I wouldn't even end up doing extra work
Kuhlkatz wrote:All the other displayed instructions just have the next action (icon) and the next road name, which usually is in a neat, crisp "Uppercased Name" or "[N/M/R]Route Number Name" or whatever supported format.
The mixed "to This Next Road" looks crappy and carries no weight in my books, no matter who else adopted it across the world. It looks more like some spring chicken "wAs bUsy WriTinG GobBlEdYgOOk oN HeR FaCeBooK PaGe" instead of a professional job.
mithrandi wrote:A ramp leading to the N1 would be labelled "Exit: ..." or "to ..." depending on whether it is a labelled exit ramp or not.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users