So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that when routing out of an area that complies with the alternate treatment for larger installations you sometimes get inefficient routes. If so, I haven't come across the issue. But if the split road method works and the single segment method doesn't, maybe we should eliminate the alternative from the wiki.

My understanding of it is that yes it will keep folks out but the routing out of that area is sometimes inefficient. As in, there is an exit nearby but it takes the longer route. It was a strange quirk that was shown to me when I was "arguing" that 1) All roads should be private and 2) Just having a two way road marked as private on larger private areas is sufficient. In each case either driving79 or txemt proved how it was inefficient. Now, the last discussion we had on this topic was probably about two months ago. So if things have changed (per the other thread) then this may no longer be the case.

sketch wrote:I'm extra-curious about HavanaDay's statement that the large private installations method leads to weirdness getting out. Isn't the large private installation method only supposed to use a private road on the entrances? So then why would any of that matter when exiting the facility?

If I said that I misspoke. What I meant to say was that using a two way private road on large private installations tends/sometimes does not give the most efficient route out of said installation.

I also defer to driving79 or txemt because as said before I have been trying to prove this theory wrong for a while now but everytime I come up with something to test it doesn't seem to route out correctly.

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. 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.

tonestertm wrote:

kentsmith9 wrote: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.

You forgot about the traffic going "eastbound" on Matteson TO the freeway onramp at the same intersection. All of these unncessary restrictions now destroy Waze's raison d'etre; namely, finding the Smart route, to avoid the complete rush hour gridlock on the three MH streets around this area.

My proposal was to make the area private inside the houses streets so Waze would have no problem exiting the area back to the freeway on the route you noted.

I don't think I have ever seen a road that had a no thru traffic sign have more than one sign at the entrance of the road. A posted sign is enforceable to the entrance regardless of where you come from and how early you can see it.

Fredo-p wrote:Well, what I was trying to point out in the last post I had with the screenshot was that the sign is in the direction of the off-ramp. If we go by how sings are displayed, we know that the direction of the sign is were the intended instruction is meant for. Since there is no other "No thru traffic" sings facing the other directions, it's safe to assume that it's meant for the off-ramp traffic so they don't go packing through the narrow opening.

and

tonestertm wrote:YES. If the through traffic were meant to be restricted from Sawtelle there WOULD be signage posted, facing north and south, not just one sign you can't actually read until you're in the middle of the turn.

The sign is at the entrance of the street meant for everyone entering the street. If only the ramp was subject to the sign, it would have been moved to the final few feet of the ramp where ONLY the ramp traffic would see the sign. If the sign was ONLY meant for the Sawtelle traffic turning onto the street, it would have been pointed ONLY at them.

In the case for a recent Scotts Valley thread like this we discussed an identical situation with a No Through Traffic/Local Residents Only. You can see in the image there is ONLY traffic running perpendicular to the road with No Through Traffic, yet the sign is at the entrance of the road, and actually completely hidden from the right turning traffic until AFTER they are on the road, yet there is just the one sign at the beginning of the road as in this second case in discussion here.

Fredo-p wrote:As for the extended curb, I mentioned it before. IMO, I believe the curb is extended due to the fact that the road allows for curb/street parking. What was developed was a "bubble" curb to protect the parked cars from traffic coming in. This also indicates how restrictive the community is for traffic if they went as far as having the curb bulge out that far.

Yes the bulge is protecting cars, but it is also part of the Traffic Calming techniques used in many cities to make the streets more constricted and "mentally" reducing the desire to drive through areas. Case in point, in a neighborhood near me, a small island was added in the middle of a road to reduce through traffic between the neighborhoods. In the words of the city planner (yes I directly spoke to him at one city counsel meeting), "the constricted width of the street will reduce the probability that someone would pick that route out of the neighborhood."

Fredo-p wrote:In regards to the curb and how narrow the opening is to this street, I don't think it plays any part in figuring out what to do, as it's just a effect from the design. I can say that is one hell of a right turn if your traveling south.

See the image above.

Fredo-p wrote:

son of a bitch.gif

No audio with that?

CBenson wrote:No through traffic signs are inherently vague.

kentsmith9 wrote:The sign is at the entrance of the street meant for everyone entering the street. If only the ramp was subject to the sign, it would have been moved to the final few feet of the ramp where ONLY the ramp traffic would see the sign.

I disagree, if the sign were on the final few feet of the ramp, you would have people arguing that the turns onto Sawtelle are included and the entire exit is only for local traffic.

Even so, I think the example from Scotts Valley above is a clear indication that the sign at the entrance of the street restricts all traffic entering from any direction, not just the direction that is easiest to see it.

qwaletee wrote:That looks good, but the first two sentences can probably be shortened a little bit, perhaps along the lines of:

As of August 2014 the Waze client displays Private Roads identically to public roads. Since this may change in future releases, never use the Private Road type for unrestricted public roads.

Done

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.