Improperly Divided Roads

[Cory]

I was already sick of seeing so many improperly (unecessarily) divided roads out there, and then review Srujana decides to come mess up an area I had just about gotten all cleaned up.

For some reason, when some of these reviewers see some yellow hashes on the ground, they think the road has to be divided.  The problem is that these yellow hashes are sometimes used when the road widens to create a middle turn lane (suicide lane).  Now, the road is divided and the implication is that you can only make a left turn at the mapped out connectors.

What's worse is the imagery is out of date!  The imagery shows a new cross road, but the paint hasn't been updated to reflect this cross road.  Plus, I was in the middle of some smaller edits, and so all of the sudden some roads get shifted 30 feet and now it appears Srujana is moving them back, but attention to detail is not a strong point for Google Reviewers.

Here's one of the edits, but the link above should show you the area.

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x88f3fad48fae5abb:0x7035db052299c5ec

[Nathan Williams]

Totally agree, Cory.  I am of the opinion that the road should only be shown divided if it is a true dual-carriageway with at least partial control of access.  GMM provides the "Physical barrier" attribute which I feel should be used for city streets with a concrete or narrow grassy median to control cross traffic - the parallel one-way segments are overkill for such situations, since it implies a much higher-grade (and speed) roadway.  Not to mention that the parallel one-way roads make intersections hideously complex and a real pain in the rear to edit because now the amount of work is doubled or even quadrupled depending on the configuration of the intersection.

The bottom line is that indicating a divided roadway is incorrect and counterproductive in the example you give.  As you mention - it will force the direction finder to indicate you must go to the next intersection and make a U-turn when this is, in fact, not necessary (and probably illegal).

[Mara Ww]

How about this mess!
 I even got a reviewer to help me start correcting it and  both Harden St. and Blossom St for Columbia. SC now can't be called up on Mapmaker (Harden somewhere else can)..  The Divider on Harden is 6 inches high and ranges from 10 inches wide to 18 inches wide where the plants are.  Now what do I do?
http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=10&ll=33.997556,-81.015207&spn=0.00055,0.001061&z=20&vpid=1310415417578&hl=en  
                                                                    Mara

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:43 PM, General Map Maker on behalf of Nathan Williams <google-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Totally agree, Cory.  I am of the opinion that the road should only be shown divided if it is a true dual-carriageway with at least partial control of access.  GMM provides the "Physical barrier" attribute which I feel should be used for city streets with a concrete or narrow grassy median to control cross traffic - the parallel one-way segments are overkill for such situations, since it implies a much higher-grade (and speed) roadway.  Not to mention that the parallel one-way roads make intersections hideously complex and a real pain in the rear to edit because now the amount of work is doubled or even quadrupled depending on the configuration of the intersection.

The bottom line is that indicating a divided roadway is incorrect and counterproductive in the example you give.  As you mention - it will force the direction finder to indicate you must go to the next intersection and make a U-turn when this is, in fact, not necessary (and probably illegal).

--
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! :-)

[Mara Ww]

And how about this for Harden St.(read the road name below the POI)
http://www.google.com/mapmaker?hl=en&q=Harden+St.+St.,Columbia,SC&gw=39&ll=34.008805,-81.024854&spn=0.00055,0.001061&z=20&vpid=1310417964011&t=h&iwloc=0_0&fid=9869820217536757981:17770661914249015683
 
And this for Blossom St..  I reported these to Submit Feedback Sunday morning.
http://www.google.com/mapmaker?hl=en&q=Blossom+St.,+Columbia,SC&gw=30&ll=33.992734,-81.012441&spn=0.017613,0.033946&z=15&vpid=1310418446725

And I can't get into General Mapmaker to post there.

                                                                   Mara

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:43 PM, General Map Maker on behalf of Nathan Williams <google-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Totally agree, Cory.  I am of the opinion that the road should only be shown divided if it is a true dual-carriageway with at least partial control of access.  GMM provides the "Physical barrier" attribute which I feel should be used for city streets with a concrete or narrow grassy median to control cross traffic - the parallel one-way segments are overkill for such situations, since it implies a much higher-grade (and speed) roadway.  Not to mention that the parallel one-way roads make intersections hideously complex and a real pain in the rear to edit because now the amount of work is doubled or even quadrupled depending on the configuration of the intersection.

