[Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Moderator: Unholy

Re: [Page Update] Junction Style Guide

Postby PesachZ » Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:50 pm

CBenson wrote:
PesachZ wrote:It's no different than highway on ramps which currently give no instruction, sketch has a whole list of them.

I'm not understanding this.

When a city street terminates at a highway on rank with no other options, the ramp becomes BC. In this case there's no instruction. I could turn left on a city street in NYC, and hear in 35 minutes take exit 5E. I'm not even near a highway!

Should I add unnecessary unorthodox hacks, to force instructions on those ramps which are BC.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
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 Jun 07, 2015 9:00 pm

qwaletee wrote:That's a tough one. In this instance, I think the "what not to do" is more focused, and belongs here. However, there's no reason to have the same language twice. We could this particular piece of (negative) advice it into a small template and re-use it in both pages.

You could move it to a subpage of the main page (start the nuggetization process), and then transclude it to the main page and the incorrect edits page.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
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 Jun 08, 2015 3:42 pm

DwarfLord wrote:In principle (and as a professional programmer, among other things) I completely support the concept of write-once, use-many! Oh, believe me I do. In this specific case, however, it may not be as productive as hoped.

I believe that authors of interpretive text (e.g. Incorrect Edits, but also any kind of tutorial or review text) should feel free to choose alternative phrasing to communicate the practical impact of guidance. In fact, the whole point of writing interpretive text is that one is free to choose phrasing different from that of the original guidance.

Also, I'm not aware we have an existing structure/style that emphasizes "nuggetization" or describes how it is (and is not) meant to function in various parts of the wiki. Without establishing that structure first, this might be a one-off that other authors coming to the wiki might find puzzling.

So although I understand and support the concept of transcluding bits like this from a logical/organizational standpoint, I lean against that approach here. The Incorrect Edits article already uses the {{details}} template to link the reader to relevant primary guidance for nearly all of its sections, and I feel that works well.

Links going the reverse direction (from guidance to interpretation) may be a bit more awkward, but still do-able if phrased correctly. Perhaps "For discussion of common editing mistakes using roundabouts, see ..."?

This is getting to be another long post -- sorry :) -- but let me say also I'd be much more supportive of transcluding primary guidance among other primary guidance. It's transcluding across the primary-guidance/interpretation boundary that unsettles me.

Your explanation is quite thorough. And no there had not been a documented style guide for nuggets, but it is planned for all global pages to employ the nuggets style by the time the transfer to the new Wazeopedia structure happens.

Nuggets Theory:
The basic gist is for the global pages to be used as a resource to sail local communities who choose to reference or build off them.
Understanding that not every community will follow every part of a global page exactly, they may want to modify parts of a page. These pages will likely also be translated by many communities, and subsequently updated.
By breaking long pages into a series of nuggets stringed together cohesively, each community can choose which nuggets to copy and which to replace sand then string together their own page with the resulting pieces. If a specific piece is updated after a translation was complete, only that one piece must be translated again while the translation of the other pieces remains valid.

The suggested method for achieving these nuggets is to place each nugget on a sub page of the main page, and then transclude them into the main page. I have designed the new page on "Navigation instructions for unnamed segments" in this style, and it reuses the same nuggets for the main page, the expanded page, and the blurb in the road types global, and road names USA pages.

This is not as important in local community specific pages, but may be a good idea there as well, as it will enable and encourage different communities to share resources and reference specific nuggets from another country which apply in their country as well instead of having to duplicate the writing effort.

--------

This all said, I only suggested employing the nuggets and transclusion from a single source because I thought you were suggesting using the identical content in both places. If you wish to interpret the guidance, then that is a different story and I support generating new text that explains the rules. To do so you'll have to first have rules to reference, which should be in the main wiki body.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
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 Jun 09, 2015 4:52 am

voludu2 wrote:Of course, all the technical reference, "hard" guidance, and local guidance is simply grist for producing good instructional materials at various levels of complexity so editors more easily can learn how to improve their skills :)

My aim with this proposed edit is to improve organization and better prepare the page to better serve as a reference for instructional materials.

Any objection to the proposed change?

after all the talk which proposal exactly are you asking about, i've lost track? sorry for asking you to repeat, I just want to avoid any miscommunication.
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 Jun 15, 2015 2:57 pm

If there are no objections, let's move forward and start adding this to the pages. As a template the wording can be very modified across all the pages over time if we find better wording.
If you have any objection to using [url=User:PesachZ/GlobalEdit]the template as it is for now[/url] please post below, otherwise I'll move the template to the template space and make it live. We can still discuss tweaking the wording as necessary and based on feedback.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android
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 Jun 22, 2015 9:21 pm

I don't think we should be adding extra elements "to cover" for proper making technique. If the loop needs a node that should reason enough not to delete it. The tools don't automatically harm these nodes, the only protection they need is from deliberate action by malicious or unknowing editors.

Driveways won't help malice, and for the unknowing do we want to encourage bad practice by showing them all these unneeded driveways? No.

If the driveways are needed by their own merit, then we don't need to mention them under loops regardless.

