Post by jondrush
Dang, I though the three-way split was already in the wiki.
jondrush
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2660
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 377 times

Post by jondrush
For appearance sake on the client, 10-15 is perfect. Any more than that and the car icon looks like it is moving sideways as it exits. Looks dumb.
jondrush
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2660
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 377 times

Post by jemay
The 'to' to be removed, what about if it is on the BGS? I have seen "to i-##"
jemay  
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 1998
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 823 times
:arrow: PLEASE READ: Wiki Resources: FAQ|Best Practices|Editing issues?
Global Champ | Assistant Regional Coordinator for US South West - CA,NV,UT,AZ,NM,CO,HI | CM for US

Android & Carplay - Verizon

Post by jondrush
I don't like parenthetical statements on ramp names. To me, anything in parenthesis is optional and should be dropped for simplicity. You need to make the call, is it critical info and should be there as another data point, or is it not critical and should be dropped.

I pass a under a sign that says "to I-276" every day on my commute. But I-276 is 30 miles away, so I deemed it non-critical and dropped it from the ramp name.
jondrush
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2660
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 377 times

Post by jondrush
Until we have a tool to verify we have all the segments named correctly, I'd be hesitant to change this guidance.
jondrush
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2660
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 377 times

Post by HandofMadness
Any chance of adding the 170° rule on bowties to give a u-turn prompt, along with an example photo? It is already in the Editing QSG (without an example), but I feel should really be included in the JSG.
HandofMadness
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 1806
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 345 times

Post by jondrush
In my experience, having the junction at the mandatory split will yield a voice prompt that is too late. You would have to jerk the steering wheel to get over to the ramp if you waited for it.
jondrush
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2660
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 377 times

Post by jondrush
kentsmith9 wrote:
jondrush wrote:In my experience, having the junction at the mandatory split will yield a voice prompt that is too late. You would have to jerk the steering wheel to get over to the ramp if you waited for it.
I don't think I have the same experience. I get notifications a long distance in advance of the actual junction. Just like a turn at a corner. You get a 1/2 mile warning, then x feet, then y feet, then turn now. I get the same thing on the splits. I am pretty certain that is how we set up all the bay area freeways 3 years ago. I thought that was what we had in the guide for the US, unless I misunderstood back then or it has changed since then.
Are you on iOS or andoid? I'm on iOS and the exit notifications are spot-on. I've talked with some androids folks and they complain about early warnings.
jondrush
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2660
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 377 times

Post by jondrush
I don't get it then. How can we be having a different experience?
jondrush
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2660
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 377 times

Post by herrchin
This is in reference to the At-grade connectors page, but the Exceptions section there links to this thread. The Exceptions content has been in draft status for a long time, and since the page is nominated for the global Wazeopedia, some updates may be prudent.

As best I understand, all the AGC exceptions where the Ramp type is recommended are based on needing to name the segment with a longer name for TTS instructions, and we want the name display suppressed in the app. Buried in the Road_types/USA#Ramps section is text that supports that, but that page is currently tagged as USA, not global (and is also problematically referenced for guidance in the global Junction Style Guide).
Road_types/USA#Ramps wrote:Ramp names do not appear on the client application map, but do appear in the text for routing directions. Entrance and exit ramps often contain a lot of text which is duplicative of roads already in the area, so this text is suppressed until the user actually needs it. This is also the reason for using the ramp type for named MUTI and jughandle segments—the text is needed for effective navigation instructions but would needlessly clutter the ramp.
I propose that the Exceptions section of the AGC page include a version of that same text (so it can be global), and also new guidance to clarify when not to use the Ramp type for those intersections.
proposal wrote:Certain at-grade intersections have special layouts that may require naming the connecting segments in a manner similar to interchange ramps in order to generate effective TTS navigation instructions. In those exceptions, use of the Ramp type will properly suppress the display of the special name. If no special naming is necessary (i.e. road name inheritance will give proper instructions), then the normal road-typing rules for AGCs shall apply.
Question 1: Is the concern about a 3-road-type path (such as MH->Ramp->PS) still a current one?

Question 1a: If so, would using the AGC road-typing rules (or more specifically, the Roundabout typing rules, to cover when an AGC connects up 3 or more types) in all cases, and using 5m stubs for TTS instruction segments be a better proposal?

Question 2: Is this wiki section the appropriate place to cover additional nuance that special intersections have, such as NJ's coverage of Jughandle unintentional detour prevention, or is it time to break out special intersection design examples into its own area?
herrchin
Country Manager
Country Manager
Posts: 333
Has thanked: 200 times
Been thanked: 170 times