The bottom line is that indicating a divided roadway is incorrect and counterproductive in the example you give.  As you mention - it will force the direction finder to indicate you must go to the next intersection and make a U-turn when this is, in fact, not necessary (and probably illegal).

[Willy Hrachovina]

I guess what might need to happen is a disambiguation of what they want roads to be in the event of a raised concrete median for divided local roads in urban areas. I am not talking about freeways or anything like that, but with most of the local highways in my area having already been drawn with two sets of one-way lanes, I feel like it will be hard to reverse that. I have personally never seen an occasion where this has caused a problem with u-turns when it is not necessary, though I can understand the argument that it makes intersections super complex.

However I do agree when there is a center turn lane, like the original poster has written about, there should not be two sets of parallel lanes. I am sure that will be a complicated mess to clean up, but I have seen that as well and have chosen to leave it for now until I am ready to tackle that beast.

One final question, then I will leave this alone. When there is something like one travel lane in each direction, as well as a center turn lane, should that be indicated as "3" lanes when the roadway is drawn properly? I have never seen the lanes indicated properly on a stretch of roadway like this, and wanted to make sure I am editing it properly.

[Nathan Williams]

My instinct would be to mark it as 2 lanes because there are only 2 actual travel lanes, but that's just a gut reaction and not any sort of educated response.

[KalebsDad78]

I don't see any need for the 'third lane' or turn lane.  It would not have any effect on directions and would just clutter the map, and has Nathan Williams said, if, in the future, they do construct the raised medians, segments would then have to be deleted.

[Mara Ww]

As I understand it, and I've talked to reviewers, turn lanes don't count except in the description (or whatever it is now) especially left turn only lanes and no left turn restrictions.  That can become important in editing the intersections.  And, certainly, in the driving instructions.

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:23 PM, General Map Maker on behalf of KalebsDad78 <google-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I don't see any need for the 'third lane' or turn lane.  It would not have any effect on directions and would just clutter the map, and has Nathan Williams said, if, in the future, they do construct the raised medians, segments would then have to be deleted.

--

[Cory]

If its a continous turn lane for both directions (suicide lane) that runs a significant portion of the road , then I've been counting it in the attributes.  If its just a turn lane for a single segment I don't count it.  If its a turn lane with sections for specific turns (for only one direction), then I don't count it.  If the attributes have been set and someone else didn't count the suicide lane, I don't change it though.

[Cory]

OK, so I guess I was looking for trouble and decided to mark a road as "physical barrier", and this is the response I got:

Comment 1 hours 1 mins ago by Google Reviewer Lclay
Hi there Cory, thanks for your tremendous effort in Map maker! I see you'd like to record the physical divider on this stretch of road. It looks like this road should be broken up into segments of physical divider to allow the route finding software to permit people to turn in the turn segments. If it is not already segmented, you can undo your edit by selecting “undo” from below the “my edits” tab, then create stub roads which will create intersections. Then you can apply the physical divider segment to individual segments. Are you up for it?

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?hl=en&gw=55&ll=32.549915,-83.677497&spn=0.003242,0.003701&z=18&t=h&iwloc=2_0&editids=KuEL5K3hOfu8zRT0QD

It seems as though reviewers are pushed to implement this method rather than using the divider attribute.  Is it safe to assume this is because not enough people are setting the turn restrictions and a divided map view is more obvious to a user?

From a routing perspective, the system knows that you can't make a left turn on a road with a physical divider attribute, and should route you to the next crossroad to make a u-turn.  U-turn only areas can be marked with an intersection (without a crossroad).

What do you think their motivation is for splitting roads that run perfectly parallel?  As a bit of trivia, the split portion of the road here was formerly a drag strip.

In this case the median is just a dirt segment level with the road in most places and doesn't actually prevent left turns as you can see from the imagery.

[Mara Ww]

I approved it (I've been there) and it published before I could rate lcly's? review.

--

[Nathan Williams]

I approved it, whatever good that will do.  I think my comments say it all.

[Chaitanya Sri]

Hello All,

Thank you all for providing the instances of these concerns. They will be looked into & the reviewers in question will be given the necessary feedback.
@Cory: Appreciate you for initiating the thread.

Regards,
Chaitanya
 

[Cory]

Another one that they can't leave alone!

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x88f3e6cfa017d67f:0x92b633207f74a094

This small section was less than 50m long and looked dumb divided.  The only reason there is any yellow is because the road narrows at this point.  I spent hours removing the division, noting what I was doing most of the way through, and only had two more road segments to correct.  Then along comes Kiran and redraws the split even WORSE than before.