I leaning to option A

Sent using Tapatalk for Android
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 Jun 30, 2015 4:58 am

I want to start a discussion on adding documentation and guidance for two segment uturns. This feature was included in the uturn feature roll with client v 3.9.4 but got little attention. It has been tested extensively for the development of the Junction Angle Info script.

The current findings show a turn between two segments, regardless of if other segments are connected to the same Junction, will provide a "make a Uturn" prompt. Provided the turnangle is above 168.24° ±0.5°. There have been inconsistent results in the gray area (167.74°-168.74°) sometimes giving a turn left, others a uturn.

Guidance should indicate simply turns with an angle above 170° can generate a uturn prompt, to be safe and ensure the prompt is given the angle should be set with 5° buffer, above 175°. These angles should be used when junctions are made using the bow-tie style, and anywhere else they are appropriate.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android
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 » Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:26 pm

ct13 wrote:I think a helpful addition to this page would be something that explains the road type classification on segments that are part of divided road intersections. It would be provide instructions on how to assign road types inside of the intersections, similar to the roundabout road type page.


"When road segments of 2 different types converge at divided road intersection, choose the highest road type of the parallel, intersecting segments. Doing so will ensure that high priority roads are not unduly pruned by the routing algorithm at an intersection."


Here is an extreme example of the type of graphic that could used to illustrate this point.

1.png

2.png

It' a good idea, and we should include guidance for median segments when they are not in a box junction as well.

Though I would argue that by our AGC rules in the US the two medians you set as MH, should really be mH. making them mh will have no detrimental on routing here.

The issue will be that the guidelines fo this kind of thing varies by country. Perhaps it is better placed in the page for Median Uturns, and have that page expanded to cover all median typing in the USA.
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 Sep 06, 2015 5:16 am

ct13 wrote:Maybe we can spin this off into a new topic or move to the correct place?

PesachZ wrote:Though I would argue that by our AGC rules in the US the two medians you set as MH, should really be mH. making them mh will have no detrimental on routing here.


If we followed AGC rules, it seems like the turn from the PS to the MH or the mH would be adversely effected by having the median segment set as street type. I think that having it be the highest segment type is a much simpler rule than following the AGC rules except when the road group changes; for instance, "when MH and street meet, defer to the highest type, but when 2 types of highways meet, pick the lowest of the two." would be much more confusing for a negligible (or arguably worse) change in routing. One size fits all rules are always easier to remember and since there is a bigger downside associated with choosing a lower road type than a higher one, this would err on the side of caution.

PesachZ wrote:The issue will be that the guidelines fo this kind of thing varies by country. Perhaps it is better placed in the page for Median Uturns, and have that page expanded to cover all median typing in the USA.


That sounds like a good place for it. Additionally, a link from the Road Types/USA page from this sentence would also seem appropriate.

Wiki wrote:Special rules are used to determine the road types of roundabouts and at-grade connectors.

I don't argue street would be bad, when I suggested a chance to your proposal, I meant only to change those two MH medians to mH.

I'll explain better what I meant by the AGC rule.
The wiki article for AGCs now (which really reflects the US usage for them) is simplified. It only really discusses a single segment (the agc) connected to one segment on either side.
The rule is to use the lower of the two road types. The logic which leads to this rule is that no additional penalty or pruning will ensue while traversing the AGC. Since it is continuing the same type as either the preceding segment, or the segment afterwards.

In short the logic is What is the lowest type this can be without adding an additional penalty or pruning effect .

When you expand this logic to a more complex AGC connecting more than two segments we have to apply the same logic. The simple way to explain it is very similar to how we explain roundabouts typing.
  1. Assess each possible route through the segment.
  2. List the lower road type for each route.
  3. Choose the highest type on the list you made in step 2.

With this rule the two E-W medians in your box become mH, while the other two remain PS as you had them.

The same role can be applied to an AGC connecting 3, 4 or more segments with ease.

There is a thread in the NJ where we spent a long time hashing this out for use in guidelines for jughandles.

If this is at all unclear, let me know I can create images to better explain it.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android
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 » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:47 pm

codgerd wrote:Hi all,

A discussion started recently on the Canada unlock forum as to best practice in terms of placing the junction node of an exit ramp. The wiki guidance on the Interchange page recommends placing the first geometry node of the ramp segment level with where the solid line starts at an exit i.e. at the last legal decision point to take the exit, and to put the junction node itself prior to this point such as to make a 10 - 15 deg angle with the roadway.

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Junction_Sty ... complexity

As (at least in Canada) it seems that in practice there is a wide range of configurations employed for ramp geometries and the wiki guidance is clearly not being followed in any consistent way, I raised the issue with my local champ mentor, who in turn raised it with the Canadian and US champs and routing experts.

I gather that the discussion is still ongoing, but it seems that the emerging consensus is that this may not in fact be the recommended guidance; rather, it seems that it should be the junction node itself that be placed at the last legal decision point, not the first geometry node of the ramp segment.

If they arrive at a full consensus on this, I suspect it will be brought to the wiki community's attention via other channels, but I thought I would raise the issue here to allow for any discussion that may be deemed appropriate.

Cheers
codgerd

I do agree that based on how the TTS timing is set up in the app, that the user will have a better experience if the junction node is at the gore ( the last legal point to make a lane change).
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: No registered users