Thanks. I don't believe you (qwaletee) and I disagree on interpretation. But the fact remains that we have had at least one editor who did indeed interpret the wiki differently.

This editor did a lot of great research to find the "theoretical" (i.e. unsigned) exit numbers associated with the forks at the end of freeways, at places where one freeway appeared to end but actually joined a shared alignment, and at places where one freeway designation ended and another began. Then he submitted many unlock/update requests to get these unsigned identifiers into the Waze instructions. His reading of the wiki suggested to him that this was desirable, or at the very least OK. When another editor complained that it made the driving instructions confusing (to him personally, as he drove one of these regions) he was told that's what the wiki asked for, so that's the way it is.

I don't feel my proposed changes take anything away from what you've said, and it doesn't sound like you're finding fault with the specific content. Granted, the wiki does make sense, the way it is currently written, to you and to me; but you and I are not the only ones reading it. Clearly others are taking home a different message. Clarifying it in the way I suggested can only improve new editors' understanding of current best practice, and what's not to like about that?

Excellent. Please be specific as to what exactly you find excessively complex in my proposal, and I will attempt to satisfy your concern. Or, suggest alternative language, and I will be delighted to critique it.

SkyviewGuru wrote:My inclination is that when 49 of 50 states are good with it as is, why doesn't the one that isn't make an exception in their own state guidance?

Because we have a lot of visiting editors who have read the US wiki and think they are experts at the rules. It doesn't occur to them that things might be different in California.

Please understand I am not asking to change the guidance, merely to clarify it for the benefit of edge cases that are more common in California than elsewhere. I really am at a loss how anything in my proposal could be the slightest bit controversial.

Again I am not changing the rules. I like the US rules and I agree with them. I am not changing them and do not want to change them. I am proposing three and one half sentences that do not change the US rules. Their only purpose is to clarify the existing rules. Are those three and one half sentences really so dreadfully objectionable? I cannot understand what is going on here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SkyviewGuru wrote:The existing guidance suggests the use of the exit numbers when they are assigned, even when they do not yet appear on the sign. Period. It doesn't say omit them under various circumstances that you would amend.

I believe this perspective reflects a misunderstanding of the US wiki.

If you read qwaletee's post, a few posts back, he points out that the "clear intent" (his words) of the US wiki is "Don't surprise drivers very much. Putting in unsigned exit numbers or other unsigned information and where there is no evidence of an upcoming change? That's just surprising to drivers now and forever, with no particular benefit." (emphasis mine). qwaletee is a New England and Mid-Atlantic editor who rarely if ever edits in California.

Meanwhile your read of the US wiki appears to be that, because it is silent on the subject of driver surprise/confusion, that means driver surprise/confusion are not to be considered when adding unsigned information to Waze. I can see why you would read it that way, and in fact that's exactly how the other editor read it, but as qwaletee points out, that perspective does not reflect best editing practice.

This is exactly why I want to add these few sentences to the US wiki. People are misreading it because it is insufficiently clear. It needs to say that driving instructions with unsigned information can in some situations confuse drivers, and should thus be avoided in those situations. Without that clarification editors are reading it too literally.

I am not the world's best author. I'm not married to the wording of my proposed sentences and I am happy to discuss alternate language that accomplishes this goal. But we need to clarify this entry. People are misunderstanding the current wiki language. The US editing community will be well served if a few additional sentences can prevent that.

That's terrifically useful background, thanks very much CBenson.

I would be delighted simply to remove the US wiki language saying that unsigned exit numbers can be added in advance of them appearing on physical signs. We can then put better language about when to use unsigned exit numbers in the California wiki. That is the cleanest solution of all. I'll offer a draft later.

Existing Road Names/USA wrote:If the exit number is assigned and designated by the local roadway agency, but does not yet appear on the sign, it is OK to include the exit number in advance of it appearing on the road sign. This prevents additional updates later when the numbered sign is added to the roadway and it helps visual guidance when other exits before that one are numbered. Drivers can better anticipate their approaching exit.

Proposed change wrote:If the exit identifier does not appear on any signs, then do not include it, even if it is documented elsewhere. Including unsigned information in Waze instructions can confuse drivers. Some states may have exceptions to this guideline; check your state page for details.

As the discussion on including unsigned exit identifiers started over two weeks ago, and there have been no further comments on the final proposal, I've gone ahead with the proposed change to the USA wiki. Thanks to everyone who contributed thoughts and support.

Now I'll mosey over to the California forum to explore changes to the California state page.

California editors are discussing our state-specific guidance here. A proposal is finding broad support so far. You're naturally welcome to borrow it for the LA state page, if you like. It is similar to the language I offered in this thread.

Nagamasa wrote:...users miss an exit and could be not routed through the ramp going back in the opposite direction, if both directions are named the same.

Problem is if the two sides of the divided highway share even just one name in common (either primary or one of the alternates) then the penalty kicks in. It's not adequate to ensure cardinals on the primary name only; no alternate name should match, if the penalty is to be prevented. I agree some tougher language would help here.