CBenson wrote:...

I'm also for putting the restrictions on the exits.

sketch wrote: Well, to start, no one will be navigated into an HOV lane at all because of restrictions. A driver would have to enter the HOV on their own accord, and then sleep/wake or relaunch to force Waze to realize they're in the HOV. So if they enter at 3:55 and there aren't any exits within 5 minutes, it's on them.

sketch wrote:Oh, duh, I wasn't thinking. Anyway, the rest of my explanation still applies

qwaletee wrote:The main refinements/changes since my Friday posts:

1) Consensus added for adding vehicle restrictions to exits where there are entrance vehicle restrictions. There's some discussion about whether this applies to all cases or only some, but it seems we're going for all cases where there are entrance restrictions.

2) Consensus building for extended start of time restrictions in case of mistiming of routing or traffic building on HOV preventing timely exits. I have seen the figure of 5-10 minutes, but I think that would depend on circumstance, such as an HOV lane that often gets backed up, or a long HOV segment that might need more buffer. Perhaps we should propose a minimum of 10 minutes, more if circumstances warrant.

3) Where HOV-2 is allowed (unticked), HOV-3. Where HOV-2 or HOV-3 is allowed, motorcycle should also always be allowed (unticked) for USA.

CBenson wrote:

PesachZ wrote:I've implemented these changes in the wiki on the Carpool, HOV, Transit lanes, and to the Best map editing practice - Handling restricted lanes section.

Couple of minor things I noted when I read it. One in the first message box I originally read "Although this method is now preferred" to refer to the old method as that was referred to in the prior sentence. Maybe "Although the method described below is now preferred" would avoid some confusion.

CBenson wrote: Second do we need the comma in the first point in the final section - "The driver would need to tell the Waze client app how many passengers are present in the car , or what vehicle type they are in for that trip." Is so we should remove the preceding space.

Couple of substantive issues that I would like to raise.
First, is this a really situation that occurs anywhere:

If the hours are adjacent to each other, meaning that there is no buffer time between the two travel direction of the lanes, then we will have to add a buffer time into to Waze for safety. In that case expand the restriction to start 15 minutes earlier so there is at least a 15 minute window when there travel is restricted in both directions between the open periods.

I don't know how that would be done. If its not a circumstance that anyone has encountered, I wouldn't include guidance for it.

CBenson wrote:Second, I'm not a fan of changing the start times of the restrictions to account for delays while in route. I think its better for us to be accurate and let the user make the final decision. Further, if we are going to adjust the start times, I think 15 minutes is way too long. If you lose 15 minutes in route waze should already be recalculating your route. If we are going to recommend adjusting the start times, I think the adjustment should be a maximum of 5 minutes.

voludu2 wrote:

PesachZ wrote: I believe it is more important in the case of reversible lanes so we don't accidentally send someone the wrong way down a freeway.

Is there any situation where it is possible for a driver to follow bad waze instructions and get on a reversing freeway lane in the wrong direction?

These things are handled with movable walls, barrels, and cones, which direct drivers in the correct direction and prevent them coming to head-on encounters. The authorities must have some kind of schedule during which they move the barricades to prepare for a lane reversal, as they do on the chesapeake bay bridge, for example: https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 4,66981127
(once on that bridge, opposing traffic lanes are separated only by dotted lines and indicated by colored red X, green arrow markings above the lanes)

A wazer might be inconvenienced by being unable to enter the faster lane after it is blocked off by the authorities, but unless they drive over a New Jersey Wall or travelled in opposition to "do not enter" signs, they would be unable to enter a freeway lane in the wrong direction.

CBenson wrote:

PesachZ wrote:The lower level of the Manhattan bridge in NY has this situation. It is used inbound to Manhattan from 05:00-15:00, and outbound to Brooklyn 15:00-05:00 on weekdays. And inbound only on weekends.

I'm still having a hard time understanding how that works. I take it there is some kind of brief closure in both directions (from the perspective of entering the lanes) to make the switch, but the authorities don't commit to a precise time frame that could be relied upon for use by waze.

PesachZ wrote:I can agree with 5 minutes if we can rely on the server to update often enough to account for delays. I believe it is more important in the case of reversible lanes so we don't accidentally send someone the wrong way down a freeway.

Makes sense to me. I agree that not routing a few people within a few minutes of reversible lanes opening is much preferable to routing anyone on reversible lanes while they remain closed.

eaglejm7 wrote:

sketch wrote:These are all really good ideas. I wish Waze would give more attention to this feature.

It'd also be nice to be able to add a restriction on a temporary basis, using a road-closure-like functionality (I get a lot of emails from LaDOTD about lane closures where traffic is allowed, but no loads over 12 ft wide). Although, Waze isn't really what oversized loads should be relying on

If this is implemented, though, we'd have to have a lot of heads-up, and probably an import of data from another source – because one missed height restriction can mean big trouble.

Anyway, this thread is for how to handle the guidance for the current system, and not a request thread that Waze might listen to or monitor.

I am fairly new at Waze. Is there a better place to make wishes?