If we are also editing the JSG/Intersections page, I would like to propose including leaving the segment between 2 interchange roundabouts unnamed.
http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y479/sbelekevich/0e5c8014-4a90-4bd2-95c8-977dc5b73479_zps1faefb9c.jpg

This provides the following benefit:
When you are unfamiliar with the area and you see this after passing through the east most roundabout (at the blue arrow):http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y479/sbelekevich/MasonSt1_zps776ddcdd.jpg if you are supposed to go on US-41 S,

• You hear: "go straight, then turn left to US-41 S (paraphrasing)
• You see US-41 S at the top of the client, giving you a visual cue along with the verbal that you probably want to be in the left lane at the first roundabout (there is another 3 lane choice at the next).

If you are going straight, you see Mason St at the top, with the same benefit.

I remember my first time driving through this when it opened, and it was definitely intimidating. I know this is kind of a specific type case, but it is happening all over Wisconsin, and I am constantly catching other editors naming the middle segment thus removing the 'next step' visual cue. Although this is more suited for larger interchanges, it still works at smaller interchanges since the signage is still there, even though it may not be "necessary".

PesachZ wrote:

KB_Steveo wrote:If we are also editing the JSG/Intersections page, I would like to propose including leaving the segment between 2 interchange roundabouts unnamed.
http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y479/sbelekevich/0e5c8014-4a90-4bd2-95c8-977dc5b73479_zps1faefb9c.jpg

This provides the following benefit:
When you are unfamiliar with the area and you see this after passing through the east most roundabout (at the blue arrow):http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y479/sbelekevich/MasonSt1_zps776ddcdd.jpg if you are supposed to go on US-41 S,

• You hear: "go straight, then turn left to US-41 S (paraphrasing)
• You see US-41 S at the top of the client, giving you a visual cue along with the verbal that you probably want to be in the left lane at the first roundabout (there is another 3 lane choice at the next).

If you are going straight, you see Mason St at the top, with the same benefit.

I remember my first time driving through this when it opened, and it was definitely intimidating. I know this is kind of a specific type case, but it is happening all over Wisconsin, and I am constantly catching other editors naming the middle segment thus removing the 'next step' visual cue. Although this is more suited for larger interchanges, it still works at smaller interchanges since the signage is still there, even though it may not be "necessary".

I can't be sure, but I don't belive the "and then" next step instruction is controlled by whether or not that middle segment is named. I think it has to do with the length (of time or distance) between the two turns. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong though

Yes, the "and then" depends on length, from my experience. This double roundabout does have this instruction.

However, my main point is: if you name the middle segment "Mason St", the Instructions at the top of the client show "Mason St" when you're at the blue arrow, giving no indication that you really want to be in the left lane (other than the small left turn symbol below), so you have to be hearing (and listening) when the "and then" instruction for US-41 S is said.
IF you leave the middle segment blank, then the instructions at the top give the straight roundabout symbol with the text "to US-41 S", (and the left turn symbol below) so if you didn't catch what TTS said, it's on your screen to read. Which really helps when you only have a couple seconds to make a decision, especially when you haven't been through these yet (I'm trying to make the split second decision easier for the driver.)
Also, if Waze changes when the "and then" instruction happens and it ceases here, you still have the "to US-41 S" text at the top.
If you're supposed to go straight, the display says Mason St from the west exit of the west-most roundabout, so no there's no conflict of interest.

CBenson wrote:There is some discussion on the topic here. In addition the help for version 3.8 stated:

Changes in Voice Prompts
With the release of 3.8, we're introducing a revamped voice (prompts and text-to-speech) mechanism and logic. Generally speaking, we've made many improvements to our servers and voice infrastructure while on the application side making Waze less verbose.

Some of the major changes we've put in place and you've probably noticed:

Instructions for roundabouts will only be given upon arrival to the roundabout.
We're aware of several issues regarding roundabout prompts (especially with double roundabouts) and are working to resolve them.

I don't know if all issues have been resolved.

Yeah, I've noticed this, the other day I took a left on to a road with a roundabout, just after I took my left, I heard "continue straight for xx minutes to Hwy-YY" or something similar, with no mention of the roundabout. When I got to the roundabout, it only told me to continue straight, with no mention of the street name, and then reminded me of my turn at Hwy-YY.

Edit: Would be similar reasoning used in the Ramp split naming section where it says:

Using unnamed ramps is very useful to provide sufficient notification of an approaching decision point, as long as the names of both ramp splits are visible on signs at the start of the initial ramp.

Bigbear3764 wrote:

KB_Steveo wrote: Yeah, I've noticed this, the other day I took a left on to a road with a roundabout, just after I took my left, I heard "continue straight for xx minutes to Hwy-YY" or something similar, with no mention of the roundabout. When I got to the roundabout, it only told me to continue straight, with no mention of the street name, and then reminded me of my turn at Hwy-YY.

CR-A, north of Grand Chute? I go thru there quite a bit. That one use to work fine, after the update, no. Toolbox doesn't highlight it as wrong either.

Nope, this was in the Green Bay Area. I don't think I would consider it broken though, just new.

Question: On the interchanges sub-page, Is this still necessary with the detour prevention mechanism?

Note: Be sure to restrict the straight through motion from the exit ramp onto the entrance ramp on the other side of the road. This will prevent the routing server from trying to route someone off the freeway just to get back on it. Even though it may be a legal direction for a vehicle, turn restrictions are only for controlling routing directions.
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/images/2/2c/ ... _turns.png

DwarfLord wrote:For the record (getting to be a broken record I'm afraid): I disagree completely with the idea that drivers on the whole would prefer to be notified of changes in road numbering/naming even if it means getting instructions that may seem inconsistent or misleading in the immediate physical context. Personally I am happy to look at the signs to figure out that the highway is changing name/number, I want Waze to stick to telling me where to go, and I don't want to have to ask with every "do this with the steering wheel" instruction if it's for real or if Waze is just kidding. But I accept that I seem to be in the minority in this perspective

I agree with you. On the topic of wayfinders, I only want an instruction if there are non-normal exits, or lane splits, where the lane you're in matters, so you're not trying to cut people off at the last second. Give me adequate time to make a decision and pick an appropriate lane in heavy traffic.

I had posted this question here. viewtopic.php?f=276&t=83197&start=70 Can that forum thread be closed and directed to this one? I'm pretty sure I don't have the power to close it.

KB_Steveo wrote: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)

The Interchange Style Guide is going through some modifications as covered in this thread. I linked the two in case there are any changes that overlap.

CBenson wrote:I said something similar in the other thread, but I don't believe the geometry guidance laid out in this JSG. I have never found an intersection configuration that gives an instruction at 33 degrees where you could eliminate the instruction by changing the angle to zero degrees. I do not believe that having a departure angle between 0-21 degrees does anything to suppress navigation instructions.

Feel free to adjust what you believe is correct. I was only putting in what I was gathering from past data in the Wiki and what I thought was the case. It could easily be incorrect.