Googlers must STOP doing this

[Gary Cox]

A couple months ago, I endured the unfortunate situation of a Google Reviewer denying my edits where I was correcting a street that was improperly mapped as being divided.  The reviewer gleefully encouraged me to read up on the definition of "divided" in the documentation.  But... nowhere in the documentation does it say that a road is divided (and deserving of two separate segments) if there is just paint marking down the middle.  Nor should it.  However, according to this reviewer (and other reviewers, based on similar experiences I've read on the boards), a divided highway is defined as having a yellow line down the middle.  This earth-shattering discovery is going to redefine civil engineering as we know it, and I hope Google is informing the U.S. Department of Transportation of this revelation as we speak.

Anyhow, I brushed this aside as being a bad apple in the Googler bunch.

Today though, I came across a road that I'd corrected about a month ago.  It appears that somebody decided to "fix" the road a few days ago.  I have a strong suspicion this was done by a Google Reviewer because I don't see a name and it was done very quickly, and well ("done well" in the sense that if it were not total crap, it would be a good edit aesthetics-wise and everything... if that makes sense).  You can see one of the segments in question here.  Note that you can even see my edit at the bottom where I corrected this from dual- to single-carriageway.  (of course, now it's dual carriageway again)

I have given some thought to going back and fixing this again.  Well, I'm not.  First, because it's a state highway and I don't feel like going through all those approvals again.  And second, based on philosophy.  If Google (or one of its employees) feels like going out of their way to screw their maps up with bone-headed edits that make no sense, then who am I to stop them?  Property rights, my friend.  If you came across a deranged man bashing his brand new Ferrari with a crowbar, would you try and stop him?  Nope, me neither.

PAINT ≠ MEDIAN

[Gary Cox]

Also, here is the "second" (unnecessary) segment created: http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x88051a3a225ac581:0x41f4d64401445404

[Nathan Williams]

+10,000

Don't get me started on either the "divided vs. divider attribute" topic or the "Google Reviewers need to READ the comments" topic, because I could go on at length for both.  Suffice to say, I feel your pain.

[djboge]

Agreed. Here's another winner.

[Nathan Williams]

@djboge: That's a real gem.  Seriously, what possible utility does such a waste of time serve?  I'm all for realism, but there is a limit - we're all just drawing lines on a page, after all.

[Troy G]

+1 These are unnecessary for directions makes the map look cluttered for no reason(especially when I find ones they have drawn for just an intersection). 

[Troy Tiscareno]

Hear hear!

Converting roads back and forth is a HUGE pain, usually because there are a bunch of intersections that all need to be approved.  It would be fine if it only needed to be done once, but in order for that to happen, we ALL need to follow the same guidelines.

"Hard physical median 3' or wider" and "significant length" are both mentioned in the existing documentation.  It shouldn't be that hard.

[mara]

How did Google decide that three feet made a carriage way and how long is a 'significant length'?  And if such existed for three blocks (not here) How does that justify making 20 miles or better of one lane divided road through the middle of any (well, my) city?

I guess I'd better leave that alone

It does make for interesting intersections when tow of the' imaginary' divided roads cross.

[mara]

two

[Nathan Williams]

You've hit the nail on the head, Mara.

Along with the size of the divider, it is my opinion that aesthetic and practical considerations need to be taken into account when determining whether to draw a route as parallel one-way roads or as a single two-way road with the physical divider attribute set.  For instance, in the middle of a crowded downtown area, drawing divided routes does little to improve the map as a whole and generally seems to cause more problems than it solves - it leaves things looking cluttered and makes the area difficult to work with should anything else need to be edited.

As for direction finding...have we ever gotten a straight answer from Google as to whether the routing engine knows that you can't turn across a physical divider?  Assuming it does, then it seems to me that the difference between a "single line/physical divider" setup and a "parallel one-ways" setup is purely aesthetic anyway.

