[Page Update] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Moderator: Unholy

Re: [Broken Link] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Postby Daknife » Sun Mar 30, 2014 6:40 am

Second Post: Okay here is the other example. This was the 3rd DDI built in Utah, The prior American Fork was 1st (2nd in nation, Missouri I believe built the 1st) # 2 is up in Salt Lake valley, Lehi was 4th, the 5th just opened a couple months ago down in St. George UT.

This is the American Fork 500 East interchange.

Am Fork 500 E no sat.jpg
(95.58 KiB) Downloaded 571 times


I like this one because it's the most elegant of the limited space DDI's to date. (I have three more under construction or announced to be built this year in Utah). As I said in the last post, if you run across one feel free to experiment. But having mapped multiple DDI's now and driven four of them, three of them frequently. This is really the way I would recommend we go on these. I understand the desire for simplicity but having a DOT that has decided that creativity has proven to improve traffic flow, I have multiple interchange types that simply do not fit the simple is best rule.

Examples:
Continuous Flow Interchanges (CFI) Example Linky (several of these built in the last three to four years).
Thru-turn's: Linky (so far two with at least one more just announced).
And this mess: Linky Combo of the CFI and a traffic circle in close proximity to a SPUI. It still throws occasional errors. (I swear Waze forgets turn restrictions from time to time. I've gone over that interchange again and again with a fine tooth comb, yet we see just recently a couple more UR/MP's due to a turn restriction not being set. I've checked and double checked every turn restriction there multiple times and Jemay's gone over it at least once due to a turn restriction suddenly going from green to red.)

Creative DOT engineers, make mapping so much fun.
Last edited by Daknife on Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
[ img ]
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: [Broken Link] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Postby Daknife » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:22 am

I think I can see (short of trying to map it myself) how that would be viable as unsplit being as you called it a Half DDI. As traffic does not need to flow on through and beyond the far side of the interchange there is only one cross-over point to deal with. I think I too would map it the way it is currently, but I think it could work unsplit because there is no crossover back at the far end.

One problem I do see with it. The junction at the crossover. There should be no junction at the traffic cross-over point. The lanes cross but don't join them. Joining requires turn restrictions and that allows illegal traffic instructions as turn restrictions are, as we all know, only a penalty not absolute. I found I get far fewer problems if I don't junction the cross-overs. The exception being on my third example where the cross-over was where I made the split.
[ img ]
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: [Broken Link] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Postby Daknife » Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:26 pm

That's not a bug, that's a feature. Going loop de loop around a full clover is a great way to break up the monotony of a drive. :-P

That said, not sure we can do much about that as it is a viable route, not Ideal, but legal, and Waze probably learned it from drivers who did drive just that route.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
[ img ]
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: [Broken Link] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Postby Daknife » Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:20 pm

nzahn1 if you go back one page, we just barely discussed Diverging diamonds, including complete diamonds rather than half diamonds as the one you shared, which exact interchange was also included in our discussion. It is advisable to read through a thread before posting to it.
[ img ]
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: [Page Update] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Postby Daknife » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:06 pm

CBenson wrote:Well, the simplest method is simply to leave city names off all freeway segments which really doesn't affect the city layer either. This results in reports that say near the city rather than in the city which seems more appropriate to me for the vast majority of city names. You don't really think you're "in" the city when on the freeway around here, with the exception of the biggest major cities. Thus, the only city name that is on freeway segments in Maryland is "Baltimore" as it does seem odd to get reports that say "near Baltimore" when you're clearly in the city.

The simplest way except for the untold thousands of said segments that have city name data already. Heck I'm still finding occasional segments with a space after the - ala the old I- 15 format. Now you want us to go and remove all the names, until some other problem crops up and we get to add them back in. Enough. If there is the rare border interchange remove the city there or bump one city border just a bit one way or the other. No more massive renameing projects just to fix a minor problem at a minority of interchanges.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
[ img ]
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: [Page Update] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Postby Daknife » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:42 pm

I'm not saying they need to be added where they are not already, as said most of rural Utah the Freeways don't have a city, but in populated areas they do. And in some states, rural or not you are always within incorporated boundaries (PA).

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4
[ img ]
AM in Utah; CM USA
Utah Forum: Utah Forum
Samsung Galaxy S4 running 4.4 KitKat on Sprint
Daknife
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 1683
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:03 pm
Location: Riverdale, Utah
Has thanked: 455 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: [Page Update] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Postby davielde » Fri May 09, 2014 8:24 pm

CBenson wrote:In those circumstances, I've put a short no name segment before the split to serve as the IN segment. That breaks the name continuity and allows an instruction for just "I-75 N."

Genius! I haven't tried it, but that would get my vote over adding an unsigned control city or even stripping the direction indicator. Some BGS will show no direction indicator but others will display "North" over the shield in the case of the I-75 N example. Other variations may obviously apply that you would want to maintain in the wayfinder for the sake of WYSIWYG.
[ img ]
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 461 times
Been thanked: 759 times

Re: [Page Update] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Postby davielde » Fri May 09, 2014 8:42 pm

kentsmith9 wrote:I don't typically have the TTS on in my car and I am not recalling the actual TTS or text guidance that will appear in these situations. Without the "to" in the name for the continuation, what will be said if you are on "I-5 N" and the road splits between "I-5 N" and "I-505 N"?

{Red is the segment name}

If I am on I-5 N and continue on I-5 N, do I get "Stay to the left for I-5 N" ?
But if I had "to" in the name does TTS change to say "Stay to the left to I-5 N" ?


You should get "Stay to the left AT I-5 N[orth]" for your instruction if it is a properly configured wayfinder. TTS will not pronounce the "to", but it will appear on-screen for the second example. You won't get an instruction though for the first example if the segment in is "I-5 N" and the segment out matches. By definition though, the first example wouldn't be a wayfinder since the segment names are the same.
[ img ]
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 461 times
Been thanked: 759 times

Re: [Page Update] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Postby Fredo-p » Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:33 pm

This conversation has moved to a newer thread. You can find the current discussion here.
[ img ][ img ]
Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Fredo-p
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 2007
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:35 am
Location: Everywhere
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 643 times

Re: [Page Update] Limited Access Interchange Style Guide

Postby KB_Steveo » Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:37 am

Now that the rule that anything preceded by "TO" should be put at the end of a WF name, is in the Segment naming section; should that also be applied to Ramp naming on Road Names/USA?

Also, the Wayfinder links in Freeway split naming don't work (or are self directing)
[ img ][ img ][ img ]
WI State Manager
NE Wisconsin Area Manager (Green Bay / Appleton / Sturgeon Bay)
Wisconsin mapping resources curator
KB_Steveo
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:26 pm
Location: Wisconsin
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 29 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users