[Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Moderator: Unholy

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:38 pm

There is not necessarily any clearing out. Sometime the lanes are just going from open to all to HOV restricted. If you are non-HOV compliant you can be on the lanes up until the cutoff time but can be ticketed after that time.

For some reason the VA police seem to like to monitor the exits rather than the entrances. I don't know if this still goes on, but it meant that if the HOV restrictions ended at 6:30 you could get on a little early as long as you didn't get off before 6:30. I've heard first hand that you could cut it too close.

Can't personally vouch for the truth of this story but it was told to me first hand by some one who liked to see how close he could come to the 6:30 opening time. So driving alone he reaches his exit a couple of minutes after 6:30, but the patrol car is still there. He passes the patrol car who proceeds to pull him over. He protests that it is after 6:30. The officer asks him what time he thinks it is. He says 6:35. The officer asks if he is coming home from work. He says yes. The officer asks where he works. Without thinking everything through he answers honestly (showing he works in DC). The officer asks whether he would prefer the HOV citation or the speeding citation.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:50 am

qwaletee wrote:>> We used to use PLR to dissallow them. Now we can restrict them to only HOV vehicles which also disallow them

That's predicated on the HOV restriction setting having an effect on routing. That is not true today, so it is effectively "restriction free."

Sort of, but not really.

Currently, there is no way to indicate what type of vehicle you are in the client. So all vehicles are considered "private vehicles." So currently if you mark a road as restricted to everything but HOV vehicles (what you should do for HOV lanes) you tick the restriction box for "private vehicles" (and trucks, etc.). Restricting "private vehicles" currently does have an effect. The current effect of restricting "private vehicles" is to restrict the road for routing for all vehicles as all vehicles are currently considered private vehicles. This is not restriction free.

So if you keep HOV as unrestricted when you have private vehicles restricted, then the HOV part doesn't currently have an effect, but the private vehicle part does have an effect.

Thus if you set up of HOV lanes properly with time/vehicle restrictions, then all vehicles will be prohibited from the HOV lanes during the times that the HOV restrictions are in place. This is a distinct advantage over using parking lot roads for HOV restrictions that are not in place all the time. As with the restrictions waze will route over the HOV lanes when the restrictions are not applicable. With parking lot roads, the HOV lanes will never be routed on.

I think the proposed guidelines need to be written with the idea that "private vehicle" restrictions are currently effective.



qwaletee wrote:Right now, we're treating HOT and HOV lanes the same.

We are not treating HOT and HOV lanes the same in the DC area at this point. HOT lanes are currently treated the same as any toll road in the DC area. That way those that want to use the HOT lanes can be routed over them and those that don't can turn on "Avoid toll roads." Of course that is a problem for those that want to be routed over other other toll roads as discussed above, but there is no support for being able to choose which tolls you are willing to pay and which you aren't. (As users in the DC area don't have to cross a river or bay with all the crossings tolled this is less of a problem here.)

If we treated HOT and HOV lanes the same, then we would be restricting them from all use at this point. There is not much reason to do that here in the DC area when we can make it work for those who are willing to pay the tolls.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:20 pm

qwaletee wrote:* We have an imperfect system, we have no way of having true restrictions today, or of consistently either allowing the route or disallowing them.

I'm not sure I understand this. We map HOV lanes and disallow routing on them currently. We used to use PLR to dissallow them. Now we can restrict them to only HOV vehicles which also disallow them.

qwaletee wrote:* Where there is a special advantage to the routes (not just a dedicated lane, but a bypass route) we want to allow Waze to take advantage of them. Therefore they need to be completely restriction-free, and we rely on drivers to recognize that they may need to bypass it. Expect URs, but nothing we can do about that. By definition these will be limited access roadways, so they will always be Freeway. This is case (2b).

Case (2b) states:
Set segment restrictions for HOV "vehicle type" if applicable.

This would seem to me to always be applicable as we are talking about carpool, HOV and transit lanes. This would not then be completely restriction-free.

qwaletee wrote:* Where there is no special advantage other than a more lightly traveled lane, we want Waze to ignore the dedicated lane for route proposals, but recognize it if taken anyway, to avoid MPs and to record corrected data where possible. This is case (1b).

Again we would get that result by either restricting the roads to only HOV vehicles or making them parking lot roads. I don't see why the guidance going forward should not be to restrict them to only HOV vehicles.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Fri Aug 29, 2014 10:28 am

I'm not understanding the guidance.

For 1b I continue to think the guidance should be to use the road type appropriate to the road and mark all entrance segments as restricted to all but the allowed HOV vehicles. I don't see any rush to change from parking lot roads to HOV restrictions, but the guidance should be to use HOV restrictions as that is clearly where waze is going. There are disadvantages with parking lot roads. They prevent routing all the time, so they are now inappropriate for time-restricted HOV lanes (e.g. HOV from 7:00 to 9:30 AM). Such lanes should be time/vehicle restricted so that waze will route on them the rest of the time. Parking lot roads are also much more likely to be used a routing destination than freeway segments. Thus, if you have a parking lot HOV road running up the middle of a freeway and there is a destination pin nearer to the freeway than adjacent parking lot roads, waze may route to HOV lanes. This is less likely to occur if the HOV lanes are also freeway type.

For 2a, same thing, I think HOV restrictions should be used rather than PLR.

For 2b I do not understand the note:
Drivers who are not permitted to use the lanes may be routed by Waze via them, but it is up to the driver to obey traffic laws, and Waze will successfully re-route around them when the driver does not enter the special lane.

If the lanes are restricted to HOV only waze will not route onto them. They may be used if waze recalculates a route starting on them either because the wazer is driving on them or because of GPS error. But one should never get a turn instruction to take the HOV lanes.

Some HOV lanes go back and forth between being less than and more than 10-15m from the regular lanes. Currently I would read the guidance to mean such roads should not be mapped as they are not almost always over 10-15m away from the standard lanes. But you still get map problems and sometimes recalculation issues (sometimes to the opposite direction lanes) even if you only are separated significantly from the regular lanes for a relatively short distance. I think the "almont always" should go with the minimal separation so that lanes that vary between minimal and significant are treated as significant separation.

Under future support the following are still listed:
The ability to change the direction of the car pool lane automatically based on time of day and day of week. This is also necessary for other roads
The ability to set the minimum passenger count to zero (meaning the road is open to all drivers) based on time of day and day of week

These are currently supported in the editor.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:38 pm

khaytsus wrote:but if he starts his route at 7:59 and would arrive at the TBR location at 8:10 what is the behavior?

My experience is that waze will route through a restricted turn in this circumstance.

There is useful turn is restricted until 6:30 PM that waze likes to use on my evening commute. If start my route before 6:30 PM waze will route me through the turn if I am predicted to make the turn after 6:30 PM.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:19 am

Ahh, well you would have more experience with this issue. The problem would seem to be one of tuning the cutoffs, which could be done more easily with the second toll option that you propose. For my simple test I routed from Orinda to San Francisco so the land routes were a bit longer.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:50 pm

I'm all for that. I agree that in many jurisdictions there are avoidable toll roads and unavoidable toll roads.

However even if I have avoid toll routes selected, waze will route through toll segments in some instances. For long routes over 100 miles or so I get an error if the only non-toll route is too circuitous on low road types. But for shorter commuting type trip lengths, waze simply gives me a toll route even if I have avoid tolls selected and there is not a reasonable alternative. Even if waze can find a non-toll route, it will still present a faster tolled route as an alternative. There can be issues if there are multiple toll choices and the map is not edited to mark only the segment with the toll both as toll. It seems in this instance, where you have avoid toll roads selected, but there are only toll choices, waze picks the one with the fewest toll segment. This seems to me to indicate that with avoid toll routes currently selected for a typically communing length route, waze would at least give you an option of a route that routes over the unavoidable toll bridges but would still avoids the avoidable toll roads.

So given we don't have two toll options in the client like you propose, the question becomes how should we map HOT lanes. Should we map them as toll roads so that those that want to avoid the traffic by using them can see them as options and see how much time they may save by using them. Or should we map HOT lanes only as HOV lanes so those that don't want to pay for them will not be routed over them even when they don't have avoid toll roads enabled. At this point I think we should map to make the routing work for users that can either say yes or no to the the question - do you want to route over toll roads? Then waze can add features to cater to those that need more options.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Fri Aug 01, 2014 10:33 am

kentsmith9 wrote:In the SF Bay Area we have 7 toll bridges which provide virtually the only access to those locations on the other side of the water, so everyone pays the toll. In the stretches of freeways leading to the bridges we have HOT lanes that drivers are not willing to pay due to the limited benefit. So a user who lives in the bay area will leave the Toll route option on all the time to enable bridge crossing, but then would be continuously routed in HOT lanes.

I agree that is a problem and you may have do something different in the SF Bay Area. But that is a permanent issue. We can't account for both drivers that want to use some toll roads and drivers that want to use all the toll roads. This will remain an issue even after the HOV indication is enabled in the client.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Fri Aug 01, 2014 12:15 am

But HOT lanes should not be mapped as PLR. You want those who are willing to pay the toll to be able to route over them. There is no reason not have them set to tolled freeway type now so that they can be used for routing.

I don't see any reason to map HOV lanes as PLR at this point. Where appropriate to map them, just map them with the appropriate HOV restriction. However, no-one will be routed over a segment with a HOV restriction. So there is really no reason to spend much effort at this point to change HOV lanes previously mapped as PLRs to freeway (or highway) type with HOV restrictions.
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

Re: [Update] Partial restrictions (time and vehicle type)

Postby CBenson » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:50 pm

Yes, those are issues. And they cause many URs as noted here for the HOT lanes that are mapped on the Washington Beltway (except for the PLR penalty not being high enough as you have to use the avoid toll penalty to avoid them). But for those that want to pay to avoid the traffic, why wouldn't we map them?
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users