[John]

I think the key issue here is that when a road is drawn as split segments, it is very, very easy for Maps users to see exactly which connecting roads allow access to both sides of a divided road.  If the line goes to both sides, the road goes through.  If the line stops at one side, the divider blocks the crossing.  The intersections' turn restrictions are set properly, the Maps rendering makes things easy to understand.  I can absolutely see the value in split roads where dividers are present; however, as we all know, this makes us edit two different roads every time we want to make an edit on a split segment.  This is a headache.  On the flip side, currently, using turn restrictions and the divider feature reduces the number of lines on the map, which looks great aesthetically, but it also doesn't let the user see which roads can be used to cross a divided road.  This is a very strong drawback of the divider feature, and it can be solved only by having Google change the way it renders divided two-way roads.  Maybe have divided roads automatically draw as slightly separated, and show connector roads based on turn restrictions.  When you remove the divider, the roads automatically become one line again.

I don't know how the routing engine changes anything depending on legal vs. physical divider.  I haven't tested it, and I haven't read enough to know.

What I do know is that recommended actions from Google Reviewers are inconsistent from reviewer to reviewer, and I also know that the current system really makes a big mess.  There's just no good way to make edits that address both the rendering/user-experience concerns, as well as the Map Maker/multiple edits concerns.

[Willy Hrachovina]

Check this one out, the most egregious offender of this that I know:

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x89b0e8b1b97a4c51:0x51f64c0defdf8408

[khk...@gmail.com]

I'm not happy with the way the group mapmake. delete some of your favorite places in groups.
ỵahoo: heocon.16483
call: 0984303500

2011/9/1 General Map Maker on behalf of Troy Tiscareno <google-...@googlegroups.com>

Hear hear!

Converting roads back and forth is a HUGE pain, usually because there are a bunch of intersections that all need to be approved.  It would be fine if it only needed to be done once, but in order for that to happen, we ALL need to follow the same guidelines.

"Hard physical median 3' or wider" and "significant length" are both mentioned in the existing documentation.  It shouldn't be that hard.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "General Map Maker" Google group.
 
- To post a public reply in this same thread:
Reply to this e-mail and your note will soon be posted.
 
- To post a note to the group on a *different* General Map Maker topic:
Visit http://goo.gl/GDnr and click on "New topic"
or
E-mail google-...@googlegroups.com
 
- To unsubscribe from this list:
Send email to
google-mapmak...@googlegroups.com
 
- To see additional useful options:
Visit http://goo.gl/GDnr and click on "Membership."
 
Thanks for using Google Map Maker! :-)

[D C]

@John

     I agree.

@mara

     A month or so ago Raza (or Rohit or Ramu) stated that 'significant length' meant 100 meters (328 feet) or more of either physical or legal divider.  Personally, I think that this is too short.

One problem I see with using the divider attribute on a single line road is that if there are undrawn driveways, directions will be correct originally, but if someone else latter draws those in and forgets to go back and set turn restrictions, directions will be wrong.

SUGGESTION: Could MM be changed to allow us to set turn restrictions on roads we create at the time we create them?  (I haven't noticed the ability to do this.  If it already exists, someone please tell me.)  Not only would it be faster to do both at the same time, rather than go back and do it afterwards, but also I can self-publish new roads, whereas my turn restriction edits always go for review (and take weeks to be approved).

[Saikrishna Arcot]

It looks like someone mistook the power lines for another road.

[Willy Hrachovina]

Here is one that I am having significant trouble with. I have posted about it several times, and even though I am able to get the deletions approved, none of them stick. In fact, I tried deleting it yesterday and when the reviewer approved of it they said "looks good, I will finish setting the attributes." However they immediately drew it back.

This must stop, as it is not a correct mapping practice, and can cause problems with directions.

[Nathan Williams]

I added my approval to it.  I think my approval comments say it all.

[Gary Cox]

Thanks everyone for your approvals and reminding me that I am not alone in this struggle.

Today I ran into yet another instance of some bored idiot reviewer dividing a little road just because some paint was slapped down along the middle.  These guys are probably just trying to justify their employment by dilly dallying around doing pointless and destructive crap.  Well I am FED UP with this nonsense and will not be posting about it any more, but I just want my complaint officially registered somewhere (i.e. here).

