No through traffic

Moderator: Unholy

No through traffic

Postby kentsmith9 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:24 pm

I believe we have discussed this topic in the forums in the past, but I just did some searching on this topic, and did not find anything. specific yet.

I was discussing how to map roads in a neighborhood when there are posted signs for "No Thru Traffic" or "No Through Traffic" in two other threads recently (one and two). I was referencing the [[Private Installations]] wiki page as the source of guidance and it was brought to my attention that there was nothing in the text to suggest it would work for normal city streets where through traffic was needing restriction for the Waze routing server.

First I am looking for feedback from others who have successfully used the Private Installation guidance for public streets in restricting through traffic.

From there I would like to recommend that we add some content around public roads that would require a similar setup. We can alternately (or also) create a page on "No through traffic" and discuss how it uses the same layout as a private installation. I think either one would work.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5670
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1565 times
Been thanked: 1777 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby CBenson » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:20 pm

I have always thought they should be treated the same. I think the definition of smaller installation should include areas where through traffic is prohibited. I don't see why the private installation or community definition can't state:
"The smallest example may be a single private community street protected by a gate or 'No Thru Traffic' sign."
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
 
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1055 times
Been thanked: 2353 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby davielde » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:36 pm

CBenson wrote:I don't see why the private installation or community definition can't state:
"The smallest example may be a single private community street protected by a gate or 'No Thru Traffic' sign."

I have used Private Road successfully for one segment where the sign is present for no Thru Traffic or "Local Traffic Only", etc.

Another instance where I have used it two or three times is where there have been no signs, but URs have complained about Waze finding a shortcut, but local police regularly monitor the street for people "avoiding the light" at a main intersection. If this is an acceptable use of "Private Road", then it may merit a separate page outside of Private Installations specifically geared toward smaller applications.
[ 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: No through traffic

Postby DwarfLord » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:45 pm

If I understand the implementation of "Private Road" it is in fact defined as no thru traffic. Thus the primary use would be for neighborhoods closed to thru traffic, and use for private installations would be a special case!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DwarfLord
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 2450
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:01 pm
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains, California USA
Has thanked: 1063 times
Been thanked: 1428 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby ottonomy » Mon Jun 23, 2014 11:16 pm

I am in complete agreement with the general idea of using Private segments, individually or in groups, to discourage routing through areas specifically signed with prohibitions against through traffic. In other words, I support this, and I am in wholehearted accord with the use of a Private segment in the first example which Kent cited.

I would, however, very much like to solicit your opinions as to the specific case here, the second example thread in Kent's opening post. This is a group of 14 residential blocks which have unrestricted, unsigned, and undiscouraged traffic access from all directions at all surrounding intersections, but one, where there is a freeway off-ramp which points directly into one of those residential streets. The sign there faces the off-ramp, and can not be seen on the approach from any other direction, until a (legal) turn onto that street is already in process). I do not believe that such a situation warrants the use of Private on the entire group of blocks. The sign is there to prevent freeway traffic from flooding those streets, not to prevent traffic from using any of the rest of them from providing cross-routes between the surrounding boulevards.
Country Manager & Global Champ - United States
Regional Coordinator - Southwest USA
Area Manager - Southern California
ottonomy
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:31 am
Location: Los Angeles CA
Has thanked: 1581 times
Been thanked: 710 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby Fredo-p » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:55 am

So, would all of the roads associated with a "no thru" community have to be set as private road? Or, could you only set the access streets as private and, depending on the type of location, (gated community), make the rest parking lot roads?
Fredo-p
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:35 am
Location: AZ, NJ, NY, ND, CA
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 639 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby qwaletee » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:14 am

Fredo, there is never any need to set the entrance streets to private and the other streets to PLR. They are effectively the same thing. You either set everything to private, or set the entering segments to private and the rest to regular street. Note that the latter also has the advantage that if there is a PLR within the community, that you can gain normal PLR through avoidance with this setup, whereas if all the streets are PLR or private, Waze will treat the true PLRs as Just Another Street in the Grid.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 2936
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 235 times
Been thanked: 1134 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby vectorspace » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:47 am

This is an interesting topic...

I did a little research about this and it seems that these signs are not always enforceable, yet there is likely wide variation in different cities and jurisdictions. Some argue that it is fundamentally illegal to post such signs because the roads they "protect" are public. In many cases they seem to try to protect a residential area as a shortcut from rush-hour traffic or the like. In any case, once a cop writes a ticket, the pain starts one way or another even if you get out of the fine.

I know that in Albuquerque they solved this issue with more expensive means, by putting in small traffic circles in or barriers to through traffic... only right turns allowed due to blocked straight through access.

I am certainly for using private roads or expanding the Private Installation page with a "No Through Traffic" section but think that a deeper explanation of what you're trying to accomplish might be needed. Some of these "No Through Traffic" areas may be more one-way prohibited flow of through traffic. Putting in too many private roads might hinder traffic that is legal. If it is a single street, then it is easy -- just make it a private road. If it is a whole residential area, there might be side effects. Some of these may also better handled by time-controlled turn restrictions.

Do we have a small set of use cases that could be conveyed?
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby kentsmith9 » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:51 am

ottonomy wrote:I would, however, very much like to solicit your opinions as to the specific case here, the second example thread in Kent's opening post. This is a group of 14 residential blocks which have unrestricted, unsigned, and undiscouraged traffic access from all directions at all surrounding intersections, but one, where there is a freeway off-ramp which points directly into one of those residential streets. The sign there faces the off-ramp, and can not be seen on the approach from any other direction, until a (legal) turn onto that street is already in process). I do not believe that such a situation warrants the use of Private on the entire group of blocks. The sign is there to prevent freeway traffic from flooding those streets, not to prevent traffic from using any of the rest of them from providing cross-routes between the surrounding boulevards.

This image is taken from the far side of the cross street, not the ramp.
NoThroughTraffic 2.png
(541.06 KiB) Downloaded 1571 times

You can see the right turn onto that road is highly restricted to further make turning right onto that street very difficult.

City traffic planners are always struggling with controlling the direction of traffic to the roads they intend. It is clear that the exit from the freeway has become a problem for the local residents of that neighborhood. There are no other signs on the other roads into that neighborhoods simply because no traffic is coming from those directions. By setting the roads as private we allow Waze to route only local traffic onto those roads marked as private. Typically in a small installation you either mark the roads a the periphery, or you mark them all in that area.

The only down side to that technique is that vehicles on the two main side roads that parallel Matteson will not be routed straight across through the middle of the neighborhood, but will be forced to be routed to the main roads on the perimeter.
USA: Now Idaho; previously California (Northern, SF/SJ)

[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
PLEASE READ: Waze Map Editor (Start Here) | Editing Quick-start | Best Practices | Junctions
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5670
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Boise ID and SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1565 times
Been thanked: 1777 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby Fredo-p » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:22 am

I just remembered a UR about this exact thing. A road lead to a roundabout. A sign was posted that said not a thru-street, private road for community only. This was the back of the community. Yet, when you looked at the north side (main access) from the main roads, there was no sign that stated it was private streets.

Looking for that exact area so I can link it here.
Fredo-p
Beta tester
Beta tester
 
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 4:35 am
Location: AZ, NJ, NY, ND, CA
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 639 times

Next

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher