[Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Moderator: Unholy

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Thu Jul 17, 2014 4:27 am

CBenson wrote:
PesachZ wrote:Take a look at the CT example I posted earlier where the right OUT segment is not a stub, rather continues as one no-name segment to the next exit. Theoretically such a situation could end up configured in a way to possibly break detour prevention. I was just trying to be proactive and document to be mindful of that, and prevent it. Trying to put the theory with the rule, so others when (not) to bend them.

Agreed, all wise. But making it a stub solves the problem, so the rule should work

I agree that a stub will fix it, but only if the next segment after the stub is named. If it is needed to be unnamed, we will stool have the problem and an additional issue. Making it a no-name stub followed by a no-name segment might flag and be 'fixed' by any of several scripts. Without editors understanding the need for it, they might think it was unnecessary. Understanding the theory, and putting an alt name on the portion after the stub will prevent the node from being considered extra, and fix detour prevention.

PesachZ wrote:
CBenson wrote:
PesachZ wrote:I think we can document the order of preference should be to name the two wayfinder segments to:
1) Match the BGS provided it is different than the lead-in segment name (s-in)
2) Be no-name.


I don't see why this isn't universally applicable. If the lead in segment is no-name, then it is by definition different from the BGS and 1) applies.


Great point, except where there is no BGS

Hmm. I guess I'd say if there is no BGS you don't need a wayfinder. But I guess I shouldn't rely on the DoT to alway provide helpful signage. I'm still trying to figure out what is a clear instruction for the "split" discussed here.[/quote]
We can't really on the DOT to even have signs which are updated to match the GIS or official names. BTW I replied there as well.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:01 pm

CBenson wrote:
PesachZ wrote:I agree that a stub will fix it, but only if the next segment after the stub is named. If it is needed to be unnamed, we will stool have the problem and an additional issue.

Again agreed. But if the segment needs to be unnamed going into a ramp it would be for some other reason than getting the wayfinder instruction. So that other reason would break the detour prevention rather than the wayfinder guidance.

Yes it would and I'm just suggesting that there be a pointer here alerting editors to that fact so they can fix it. The stub then wouldn't be necessary like sketch says because the OUT is already unnamed.

Sounds like we are all on the same page here. The point is just to alert editors who may not know, that there is detour prevention, and a specific means to ensure it works. One sentence and a link should suffice I think.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:31 pm

CBenson wrote:My two cents.

KB_Steveo wrote:do we just ignore Validator, since the routing engine in the client will direct you to the node at Centerline Dr. when you are leaving, (or should we put the extra node in for consistency)?

We should put the second node in.
KB_Steveo wrote:Conversely, when you are going to a house on the middle of one of the two segments of Isabella Cir, (assuming you have 1 node in the middle of the loop) do you have a 50/50 chance of being routed to the wrong half, or does the destination pin come into play?

The house number comes into play. But sometimes waze gets confused. Sometimes the one segment will be used for one purpose while the other is for another. The second junction solves these problems.
KB_Steveo wrote:Should we add a picture example to the wiki? - I know it took me a little bit to click before I realized why the 2 segments were highlighted

Yes I think we should.


I agree any pictures that help explain the circumstances better are helpful and should be in the wiki. It should also be mentioned in the cul-de-sac section.

Perhaps a short explanation about why we're doing this should be added to the loop section, explaning the problems.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:07 am

KB_Steveo wrote:
PesachZ wrote:I agree any pictures that help explain the circumstances better are helpful and should be in the wiki. It should also be mentioned in the cul-de-sac section.
And the drive through lots section, needs to be changed to say 3 segments. (maybe with a picture of that too.)

PesachZ wrote:Perhaps a short explanation about why we're doing this should be added to the loop section, explaning the problems.
Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people would appreciate the info about how the routing server only sends node info to the client, etc. Probably just link to a separate small page to keep clutter out of the way for the people who don't care.

Good point, the info about why could be added to the routing server page
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:11 pm

sketch wrote:https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Style_Guide/Controlling_turn_instructions

This subpage recommends 22° as the angle for creating a "stay" or "exit" instruction – I don't agree with this, and it doesn't agree with the Interchanges subpage. My recommendation is to keep the angle around 10-15° – it allows for smoother transitions; also, we aren't trying to avoid the endpoints of the range, we're trying to avoid the transition point around 44°, so the shallower the better (within reason).

Also, I think the language "stick with" should be replaced with, maybe, "stay near" – no need to use doglegs on an 80° turn, for example.


On the other hand there is no reason to use doglegs on a diagonal intersection which would otherwise be 30-35° either, just to reach the 10-20° goal zone. I propose we say as close to the realistic angle, while still providing a nice buffer zone to avoid the gray area near 45°. Say
A keep angle should be set to match the physical geometry, with adjustments to keep it below 35°, and at least 10-20° apart from any other segment connected to the same junction node.

A note could then be added to refer to the interchange subpage for guidance specific to limited access roads and ramps.


The same could hold true for turns,
A turn angle should be set to match the physical geometry, with adjustments to keep it above 55°, and at least 10-20° apart from any other segment connected to the same junction node.


A note could be added to try and about angles above 150°
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:27 pm

sketch wrote:Don't know how I missed that. Done.

Im still seeing it incorrect in my browser here
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Style_Guide/Interchanges#Freeway_split_geometry wrote:...
3. The two exiting segments must have departure angles of 20 to 30 degrees from the entering segment
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:38 pm

I've created a draft revision to the wayfinder section, hopefully dwarflord and sketch will contribute to it as well with the updated criteria. This is so it can all be in one cohesive place for others to easily understand the changes being proposed.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:38 am

I've done since now work on the wayfinder revision draft, drawing mostly on previous comments by sketch and dwarflord.

I'm including a copy of the content here, the original text has been preserved for comparison in the first section.

The main changes are to the criteria, the naming guidelines, and the statement not to use "to" in the name.
======================

A wayfinder gives a user an instruction directing them how to continue on the road the user is already on, in situations where it may be unclear, and there would otherwise be no instruction. A wayfinder is warranted in the following cases:
  • The continuation path for a controlled-access ramp, highway or freeway for an exit on the typical exit side, has at least two fewer travel lanes after the exit, than before it;
  • The continuation path for an uncontrolled ramp or highway, or for an exit on the atypical side, has at least one fewer travel lanes after the exit than before it;
  • The continuation path consists of a single lane; or
    Some or all of the associated signage may be interpreted as suggesting a split -- for example;
    • lacking typical exit language, or
      with arrows pointing left and right but no clear "straight-ahead" choice, or
    • is otherwise unclear or inconsistent so that drivers may be confused as to which way is the continuation or whether there is a continuation at all.
A travel lane is a lane which is long enough that a naïve driver might consider it a long-distance lane. For our purposes we will clarify this as any lane which;
  • before nearing the exit, is neither striped nor signed as a departing lane over a significant length (approximately ¾ a mile, or its full length), and
  • has not just started within a mile before the exit.

The original text of the wayfinder criteria to be replaced

A wayfinder gives a user an instruction reminding them to stay on the road the user is already on, in situations where a reminder is warranted. A wayfinder is warranted in the following situations:
  • Lane drops, where at least as many lanes leave the road as stay on the road;
  • Non-obvious continuations, where at least one "exit only" lane exists on the side of the road where exits are not normally placed (in a right-hand traffic country, exiting traffic is to the left and continuing traffic is to the right); and
  • Inconsistent signage, where a highway continues as a numbered route, but signs call it only by a name.



In these cases, we need to use a wayfinder configuration. Each wayfinder configuration will have one "IN" segment and two "OUT" segments.