I'm going to go as far as to say that all reviewers who do not reside in this country (the US), or have not lived in it, should not be reviewing this country.  Why?  Because they don't bloody know anything about it.  I've heard they are now denying locksmith edits for locksmiths listed in the Better Business Bureau (with links to that provided) -- because apparently they don't know what the BBB is.  They also apparently don't know what yellow lines on roads are.  And parking lots, don't get me started.

I know the labor is cheaper Google, but you're going to incur a whole lot more costs when you drive the contributors (i.e. us) AWAY.  And I'm going to take this time, with that in mind, to remind everybody here that there are alternatives to Map Maker that are far less masochist in nature at the moment.

In fact, I'm sure that by simply providing this link right here (scroll down), I've just permanently steered a few contributors away.  The page I've just linked to is what we've been begging for for months, and has fallen on deaf ears here.  Well, it does exist... just not at Map Maker.

[Chaitanya Sri]

Hi all,

@ Willy - I see that the road segment is deleted :-)

@ Others - Heres some more clarity on when the divider option should be used and when a road can be split into two:

Divider Option :-

1. No Divider: Select this option when no barrier or paint line is present on the road segment.
2. Legal Divider: Select this option if a painted line on the road segment divides the flow of traffic and restricts a turn.
3. Physical Divider: This attribute can be applied if a physical barrier or a median divides the traffic flow.

Please Note: If a road is split into two one-way segments, then the divider attribute should be set as ‘No Divider’, since the split implies the existence of the divider.

Splitting the Road :-

1. When a physical divider separates the lanes of the road and each side of the road is one way, split the roads.
2. Roads divided by Legal dividers should be drawn as a single road. These should *not* be split as two one-way roads.
3. When a physical barrier or painted median prevents vehicles from making a left/right turn to reach a destination/address directly, split the roads as two one-ways.
4. When a split road physical divider ends at an intersection, the split should be closed on the far side of the intersection. This ensures the best routing and directions will be given for the road.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that, a painted median mimics a physical median, and is usually a set of widely spaced lines (approximately vehicle width) which should not be crossed by vehicles according to local laws. Painted medians may include hash marks in the space between the lines.

[Troy G]

"Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that, a painted median mimics a physical median, and is usually a set of widely spaced lines (approximately vehicle width) which should not be crossed by vehicles according to local laws. Painted median

s may include hash marks in the space between the lines."


This is the only issue I have with what you have said, because this is not always the case. Quite often these panted mediums are just there to widen the road at an intersection to add turning lanes. These painted line can be crossed to enter & exit businesses(that's the whole point of NOT adding a real physical medium so these areas can still be driven across).

Also quite often these divided road segments are being added incorrectly to roads with a shared turn lane(suicide lane). Dividing these segments of road goes completely against the point of the shared turn lane & adversely effects navigation. These shared lanes are quite often painted EXACTLY how you describe to only indicate your not suppose to drive the entire length of the road in this lane.

Adding road divisions for these painted separations is a bad practice & makes the road render on the map inaccurately & does effect accurate navigation.  These edits are completely unnecessary & waste time. I really find it odd that your post seems to be defending this practice.

[Chaitanya Sri]

@Troy - I agree. I should have re-iterated what I mentioned in Point 3 of Splitting the Road: Only when a physical barrier or painted median prevents vehicles from making a left/right turn to reach a destination/address directly, split the roads as two one-ways.

[Will / NeoPhoenixTE]

I think this reply that clarifies when to split roads would make an excellent addition to the help files, or at least the GMM wiki. It just cleared up another topic I made a few weeks back about splitting roads.

[Nathan Williams]

Thank you for the clarification!

There still is an undefined situation: you have mentioned lines which prohibit turns across traffic and no lines at all in your list above, but not lines which do not legally prevent turns (i.e. standard double-yellow lines in North America).  