WHY do reviewers see this and feel compelled to split a road?  Do they get paid extra for this?

[Willy Hrachovina]

I cannot hammer the point home to any reviewer that yellow in the road does not indicate a physical barrier that merits dividing the road. I mean even in the help pages it says that with a picture! How clearer could it be? I think this is a problem that would be present even if we had reviewers in the U.S. because the reviewers from other countries/continents would be compelled to start undoing things.

[Serge]

@Willy - roads on the map should not have a photographic precision. Map - a schematic symbols only! Not only a physical barrier, but the lanes is also not displayed on the maps. 

About divider:

Select the type of divider that exists on this road, if any. A divider separates the flow of traffic on roads supporting bidirectional traffic and indicates if the non-driving side of the road is accessible.

No divider: No barrier or paint line

Divider present: Physical barrier or a painted line divider

Legal divider: Divided specifically with solid painted lines of appropriate (usually yellow) color

Physical divider: Divided specifically with physical barriers or a median

When the road is wide and has a substantial physical barrier, its best drawn as two separate one-way roads to help generate accurate directions and turn restrictions.

Source - Map Maker Help

[mara]

Yes Serge,
   Most of us are past the basics.  Could you expand your explanation of 'divider present' versus 'legal divider' and under what circumstances to choose one over the other.
   Also, expand your explanation of 'physical divider' versus 'substantial physical divider' and, perhaps,cite materials used, size (differentiating,length,width,and height) and any other criteria used in determining which to use.  This is where there is some disagreement.

[IndianaRed]

Here's another one, and its just for a turn lane! There was nothing wrong with this road before this anonymous editor came along. Its a major artery so I know its not a normal user. What's the deal with the editor not being identified?

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x886b4b47dc7c9d63:0x6b1cee1dd0eb391b

Whoever made the edit also appears to work in km/h, since 64.4 km/h = 40 mph, the correct speed.

[I MAP]

Try correcting it. Lets see what happens

[Serge]

@mara Herewith my vision for this issue:

'Divider present' versus 'Legal divider': Often on the satellite image, we see that there is divider on the road, but we are not sure if it is a legal divider (carriageway marking) or a physical divider. In this case, I choose 'Divider present'.

'Physical divider' versus 'Substantial physical divider': If the road is divided by a concrete or steel divider, it is a 'Physical divider'. If the road is divided by central refuge (street curb - lawn - street curb, 1m and more wide), its best drawn as two separate one-way roads.

Regards,

Sergey

[djboge]

Here's another example that was done just recently - initially it was just a regular intersection, which was straightforward. Now it's kind of ugly.

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?hl=en&q=tmcc+reno&gw=30&ll=39.574163,-119.798287&spn=0.000963,0.002052&z=20&vpid=1312656016965&lyt=large_map&hyaw=146.72012494975172

[Serge]

@djboge: I agree with you. This segment is now drawn incorrectly IMHO. There should be a normal intersection.

[mara]

Thanks Serge,

   That's exactly what we have all been struggling with. 

   It makes a huge mess with a two lane each way road is turned into a one lane each way carriage way because of a six inch high by twelve inch wide concrete divider. Where two of these roads meet it creates bizarre intersections with imaginary plazas 

It was worse until I finally convinced Submit Feedback that Blossom Street was not a carriage way..  That little 'imaginary' plaza still keeps accumulating businesses that I have to move every so often

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=10&ll=33.997569,-81.015443&spn=0.000628,0.00131&z=20&vpid=1312699704352&hl=en&lyrs=3,4&lyt=large_map&hyaw=103.13

[Willy Hrachovina]

I have a similar problem with this intersection. The road is divided on down the road, but every time I try and fix stuff here, I run into the "needs to be reviewed" roadblock, and if and when it is approved it is immediately reverted back to its current form. I do not know a better way to fix this, and submitted feedback in GMM as well as reported a problem in Maps itself.

[Willy Hrachovina]

I have edited the intersection with the previous post. I got everything done except re-aligning intersections with the satellite imagery before hitting a "needs to be reviewed" roadblock. Hopefully this will hold this time.

[Cory]

I'd really like to start seeing Google set some guidelines on special cases to start with:

1) Turn lanes do not warrant a divided carriageway.