Keep these basic principles in mind:
  • The OUT segments must be the same type (either Freeway or Ramp, as explained below).
  • Each OUT segment must have a name different than the IN segment.
    • OUT segments should be named with the information displayed on the roadway signs.
    • However, if this would leave an OUT segment with the same name as the IN segment, the OUT segment should be left with no-name.

Previously in these situations segment naming was modified in one of the following ways in order of preference:
  • Add a control/destination city, if it is known, to the OUT segment name.
  • Remove the compass cardinal from the OUT segment name.
  • Add a space to the end of the OUT segment name (note that this will be flagged by the WME Validator script, if active, and possibly result in undoing by another editor)
  • Create a stub in the IN segment just before the junction with no street name.
      NOTE: This option should only be used as a last resort because it prevents the routing server from properly calculating turn delays, and may result in inefficient routing through the area.
If you see any of these set-ups, please correct it to one of the two the proper methods listed above.


Do not use "to" at the beginning of the name of the segment if it is for a continuation of the same road, e.g. a freeway split where one side is the continuation of the same freeway (the user is already on the road, not going "to" it).

Each "stub" segment should be 5 m (16 feet) long. This is long enough so it will not cause routing problems, but it is short enough to suppress display of the names (on Freeway stubs) and keep freeways looking contiguous (on Ramp stubs).

The OUT segments should have a turn angle of 10°-20° on opposite sides of each other, consistent with the geometry for freeway splits. This will allow for easy identification in WME, but still look seamless in the client app.

To configure the wayfinder,
If the numbered/signed exit is on the right, the OUT segments should be Ramp type. This will give an "exit right" instruction for the exit and a "stay to the left" instruction for the continuation.

For a basic exit, use a named Ramp stub for the continuation, and a standard Ramp for the exit.

For a freeway split, use a Ramp stub on both sides.

If the numbered/signed exit is on the left, the OUT segments should be Freeway type. This will give "stay to the" instructions on both sides (if Ramp segments were used, Waze would give a confusing "exit right" instruction for the continuation).

For a basic exit, use a named Freeway stub for the continuation, and an unnamed Freeway stub followed by a named Ramp for the exit.

For a freeway split, use named Freeway stubs on both sides.

======

Please reply here if think any modifications are necessary or not, so we can finally have these changes incorporated into the wiki. Thanks to those who came before and fleshed most of this out.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:39 pm

CBenson wrote:This all sound good to me.

I wonder about this:
PesachZ wrote:The OUT segments should have a turn angle of 10°-20° on opposite sides of each other, consistent with the geometry for freeway splits. This will allow for easy identification in WME, but still look seamless in the client app.

I don't really see the need for the angle. But I can agree to this if necessary.


This for consistency with the rest of the interchanges article. And also provide the added benefit of making the turn restriction and report>closure arrows be easily selectable.
But looking at it now I think I well clarify that that sentence to read:

... The OUT segments should have a turn angle of 10-20° off the midline on opposite sides of each other, ...

This will mean that the junction angle between the two OUT segments will end up being between 20-40°.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:17 pm

Bigbear3764 wrote:Something to consider, and I'm not sure where you would put. I had someone on chat with a UR where someone was routed off and back on a highway. When I started looking at the road names to make sure the detour prevention mechanism was working properly, I found a segment with no name. The person on chat said he had just requested a wayfinder at the interchange. So in order to get the 2 out Freeway segments to be different names, he had changed the one to No Name.

It was a simple fix to divide the No Name segment and to name it before the next ramp to get the detour prevention mech to work.

Maybe just a note to be aware of other situations in the area like Detour Prevention.

This guideline is only for the first 5m of the segment to be a no name stub, after that the road continues with the property segment names. This was designed to preserve detour prevention mechanisms. Although a note can be added to that effect so editors understand why a stub is better that an entire no name length
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
 
Posts: 4512
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 12:51 am
Location: NY, USA (also NJ sometimes) {GC}
Has thanked: 1998 times
Been thanked: 2374 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]