Given the entire context, I assume this means that your standard two-lane two-way road with painted double lines down the center should be given the attribute of "No Divider."  If this is the case, I strongly suggest you replace the image used to illustrate the "Legal Divider" attribute on this page, as it depicts none other than those ubiquitous double-yellows.

[D C]

@Chaitanya Sri:

     On July 19th Praneeth told us that roads should not be split unless the physical/legal divider was 100 meters or longer.  Personally, I think we should make that number even higher.  Dual carriageways cause so many problems, especially on high priority roads, that we should minimize their use.  The worst offenders are high volume city streets (usually four lanes) that are intermittently divided by medians that only serve to protect left turn lanes.  Some want to leave these as single roads, others want to go back and forth between single and dual roads, and yet others want to have continuous dual roads.

Under "Splitting the Road", #2 and #3 are in conflict with each other, unless you are somehow making a distinction between "Legal Divider" and "Painted Median" (both of which restrict turns, according to your definitions).  I also want to echo Nathan's observations about the true definition of "Legal Divider" and how it is represented in the Help Articles.

I disagree with #4.  Please explain how routing and directions are better served that way than by closing the split directly at the intersection.

This discussion has been going on for quite a while.  Here are some of the other threads that address this topic:

     "Physical divider" vs 2 1-way roads?

     editing a road shown as a divided route (but isn't)

     To split or not to split, that is the question..

     Improperly Divided Roads

Thank you for your contribution. We all greatly value the guidance we received from all of the Official Map Maker Guides.  However, I would like to request clearer (and consistent) definitions, both here in the forum AND on Map Maker Help.  

[Nathan Williams]

I believe the reason for #4 is to generate clean driving directions and navigation on GPS devices.  From what I understand, performing the split right at the intersection or after it can to produce odd instructions - extra "slight left," "slight right," "merge," and "fork" steps - that are confusing and don't really reflect reality.

[Chaitanya Sri]

Hi all,

@Willy - The feedback about the changes has been conveyed to the reviewer.

@ Nathan - Yes, I agree.The roads which do restrict the turns with painted double lines, need to be given the attribute 'Legal Divider' and roads which do not restrict the turns take the 'No Divider' option. Hope that addresses your concern.

@ DC - The whole concept of using the divider option is for better routing & aesthetics.
For example, the driver who wants to reach a business on the other side of the road with a physical divider or painted median having turn restriction will be better routed to turn at the intersection as it closely resembles what is experienced while driving.
Also, a physical barrier or a painted median is likely to prevent access to addresses. A painted median is not just a painted line & it mimics a physical island in width & function like this one.
And yes as Nathan rightly pointed out, the directions would be refined if the splitting is not stopped at the intersection.

[Nathan Williams]

@Chaitanya Sri: Yes, it does.  I feel I am now crystal clear on when and where to use the divider attributes.

Although, please do check into replacing that image in the help files, as it is very misleading.  Perhaps this one would work better:

This is a screenshot from Google earth, so it's already your image. :)

[canada_mapmaker]

I agree Gary...and likewise I wish people who have never been to Canada would keep their hands off Canada. I steer clear of touching most of the United States because I have been to very little of it.

I have had problems with the yellow line issue myself, but here's a revelation that might be shocking to some Google employees.

Ready for it?

In the Province of Ontario, it is perfectly legal to turn left across yellow lines, unless there are signs saying that you cannot. If there are no signs, it is assumed that a left turn is legal.

[Wthrwyz]

@canada_mapmaker: That is how it is in most of the US as well, and I believe the rest of Canada.  Due to the fact that this is different from most of the rest of the world and that the help files weren't very explicit, it is a concept that took months for us to come to an understanding with the GR's on.

The instructions they currently have in the help guide are much better than they used to be.  They now explain that in the US, a double-yellow usually does not count as a divider even though in most of the rest of the world it does.  Previously, they just showed a picture of a double-yellow line underneath the "legal divider" heading, which is what led to so much confusion in the US.  We would mark roads with the "legal divider" attribute, and then the GRs would either a) deny the edits based on the satellite image, or b) go through and divide the route if it did somehow get approved.  It seems that if you tack any sort of divider attribute to a road segment longer than a few meters (supposedly 100 but I've seen shorter get "fixed"), it tosses up all sorts of "please divide me" flags at Google HQ.

