Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!
Post by PesachZ
DwarfLord wrote:Very good reasons indeed, thanks for reposting them.

Over the last 6 months I have responded to I think around 4 or 5 URs complaining of being routed off freeways only to be routed back on again, and each time the straight-ahead restriction was green. In the beginning of that period, I was told that detour prevention isn't designed to work in certain circumstances involving I think change of freeway/highway type and perhaps other things. But perhaps the detour prevention algorithm is under continuing development...? Is it really safe to assume it works reliably?

If we start switching those straight-ahead restrictions to green, and the off-then-on freeway URs start coming back, it will be a tough sell not to put them red again...
It works reliably based on testong , in highway and freeway segments when the criteria are met.

The segment before the off ramp, and the segment after on ramp (the last and first segments of the highway on either side of the detour) must have IDENTICAL names. This means exact spelling including cardinals, spaces, etc., AND city names.

This can be achieved either with matching primary names, or matching alternate names. (It is currently unknown if a primary <==> alternate name match will be sufficient). Sometimes in order to accomplish this, you must add an otherwise wrong alternate name to both segments to create a match.

Anytime you allow one of those turns, you should at the same time ensure there are matching names to activate detour prevention.
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 4516
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 1572 times
Send a message
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pngNYhttps://j.mp/1xPiWC8https://j.mp/1C9mUY2
Formal Mentoring, Wiki
Useful Wiki pages
URs & etiquette | WME | Editing Manual | Quick-Start Guide | Best Map Editing Practices | Junctions
State specific Wiki | Forum

Post by PesachZ
Since there's been no further comments, I'm going to implement the wayfinder draft into the JSG. It still has room to be refined, but is definitely better than the guidance which is currently there. If you have a suggestions please reply.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 4516
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 1572 times
Send a message
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pngNYhttps://j.mp/1xPiWC8https://j.mp/1C9mUY2
Formal Mentoring, Wiki
Useful Wiki pages
URs & etiquette | WME | Editing Manual | Quick-Start Guide | Best Map Editing Practices | Junctions
State specific Wiki | Forum

Post by PesachZ
It's no different than highway on ramps which currently give no instruction, sketch has a whole list of them. Should we make each of those say keep left? Probably not. Wazer was designed with no continue instruction. We may get one soon if we're lucky. I say we wait for one. If we need it, push for it.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2
PesachZ
Wiki Master
Wiki Master
Posts: 4516
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 1572 times
Send a message
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pngNYhttps://j.mp/1xPiWC8https://j.mp/1C9mUY2
Formal Mentoring, Wiki
Useful Wiki pages
URs & etiquette | WME | Editing Manual | Quick-Start Guide | Best Map Editing Practices | Junctions
State specific Wiki | Forum

Post by PesachZ
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: 4516
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 1572 times
Send a message
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pngNYhttps://j.mp/1xPiWC8https://j.mp/1C9mUY2
Formal Mentoring, Wiki
Useful Wiki pages
URs & etiquette | WME | Editing Manual | Quick-Start Guide | Best Map Editing Practices | Junctions
State specific Wiki | Forum

Post by PesachZ
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: 4516
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 1572 times
Send a message
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pngNYhttps://j.mp/1xPiWC8https://j.mp/1C9mUY2
Formal Mentoring, Wiki
Useful Wiki pages
URs & etiquette | WME | Editing Manual | Quick-Start Guide | Best Map Editing Practices | Junctions
State specific Wiki | Forum

Post by PesachZ
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: 4516
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 1572 times
Send a message
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pngNYhttps://j.mp/1xPiWC8https://j.mp/1C9mUY2
Formal Mentoring, Wiki
Useful Wiki pages
URs & etiquette | WME | Editing Manual | Quick-Start Guide | Best Map Editing Practices | Junctions
State specific Wiki | Forum

Post by PesachZ
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: 4516
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 1572 times
Send a message
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pngNYhttps://j.mp/1xPiWC8https://j.mp/1C9mUY2
Formal Mentoring, Wiki
Useful Wiki pages
URs & etiquette | WME | Editing Manual | Quick-Start Guide | Best Map Editing Practices | Junctions
State specific Wiki | Forum

Post by PesachZ
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: 4516
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 1572 times
Send a message
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pngNYhttps://j.mp/1xPiWC8https://j.mp/1C9mUY2
Formal Mentoring, Wiki
Useful Wiki pages
URs & etiquette | WME | Editing Manual | Quick-Start Guide | Best Map Editing Practices | Junctions
State specific Wiki | Forum

Post by PesachZ
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: 4516
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 1572 times
Send a message
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pngNYhttps://j.mp/1xPiWC8https://j.mp/1C9mUY2
Formal Mentoring, Wiki
Useful Wiki pages
URs & etiquette | WME | Editing Manual | Quick-Start Guide | Best Map Editing Practices | Junctions
State specific Wiki | Forum

Post by PesachZ
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: 4516
Has thanked: 1365 times
Been thanked: 1572 times
Send a message
https://s.waze.tools/gc.pngNYhttps://j.mp/1xPiWC8https://j.mp/1C9mUY2
Formal Mentoring, Wiki
Useful Wiki pages
URs & etiquette | WME | Editing Manual | Quick-Start Guide | Best Map Editing Practices | Junctions
State specific Wiki | Forum