No through traffic

Moderator: Unholy

Re: No through traffic

Postby HavanaDay » Wed Jun 25, 2014 4:54 pm

@CBenson. This is what I know and have seen. If you mark the roads in a bigger neighborhood with just private roads at the entrances it will not route you out at the most efficient manner.

Now if all the roads are private in the neighborhood there seems to be some issues with still allowing routing to go through there even if it isn't your destination.

Regarding using parking lot roads (not specific to the case above) but isn't that hacking the map?

Has your opinion changed after posting in this thread, Or do you consider it two seperate matters?
HavanaDay
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:08 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby CBenson » Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:21 pm

HavanaDay wrote:@CBenson. This is what I know and have seen. If you mark the roads in a bigger neighborhood with just private roads at the entrances it will not route you out at the most efficient manner.

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.

HavanaDay wrote:Now if all the roads are private in the neighborhood there seems to be some issues with still allowing routing to go through there even if it isn't your destination.
I have also not come across this issue - at least not where private roads at the entrances (or split roads with one direction private) worked. I was under the impression that the private road penalty was designed to prevent routing through a neighborhood where all the roads are private. If this isn't working we really need to revisit the basic operation of private roads, don't we?

HavanaDay wrote:Regarding using parking lot roads (not specific to the case above) but isn't that hacking the map?
I'm not suggestion to use parking lot roads for private installations (or areas prohibited to through traffic by signs if we are treating them differently). I'm just saying that the through routing penalties are similar for areas of parking lot roads and areas of private road segments. So if something is already considered a parking lot and mapped with parking lot roads, then there is no reason to do anything else to prevent through routing.

HavanaDay wrote:Has your opinion changed after posting in this thread, Or do you consider it two seperate matters?
I haven't formed an opinion on that matter yet. Still waiting for a tile update so we can see if there are any differences between putting the private road segments on the entrances or the exits of a private installation with split roads at the gates.
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 kentsmith9 » Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:00 am

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.
NoThruTraffic2.png
(580.39 KiB) Downloaded 767 times



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."
TrafficCalmingIsland.png
(466.05 KiB) Downloaded 766 times


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.
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: 1779 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby Fredo-p » Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:35 am

kentsmith9 wrote: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."

son of a bitch.gif
(205.62 KiB) Downloaded 588 times
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: 640 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby kentsmith9 » Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:32 am

Fredo-p wrote:
son of a bitch.gif

No audio with that? :D
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: 1779 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby Fredo-p » Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:40 am

kentsmith9 wrote:
Fredo-p wrote:
son of a bitch.gif

No audio with that? :D


I wish. It's a bitch with that 256kb limit. The gif was originally 500x281 and 1mb. Took a while to shrink it just right. :evil:
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: 640 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby CBenson » Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:28 am

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.
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 HavanaDay » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:07 pm

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.
HavanaDay
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:08 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby kentsmith9 » Thu Jun 26, 2014 3:54 pm

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.
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: 1779 times

Re: No through traffic

Postby vectorspace » Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:08 pm

Exploring another topic, I wonder if txemt and Driving79 can expand on their observations of how neighborhoods marked with Private Roads do not route well. This would help us understand how to address this in parallel with understanding the issue. We might also update the Private Installations page.
vectorspace
vectorspace
 
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:05 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Has thanked: 173 times
Been thanked: 422 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users