1b) Medians and lane marking used before and after a turn lane do not warrant a divided carriageway.

2) Yellow markings used when a road widens to an extra lane or narrows to fewer lanes do not warrant a divided carriageway.

They also need to crack down on how/where to merge divided carriageways.  A lot of these roads change from true divided carriageways to single carriageways at an intersection, but for some illogical reason, Google reviewers ALWAYS draw the connection point at some arbitrary point PAST the intersection.  I've even had them come back and CHANGE it to make the merge at some random spot rather than at the intersection.

I'll have to find some examples to post for those later.

[Willy Hrachovina]

I think the example here illustrates perfectly all the points in your message. I have tried to delete some of them but most have bad data do not let me because of bad data.

[Jeff]

Just saw one added in my neck of the woods tonight:

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x89d6cb43df93d093:0x6e0df0a1e3e38840

[I MAP]

it will take a lot of time for these suggestions to come into action

[Jeff]

And another one: http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x89d6cb4cd879d6bd:0x5d8cc79831496584

[djboge]

I wonder if what procedure or tool they use to "correct" these roads and divide them causes problems - I've tried to mess with roads in a few recently divided areas and get this message:

Bad data (Invalid Road Section Network) has been found in this area.

[Willy Hrachovina]

I can say this much, if the road in question is classified as a minor artery, local road, or terminal road, you should be able to correct most of the divided road problem yourself. I was able to solve most of the examples I posted here since they were in one of those three classifications, though some segments gave me trouble. For those I just went to Google Maps when the rendering on that side was updated, and reported a problem to get the other segments deleted rather quickly and had nothing reverted.  It should also let you modify the attributes for the sections that remain so you can change it to two-way.

Unfortunately if you are dealing with a major artery, national highway, or something like that, you will still have to deal with reviewers, and will likely still have to fight the uphill battle. However, for lower classified roads you should be able to get most of the way there, and get some help from the people in charge to do the rest, and not have to worry about reverted edits (mine have been up almost a week with nothing being undone as of yet).

[Cory]

Jeff, I see yours still aren't fixed.  I just saw THIS one today.

[Troy G]

Found one here, again this was only drawn this way because of the painted lines for the turn lane into a parking lot.  I reported this error & asked it this was the proper way to map then wouldn't the next block to the west look good with three lanes drawn in since it has a turning(suicide) lane? This is getting ridiculous.

http://goo.gl/gLhLl

[Willy Hrachovina]

I am kind of surprised that it needs approval, being that it is a minor artery. I have had to deal with a couple minor arteries that were like this but once they made the changes I never needed to get approval, making it easier and more likely to have the changes made and stick. I did approve it for you, and hope that it gets published.

[Troy G]

I noticed since the last update that quite a few things I could do (add, change, delete, approve) any trail or road upto minor artery doesn't always hold true. I think one time out of ten these things don't go pending.  kinda counter productive if you ask me.


Side Note: I found another one of these intersections about a block west of this one.

[Roginator]

Here's an even dumber one. I thought I had fixed this, but our old friend, Anonymous, must have changed it back

http://goo.gl/X3ew7

[djboge]

I would go in there and tear it all apart again, but I'm always afraid that one of the segments won't be deleteable (error serving this request) or some part of the edit will go into moderation and then the whole thing will be really screwed up.

[Wthrwyz]

No guts, no glory. Fixed. ;-p

[djboge]

You're a braver one than I! :D

[Wthrwyz]

I've dealt with the blasted "cannot serve request" error enough times now it no longer scares me.  'Tis but a speed bump on the road to mapping bliss. :D+

[Willy Hrachovina]

Here are a couple more that are giving me the "Cannot serve request" error:

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x89b38795e9ed53b5:0x4547eff2443e2b1

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x89b38795ae1c7903:0xe21ded171fe6976c

[Wthrwyz]

If you want me to try to un-divide it, I'll try.  I can't guarantee there won't be rendering errors though if you've already come across bugged segments.

[Willy Hrachovina]

I ended up getting to that point after deleting most of it, so I guess I will let it sit until the people at Google get a hold of it. I had it perfect a month or so ago but now it is back divided again. I generally go over to Google Maps and use "Report a Problem" to get them to delete it, as that generally works after a couple of days.

[Wthrwyz]

Works for me.  It's gotten to the point that about every 3rd intersection is bugged out now.  It's a bit ridiculous.