PesachZ wrote:Another option to splits the street name display is to add an extra node on the AGC 5m in, and only name that first 5m section with the long name

I agree unless we have instances where the addition of a second segment causes a different result in the special U-turn. I don't recall if some special U-turns required adding or removing an extra segment though.

To clarify one point on your decision to remove the AGC in your first example, the commit point is actually the solid white line 20-30 meters near the gas station driveway point before the turn, not the hard concrete curb.

CBenson wrote:

sketch wrote:Or we need to get them to remove that penalty.

Any word on the status of this penalty. If they aren't going to remove/change it, then we should implement their advice not use ramp type for jughandles.

I am still catching up on this extremely informative thread as it has just recently been brought to my attention. There is a subsequent conversation here regarding writing new wiki guidance for jughandles and are at a standstill until this is clarified.
Have we been given confirmation whether the penalty is strictly MH>Ramp>PS or is there a penalty across the board. To me the quote

3 road type issue, we have a high penalty when you're on major highway -> exit to ramp -> enter to primary street, to solve it try to change the ramp to primary street or major highway

interprets as: There will be a penalty if the route crosses 3 road types. (Possibly only when a ramp is the middle type??) The rest of that statement is clarification. MH>R>PS has a "high penalty".
Does this mean mH>R>PS has a "low penalty"? Would FWY>R>PS and MH>R>Street evoke a higher penalty? If these cases or any variation there-of are in fact penalty-free, the MH>R>PS penalty is unwarranted and extremely confusing. Maybe even a bug.

With the new FC changes which have converted many surface streets to primary roads (mH, MH), and the routing instruction difference for a slight right turn from a primary road to a non-primary road giving an "EXIT right" instead of "KEEP right" we've created a problem in the map. (Most) AGCs split off the originating segment at less than 45°, which used to give a keep right instruction. Now I'm seeing URs from confused Wazers on surface streets being told to "exit right to ... St".

In this thread it was mentioned that our choice of AGC road type being the lower of the two connecting segments is purely for visual design.

bgodette wrote: ...
The rules for at-grade are aesthetics, it generally looks better when done that way. Same thing for roundabouts. The UK likes the aesthetics of highest type wins for roundabouts over the NA rules. Both rulesets simply set a consistent look, both route equally well simply because long distance pruning never gets aggressive enough to exclude such a limited run.
...

I suggest that some this is actually having an untoward on routing instructions, that we change the guidelines for the US to follow what is in place in UK. If we typed all AGCs by the higher road type, then an AGC from MH to st, for example, would be typed as MH. Assuming a departure angle of <45°, the instruction would still be keep right, not exit right. At the end of the AGC, there would either be a TURN right or nothing. You would get a TURN instruction if the geometry was setup intentionally to provide one, as EXIT instructions are only given at <45°. In most cases there would be no instruction at all, because transitioning from the ACG to the street would be the best continuation.

I feel this would have a net positive effect on the instructions given and overall understanding of the average Wazer, and would be worth the visual impact it may have. Considering the UK has been setup this way for a while already, it can't be to horrible. This would allow is to preserve the keep right instruction for AGCs.

Obviously this wouldn't be necessary if and when a "junction box" is ever implemented, but for the foreseeable future until then I think this is a good idea.

A suggestion has come up to instead of a broad rule change, allow an exception for those few right sided AGCs which specifically deserve a keep instruction vs. a turn instruction.

And to clarify it would be typed the same as the road leasing into it, not the highest connected road.

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

sketch wrote:First of all, "doglegs" solves a different problem than changing the type of AGCs. A dogleg changes the instruction from "stay"/"exit" to "turn"; the type change would change some instances of "exit" to "stay".

So doglegs aren't going anywhere. Most AGCs should give "turn" instructions anyway, unless they are so far from the intersection that a "stay" and a later "turn" are both merited. An instruction besides "turn" is confusing, whether it's "stay" or "exit".

The type change would solve only one "problem" — where MH/mH to PS/S gives an "exit right" instead of a "stay to the right", more common now with the new road types system. Yes, "stay" is more correct than "exit" in certain of these situations (though in most such situations, "turn" is most correct).

I don't believe "exit" is really all that difficult to understand, though, so I don't really think it's necessary. But I recognize that not all agree.

I could support an exception only where it is necessary to preserve a "stay" instruction on the right. It'd look ungainly, but it'd be easier to detect and eradicate whenever the Junction Box does come. A total rewrite of the AGC rules is unnecessary and overbroad, would lead to an ugly map, would be extremely tedious to implement, and would serve no purpose other than to change a few "exit" instructions to "stay" instructions. We know the circumstances that lead to these, so we should tailor any exception to these situations. We chose to use the lower, not the higher, of the two types for a reason (because it works equally as well, and because the alternative looks like crap).

