Changed the name of the thread to reflect its current thrust.

Anyway, for the Wayfinders section, I started making one or two of these:



...when I noticed that the MUTCD, which is expressly in the public domain, has a number of examples of situations where wayfinders would be appropriate, like this:



It's probably best just to use the MUTCD examples, right?

That's how I feel about it too. Just remove them except thru a substantially large city/metropolitan area, and when in a substantially large city/metropolitan area, be careful that each individual interchange is encompassed entirely by a city name.

daknife wrote: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

It's a lot easier to remove all city names from rural interstates than it is to verify that the city names are actually correct. And rural interstates can't really be said to be "in" any city — it only matters when you're getting pulled over by a town police officer.

IMO leaving city names off rural interstates makes more sense colloquially, is easier on upkeep, and fixes the detour problem.

Many editors have been doing this anyway, but it hasn't been codified yet.

I would like to make the language in this section on what to do with old-way setups here.

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Limited_Acce ... cloverleaf

I don't have time right now to finesse the language. But I would like the content to be roughly as follows:

---
The [[Detour Prevention Mechanisms|detour prevention mechanism]] will prevent Waze from routing users onto the collector-distributor and back onto the freeway.

Previously, before the detour prevention mechanism was activated, ramps were set up to restrict the through route manually. The "old way" would remove the single center ramp segment above, connecting the pairs of ramps on either side at a single point, with turn restrictions to prevent the "through" route. This creates a problem: the important "stay to the right" instruction was not given for traffic exiting via the "leaf" ramp.

Some collector-distributor cloverleaf interchanges may still be set up the "old way". If you find any of these old set-ups, please do the following:
* change them to reflect reality, as shown above, including the single center segment,
* enable all turns, including the "through" route, and
* ensure that both segments which split from the single center segment are named.
---

Thoughts? Objections?

Yeah. And that was kinda the one thing I was curious about.

I think the map should reflect reality as best as possible, but in this case I don't know that it would make an appreciable difference in the client. As long as the junction node is placed around the split anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

I rewrote the wayfinders section. To do: sample image gathering and insertion.

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Sty ... Wayfinders

Thanks, I made the change and finished the thought.

"However, if this would leave an OUT segment with the same name as the IN segment, the OUT segment name must be modified."

I'm not sure what guidance we should recommend here specifically though — Do we impute a control city that isn't on the sign? Do we leave a direction out? I've seen a wayfinder somewhere in Ohio or Michigan that's just signed with the I-75 shield, so I left the "N" off it since it doesn't actually say "North" on the sign. I also put a wayfinder named "Elysian Fields" on Elysian Fields Ave because the BGS does say "Elysian Fields" without a suffix. I don't know that I'd recommend that necessarily if the sign does include a direction, though.

qwaletee wrote:I don't know about "to." SOmetimes wayfinders are there as early warnings for major splits on, say, a 6-lane highway. Also, I think I've used "tO" once or twice just to make the name different from the road's own name.

If you're on I-10 W, "to I-10 W" is wrong. It doesn't matter how it's configured. "to" is for roads you aren't already on, and that's it.

Just to reiterate, before I go into this — an initial "to" is left out and substituted with whatever the TTS string is.

Now — the beta client includes TTS changes. Instead of "at", it says either "to" or "on" depending on the situation.

The implication in davielde's post is correct, that it's what's on the screen that matters more. The preposition used by TTS is more or less irrelevant — but if you're driving down I-10 for an hour and a half with the next instruction "to I-10 W / New Orleans" up on the screen, that's confusing. You're already on I-10 W going toward New Orleans. Without the "to" it becomes a reassurance — which is what wayfinders essentially are.

qwaletee wrote:

sketch wrote:If you're on I-10 W, "to I-10 W" is wrong. It doesn't matter how it's configured. "to" is for roads you aren't already on, and that's it.

Matter of opinion. When you break a convergence, with equal lanes for each of the highways that are separating, it makes sense to hear "keep left to <same road you are on>" as a wayfinder. How else would you say it?

"On". As in "Stay to the right, on I-10 E".

Like I said, the TTS string is not what matters here. Waze will put in whatever preposition it wants. It's what's on the screen that matters.

"to I-10 E / New Orleans" implies that you are not already on I-10 E heading toward New Orleans. That's how onramps are formatted, for that reason. "I-10 E / New Orleans" carries no such negative implication.

It's a potential source of confusion. It doesn't matter if any number of us don't think it's confusing, the fact that some of us think it's confusing means that others will think it's confusing. If there's an option that will confuse some and an equally-effective option that will not, the latter must be chosen.