Two-way Ramps vs. Routing [Split from WME Validator]

Moderators: Unholy, bextein

Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.6.3 (BETA) / 12.02.2014

Postby sketch » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:29 pm

SuperDave1426 wrote:Well, substitute "Primary Street/Minor Highway/etc" where I said "street" in my original question, then. :-)

Yea, ramp looks good given what it's leading up to; I get what you're saying there. However, in the grand scheme of things, what I saw in those examples look to me like a road leading up to the actual ramps going on/off the freeway and is not actually part of the ramp itself.

Having the validator not highlight a two-way ramp just because of the examples that I've seen so far seems like a good way of increasing the chances of someone missing a two-way ramp that actually shouldn't be two-way, without actually providing any real benefit.

A minor or major highway used in these cases would look quite bad in the client, especially in night mode.

Making editing slightly easier is not a valid excuse for making such a change to the map. Perhaps "name on two-way ramp" would be valid as a Note, and that would do a better job of showing two-way ramp segments that were actually set that way accidentally.
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
new orleans based • detroit enthusiast • usa country manager
2013 ford focus titanium hatchback 5mt • performance blue
Image Image
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5716
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1265 times
Been thanked: 1735 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby dbraughlr » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:21 pm

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Ramp segments like this are all over and will stay that way because there is no good reason not to.

The rumor was that two-way ramps have caused routing issues.

I don't know the history of the rumor and have no good way to disprove or prove it.

A test case is a two-way ramp of considerable length (say, one-half mile) connected to two short one-way ramps connected to the freeway. When the on-ramp is restricted (closed), does Waze route the wrong way for a short distance over the off ramp to reach the highway?

The problem is that if a turn is permitted onto a ramp, the ramp should lead somewhere. When the one of the two short ramps is closed, the two-way portion might have to be made one-way in the direction that is still open to prevent routing problems.
With a one-way ramp, the entire ramp is either open or closed; thus Waze never encounters a dead-end while traversing a ramp.
Last edited by dbraughlr on Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby AlanOfTheBerg » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:25 pm

dbraughlr wrote:The rumor was that two-way ramps have caused routing issues.

I don't know the history of the rumor and have no good way to disprove or prove it.

If you find that, please inform me. I'm not aware of ramps causing routing issues on their own.
dbraughlr wrote:When the on-ramp is restricted (closed), will Waze route the wrong way for a short distance over the off ramp to reach the highway?

In any situation like that, there is always the possibility that the routing server will incorrectly (and dangerously) select routing against a 1-way segment, through turn restrictions, etc. That's an unfortunate byproduct of the way the "penalty"-based system it uses. Nothing is impossible.
Wiki Resources: Map Editing Manual | alanoftheberg@gmail.com
Oregon-based US Country Manager | iPhone6 - VZ - iOS 9.3.2 | Waze v4.7.0.1
AlanOfTheBerg
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 23480
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: US Country Manager - Oregon, USA
Has thanked: 1085 times
Been thanked: 4610 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:27 pm

berestovskyy wrote:'Two-way ramp' will be disabled for US.

dbraughlr wrote:
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Ramp segments like this are all over and will stay that way because there is no good reason not to.

The rumor was that two-way ramps have caused routing issues.

I don't know the history of the rumor and have no good way to disprove or prove it.

A test case is a two-way ramp of considerable length (say, one-half mile) connected to two short one-way ramps connected to the freeway. When the on-ramp is restricted (closed), will Waze route the wrong way for a short distance over the off ramp to reach the highway?

The problem is that if a turn is permitted onto a ramp, the ramp should lead somewhere. When the one of the two short ramps is closed, the two-way portion would have to be made one-way in the direction that is still open to prevent routing problems.
With a one-way ramp, the entire ramp is either open or closed. Waze never encounters a dead-end while traversing a ramp.

I agree with dbraughlr - I really think this should be looked into more fully before making a change to the ramp direction check.
ImageImageImageImage
Country Manager: USA (mostly oriented around NV & CA)
Editor Guide Best Editing Practices Editor Quick-start
Places Guidelines Nevada Wiki
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 228 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby sketch » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:32 pm

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:
dbraughlr wrote:When the on-ramp is restricted (closed), will Waze route the wrong way for a short distance over the off ramp to reach the highway?

In any situation like that, there is always the possibility that the routing server will incorrectly (and dangerously) select routing against a 1-way segment, through turn restrictions, etc. That's an unfortunate byproduct of the way the "penalty"-based system it uses. Nothing is impossible.

But is the penalty based on segment length at all? From what I understand, penalties are assessed on transition, not along a segment. It seems dbraughlr's worries are founded in a misunderstanding of the penalty system (or, I might be wrong).

SuperDave1426 wrote:I agree with dbraughlr - I really think this should be looked into more fully before making a change to the ramp direction check.

We've been using two-way ramp segments for years without incident. The inclusion as a check may comport with INTL rules and practice for ramps, but they do not comport with ours.
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
new orleans based • detroit enthusiast • usa country manager
2013 ford focus titanium hatchback 5mt • performance blue
Image Image
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5716
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1265 times
Been thanked: 1735 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby dbraughlr » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:39 pm

SuperDave1426 wrote:I really think this should be looked into more fully before making a change to the ramp direction check.