My guess is that the current wording was drafted before Canada was opened up to editing.  I would suggest that Google update the current text to indicate that this applies to North America in general, not just the US.

I also suggest Google stop splitting everything with a divider attribute.  I'd estimate that nine times out of ten, splitting a segment of less than a kilometer in length creates more problems than it solves.  But then, I've been making that suggestion for months and it has thus far fallen upon deaf ears.

[Chaitanya Sri]

Hi all,

@ canada_mapmaker - Please provide us links to the features where you think an incorrect review occurred. So that we can work on it.
@ Wthrwyz - Yes, I have forwarded your concern about unnecessary splitting of roads to the team and please do share with us links where you think incorrect review or incorrect change happened as and when you come across them.

Thanks,
Chaitanya

[JDScott]

Here is an opposite case. Here is a newly divided road that is not correct in satellite view imagery, as the concrete is barely dry. It has been zealously undivided by an hand full of Googlers.  The local project name is Broadway Avenue Improvement Project with published construction plans and construction progress photos. The Plans are a high Resolution PDF file; so you will have to zoom and scroll a lot to get the details - It is all in there. 7th street and west is done. East of 7th to 2nd Street will be divided next season (spring 2012).

Here is BRIEF list of the several issues created, The number of edits to accomplish this was in the hundreds.

• West Broadway (West half of whole route) from Interstate 35 east ward to 7th Street NW was divided; just completed in late October of this year.
• The other half will be divided in the spring (2012).
• I divided West Broadway from I-35 eastward to the Roundabout at US-61 to reflect the new medians and dozens of turn restrictions.
• It took me weeks to divide this and only hours for 4 - 5 Googlers to break. They did not read the copious note in history.
• Almost all of the businesses along here no longer have access to the opposite carriageway - re. medians
• Please  select some segments and dig through the history especially near I-35 and 12th Street SW Scroll through history (+more>> at the bottom)
• Upgraded 12th Street to minor artery because it now joined two city entrance/exit paths West Broadway and 11th Avenue SW(aka county road 83)
• Turn lane from West Broadway east bound to 12th street no longer exists. This interchange has been rebuilt completely
• I removed it - it is back.  I have removed this twice.
• Please scroll down and read the history.
• The north end of 12th Street SW ( same area) at the approach to West Broadway has a new median blocking access to the "Holiday Gas Station" on the west side
• I split this Carriageway section of 12th Street   -   it has been un-split    - I fixed this twice. Please see the history (and click More>> at the bottom)
• Roundabout at the east end of West Broadway with approach medians on all four directions.
• actually the edits to US-61, away from the roundabout, are mostly improvements (removed the split carriageways)
• The approaches to the circle are divided with 1 block long medians to enable no stop when entering the roundabout. 
• Googlers removed these approach splits thereby breaking the directions. THIS IS IN SATELLITE VIEW - they still broke it.
• Centennial Drive is blocked by the new median in West Broadway at the roundabout.
• Un-splitting West Broadway broke this.  
• Again read the history it is all there plain to see
• East of the roundabout connects to another roundabout - it is a mess now

[canada_mapmaker]

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?ll=42.962519,-81.295497&spn=0.001062,0.002291&t=h&z=19&lyt=large_map&hyaw=350.4970463603364

It is the divided section here I am trying to get rid of.

[canada_mapmaker]

Now I've got reviewers telling me to undo edits involving divided sections. Example:

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?iwloc=0_0&gw=55&editids=lyRm_LEVrWMZ_0tcqU&dtab=overview&ll=43.138083,-80.268829&spn=0.000529,0.001145&t=h&z=20&lyt=large_map&hyaw=35.27198946675785

Nick C., which is it? Are we dividing short sections of road or aren't we? You Google Reviewers have got to get on the same page, because right about now I am rapidly losing trust in any of you.