"Doglegs" should still be used wherever necessary. Road type has absolutely 0 to do with the difference between "turn" and "stay"/"exit".

agreed

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

CBenson wrote:We have agreed to several exceptions to not using ramps for at-grade-connectors. The wiki currently lists Median U turn intersections, Restricted crossing U turns, Displaced left turn intersections, Jughandles and signed numbered exits as exceptions. My understanding of the upside to these exceptions is the suppression of the segment name on the map. I had though the only downside would be possible display issues with ramps.

However, in response to the routing issue raised here, the waze routing team responded that this is a

3 road type issue, we have a high penalty when you're on major highway -> exit to ramp -> enter to primary street, to solve it try to change the ramp to primary street or major highway

Accordingly, I believe we need to revisit the exceptions to not using ramps for AGCs. At least where there is no name on the segment (like the jughandle at issue in the other thread), the normal street types would be better options.

Another option to splits the street name display is to add an extra node on the AGC 5m in, and only name that first 5m section with the long name

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

Another thing to consider, if ramps do indeed introduce penalties, what is their effect when used in Wayfinders?

Sent using Tapatalk for Android 4.4.2

PhantomSoul wrote:Same road type as departing road:

PRO: Alleviates confusion to the group of drivers who would not expect to hear "turn" or "exit" at that junction.
CON: Looks sloppy in the client when the connected is of a lower type, particularly if its more than one level lower. Looks particularly sloppy at wider zoom levels if the connected road is a street, parking lot, or private road, when such a road would disappear from view.

Personally, since I pretty always only use Waze in the 3D view with auto-zoom, I'm perfectly happy with the word "turn" for any AGC where the word "exit" wouldn't be appropriate if it means we can avoid sloppy-looking graphics.

I also personally don't care about getting an instruction to keep/turn/exit/etc. at the point where a solid line begins for a dedicated turn lane. Such an announcement falsely gives the impression that individual lane guidance is available, when it is in fact not. Most of the time, Waze even has to guess which roadway of a dual-roadway highway you're on! However, many people do find this useful, so to reach a better balance between that and avoiding map clutter, I'd be ok with a 50m rule, meaning that if the beginning of a dedicated turn lane, or the AGC itself, is set back from the center of the intersection proper at least 50m (~150 ft), we can include an AGC. Distances of less than 50m are actually trivial to Waze and AGCs entirely within that range amount to just noise on the map. Conveniently, WME provides us a map scale in the lower right-hand corner to help us judge such distances at various zoom levels.

I mostly agree with your sentiment, except the 50m rule. If the AGC is deemed necessary, I believe it should split of the road at the commitment point, the point which past that you are no longer legally allowed to make that turn if you are in the wrong lane. This is especially helpful in complex intersections where otherwise a route make try to make that turn illegally after joining the road past the commitment point, from the wrong side.

I'm curious as to the source of your 50m rule, is there a reason to specifically choose 50m?

Im not saying to map every turn with an agc, but when one is deemed necessary, to map it according to the lane striping. Remember the advance tts instruction is typically 0.2 miles on streets, and we want to provide time to move into the correct lane before the turn.

Traveling an average of 40mph, with 0.2 miles warning, provides a driver only 18 seconds to merge onto the correct lane. On a turn with an only lane starting 150 feet back, it is reduced to 15 seconds. Adjusting for the distance from the crosswalk to the center of the intersection, where the junction node is, reduces out warning tone by another couple of seconds.
I'm not advocating for a specific role of distance here, just presenting some facts to be used in considering any guidelines. Think how long does it take an average driver to safely merge across to the turn lane, and how much warning are they being given.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

PhantomSoul wrote:I just remember a conversation with someone way back when mentioning that distances less than 50m are trivial to Waze. I could be wrong, and the whole argument falls apart, I guess, if I am.

The amount of time you need to get into the correct lane for a turn depends on how many lanes there are and how dense the traffic is. If there's only 2 lanes and traffic is relatively right, 15 seconds, even 10 seconds, is plenty of time. If there's 3 or 4 lanes you're absent-mindedly caught in the left lane at the quarter mile warning, not so much.

Hell, there are places near my house on the Garden State Pkwy, with its 6 lanes and heavy traffic, that a 2 mile warning with well over a minute ahead of your exit might not be enough to get over from the leftmost lane.

Exactly my point, about the distances, hence the reason for discussion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk