Yes turn instructions use the name of the segment you are turning to (or inherited name from a future segment).
Between two segments you involved you have the Sin (this is the segment that you are leaving and I called outgoing segment) and the Sout (this is the segment that you are entering) Normally you are looking at the angle that the Destination segment makes to the first. This editor did not understand why you would go back to the TR from the first segment.

Yes most editors get it but since some don't I was asking if we should include it so that it is spelled out for all.

Yes but it appears some editors aren't picking up that they have to click on the first segment and hover over the TRs to see the TIO. Vice just looking at the angle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

voludu2 wrote:Thanks for working on the first paragraph.
I'd like to place less emphasis on microdoglegs - this is an article on current guidance, and the use of microdoglegs is a deprecated technique.

I wouldn't like to combine discussion of doglegs with microdoglegs, because that could give the incorrect impression that doglegs are also deprecated.

Microdog legs are depreciated for turn instructions but NOT depreciated for u-turn prevention. They are still used for allowing a U-turn in one direction and prohibiting it in the other for the three segment uturn. I don't see a problem with having the dogleg and microdogleg wording since it is still applicable.

DwarfLord wrote:

Kartografer wrote:In general I think that we should try to limit time-based statements ("we used to do it this way, but here is new guidance; this is how we do it now") in Wazeopedia. Just set out current guidance (including legitimate uses of doglegs), and if older methods need to be explained, that should be kept brief or placed in a mbox.

I don't completely disagree, but at the same time all editors, new and old, face a map that incorporates years of editing history. Inevitably editors come across puzzling constructions that simply reflect the best that was possible at the time. Every new editor I've discussed these things with has found a brief explanation of the history to be enlightening and beneficial.

So I do believe it is helpful to document the history, because the history is still all around us.

That being said it might indeed be nice to place such historical notes in special "history boxes". I'll let someone else take the lead whether and how to format such things.

Your changes to my wording are fine. My on recommendation would be to take the "only" out of the last sentence. Editors should fix the superseded methods with care reads a little smoother and gets the same point across.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like the principals section. I thinkt the other was too wordy in background and doesn't provide definitive guidance when to use. If others like the concept then tightening it up a bit would definitely help.

I also think that the guidance to just use geometry at a junction is contrary to guidance elsewhere about using TIOs instead of microdoglegs.

Waze now displays road name changes when continuing straight on Fairfax Blvd to Little River Turnpike the two names are displayed on their phone's screen. So not sure when it would be confusing now on the name change. It is already there visually, and not sure if we need an additional voice prompt. So getting a continue on the example makes Waze chatty which most users don't like.

Could you provide an example of where a continue is used to alert to a change in exit numbering? Most states change the exit numbering at the border so heading west you are at a high number at the edge of PA and then next exit in OH is a low number. I don't think we need to mark those which is where a lot of people see the change of numbering. Or when you go from I-495 by Tysons to I-95 south and change from the Beltway's exit numbers to the I-95 exit numbers.

Is there a new following discussion that attempts to balance the tradeoffs? Should following be changed to "preceding"

I think the change in legal status will cause people to put Continue prompts at places like this Beuhlah St.

People are only routed there if they have a destination in the base. I think the continue would be superfluous and not useful to everyone that is going onto the base.

I understand. I asked about this in the DoD Channel a bit back and so far people are in agreement. Will see if there are any that have dissent at Meetup.
This might be one where we remove from the wazeopedia if there is consensus. Fully understand the legal part of crossing a border, and agree with that posting.

Since you are tweaking,
Why is "or where the continuation of the road name involves turning;" required?

The app shows the road that you are on and if continuing straight for a name change it shows the new road name. If you need to turn to stay on the same road then you should get the keep/stay/turn right/left for the road name that you are on.

I am missing where you need a continue for the same road name since continue isn't the proper choice. If this is to put a continue whenever the road name changes when you go straight, then is a distraction and too chatty. I would recommend removing that last part of the Counterintuitive continue confirmation section.

A while back the Waze app changed so that it shows the name change. So you are on "The Alameda" and you see before the intersection that going straight has a name change to "El Camino Real". Even if there is not a continue on the TR.

https://i.imgur.com/m77mWSIl.jpg

So going straight already shows the name change. If you are to stay on "The Alameda" then you are told to turn left. In some cities like Washington, DC staying straight on some roads have several of these name changes so the driver would be pinged a lot.

My opinion is there should not be continue used there.

Another issue that someone asked if it should be clarified is when two streets meet and each only have one way to go.



This fits in the goldfish line already in the wazeopedia.

It was suggested that the following be entered:
"When two streets meet at their terminus and each can only turn into the other, then turn left/right turn instruction override are not required."