I didn't say that and don't want to. But how did the validation get in there?

People say that the "same endpoints" error is real. I am on the side of excluding the validation until it is shown that it is a still real problem, especially since the solution seem to be to insert an unneeded node node that will have to be removed after the bug is solved.

The dead-end U-turn seems to be a true bug. But having editors fix the dead-ends one-by-one seems like a poor way to solve the problem.


As for sketch's comments: I didn't start the rumor; so to suggest that it is based on my misunderstanding is entirely your misunderstanding. I'm just the messenger. You'll have to do your homework if you want to chide the originator of the rumor.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:54 pm

dbraughlr wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:I really think this should be looked into more fully before making a change to the ramp direction check.

I didn't say that and don't want to. But how did the validation get in there?

My apologies for not being more clear. I meant that as I read your post, you were raising a concern and that based on that, I was making my own comment that I thought things should be looked into more fully. I never meant to imply that you were calling for anything of that nature.

People say that the "same endpoints" error is real. I am on the side of excluding the validation until it is shown that it is a still real problem, especially since the solution seem to be to insert an unneeded node node that will have to be removed after the bug is solved.

Completely agree here. "Begin and end on same node" has been shown to be a problem. I haven't seen anything conclusive that "same segment" gives any problems - at least not with the recent editions of the map. I've been adding the extra node just to get the Validator to shut up about it on the highlighting, since unlike the Toolbox it doesn't give me the means to turn that check off. And I've been grumbling under my breath as I've been doing it.... :?

The dead-end U-turn seems to be a true bug. But having editors fix the dead-ends one-by-one seems like a poor way to solve the problem.

I agree again, but unfortunately we're at the mercy of the programmers getting around to deciding to fix it. Until they do, if we don't "hack the map" on this issue, we get URs from annoyed drivers who didn't appreciate getting sent down a long dead-end road just to be turned around and then hang a left back onto the very road they had been on. Can't say I blame 'em. :-)

The one good thing about it that we don't have to go back and undo those if/when they ever get that bug fixed - I mean, face it: When would you ever want to deliberately send someone down a dead-end to pull an about-face? :D
ImageImageImageImage
Country Manager: USA (mostly oriented around NV & CA)
Editor Guide Best Editing Practices Editor Quick-start
Places Guidelines Nevada Wiki
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 228 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby SuperDave1426 » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:57 pm

sketch wrote:
AlanOfTheBerg wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:I agree with dbraughlr - I really think this should be looked into more fully before making a change to the ramp direction check.

We've been using two-way ramp segments for years without incident. The inclusion as a check may comport with INTL rules and practice for ramps, but they do not comport with ours.


Ok, I'll take your word for it. :-) You've been here longer than I have, so you'd know if it's ever caused any problems more than I would.
ImageImageImageImage
Country Manager: USA (mostly oriented around NV & CA)
Editor Guide Best Editing Practices Editor Quick-start
Places Guidelines Nevada Wiki
SuperDave1426
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:27 pm
Location: Nevada, USA
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 228 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby sketch » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:59 pm

dbraughlr wrote:People say that the "same endpoints" error is real. I am on the side of excluding the validation until it is shown that it is a still real problem, especially since the solution seem to be to insert an unneeded node node that will have to be removed after the bug is solved.

It is a bug known to many. There have been multiple threads about it. I can't find them because they were started without an understanding of why Waze was giving such bizarre routes (because we figured it out using those threads). I'm trying to find them now, but I don't know if I will. If you're not willing to take a few champs' words for it, I don't know what else to tell you.

As for sketch's comments: I didn't start the rumor; so to suggest that it is based on my misunderstanding is entirely your misunderstanding. I'm just the messenger. You'll have to do your homework if you want to chide the originator of the rumor.

All I'm saying is that your understanding of the penalty system may be wrong. Mis-understanding. I didn't blame you for it.
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
new orleans based • detroit enthusiast • usa country manager
2013 ford focus titanium hatchback 5mt • performance blue
Image Image
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5716
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1265 times
Been thanked: 1735 times

Re: two-way ramp rumor

Postby CBenson » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:14 pm

sketch wrote:
dbraughlr wrote:People say that the "same endpoints" error is real. I am on the side of excluding the validation until it is shown that it is a still real problem, especially since the solution seem to be to insert an unneeded node node that will have to be removed after the bug is solved.

It is a bug known to many. There have been multiple threads about it. I can't find them because they were started without an understanding of why Waze was giving such bizarre routes (because we figured it out using those threads). I'm trying to find them now, but I don't know if I will. If you're not willing to take a few champs' words for it, I don't know what else to tell you.

I'm not sure what "the error" is. Seem to mostly be a display problem with the routes shown in URs as discussed for example here and here. It may actually effect the user when the endpoint of the route is on one of the two segments that connects the same two junctions.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 10299
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1063 times
Been thanked: 2339 times

PreviousNext

Return to Navigation & Routing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot]