Another policy issue - Road Dividers: Painted Lines vs. Botts' Dots

[Troy Tiscareno]

This is another issue that has been frustrating me recently.

I know and understand the policy on painted road dividers.  But in California, some other relatively snow-free states, and in Australia, painted dividers have been augmented or completely replaced with Botts' Dots, which are ceramic or plastic raised discs which are glued to the road surface.  They are available in yellow and white, and are used where you would otherwise use yellow or white reflective road divider paint.  The purpose is to provide a texture, giving both audible and tactile feedback when you drive on/over the dividing line.  They work great and are used extensively in California and other locations where there are no snow plows that would scrape them off.  They are often used in conjunction with Stimsonite raised reflectors.

These Botts' Dots are legally and functionally identical to painted road dividers, but when I mark a road as "Legal Divider" when Botts' Dots have been used instead of paint, most Google Reviewers are changing the attribute back to "No Divider" because the User Guide specifies painted dividers.  Even though the Botts Dots are plainly visible in both the overhead satellite view as well as the Street View, many reviewers can't make the leap to seeing Botts' Dots as equivalent to painted dividers.

I'd like to move that Botts' Dots are in fact officially considered equal to painted dividers.

(You can read more about Botts' Dots here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botts'_dots )

I would appreciate your input.

Thanks,

-Troy

[djboge]

They definitely should be equal to the typical painted dividers. 

Are they between the lanes?

Are they painted some color?

[Troy Tiscareno]

In some cases, the dots are glued on top of painted lines, but in many cases, only the dots are used.  The dots are either white (for separating same-direction traffic) or yellow (to separate opposite-direction traffic).

See the Wikipedia link for pics.

[mara]

Is that what those are called.  We have them in South Carolina too,  and and around Atlanta as well.

[IndianaRed]

Legal Divider, apparently, should only be used where the "legal divider" forbids traffic from crossing it (to turn left into a side road). Is that true for the dots?

From what we've heard from Google Reviewers, it is like a physical divider without an actual physical median.

[Nathan Williams]

They're used extensively in Texas as well, especially in construction areas or places where the traffic pattern is expected to change in the (relatively) near future because they're easier (and cheaper) to pop off and re-glue down in a different configuration than it is to re-paint lines.  As Troy said, they're used all over the South and Southwest where snow plows are unlikely to scrape them up.  In fact, the only southern state I've been in that doesn't seem to use them regularly is Florida.

Personally, I can't stand them because I find them difficult to see and annoying to drive over when changing lanes, but that's just me.

[Nels]

Hey Troy,

This is an extremely interesting and well thought out proposal. Thank you for making us aware of this concern, we will investigate it.

-Nels 

[Worm]

I think the intent of the divider is something like a jersey wall or some sort of physical barrier that prevents crossing traffic. These dots only represent a border that you should not cross. It is not like a guardrail or even a pole and wire type separator.

So basically the original intent of divider is 'very hard to cross' (nothing is impossible) compared to the dots that can be ran over.

We get them here in the DC area sometimes... Then the contractor realizes they need to put something else down after the snow plow comes through and the melted snow has them all over the place and in people yards.

[David Nesting]

(Oops, I think I sent this directly to the author instead of back to the Group.)

On Thursday, September 1, 2011 12:11:36 PM UTC-7, Worm wrote:

I think the intent of the divider is something like a jersey wall or some sort of physical barrier that prevents crossing traffic. These dots only represent a border that you should not cross. It is not like a guardrail or even a pole and wire type separator.

Both dots and paint are just markings.  It's possible to cross a line of dots just as easily a line of paint.  But if the markings are intended to legally prohibit crossing, then regardless of whether it's dots or paint, we should not be instructing our users to cross that legal divider, and so that should be reflected on the map.  The allowed values for this field include both physical and legal dividers.

David 

[Troy Tiscareno]

On Thursday, September 1, 2011 12:26:24 PM UTC-7, David Nesting wrote:

Both dots and paint are just markings.  It's possible to cross a line of dots just as easily a line of paint.  But if the markings are intended to legally prohibit crossing, then regardless of whether it's dots or paint, we should not be instructing our users to cross that legal divider, and so that should be reflected on the map.  The allowed values for this field include both physical and legal dividers.

David 

 Exactly right.  Paint is already, correctly, considered a LEGAL divider, and is supposed to be marked as such per the Map Maker User's Guide.  Botts' Dots are also LEGAL dividers in many states and countries, and should be seen as identical/interchangable with painted dividers.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Any updates to your investigation?  I'm continuing to have edits modified by Google Reviewers to remove the "legal divider" attribute when Botts' dots are used instead of paint.

[Nels]

Hi Troy!

We're trying to compile several issues into one large update, and this policy is one of those issues! In the mean time, make sure to fully explain your reasoning for the divider attribute being present while making edits, this should help remedy the push-back you might be getting from the review team. In this case, explain to them that your local knowledge indicates that there are physical barriers (botts dots), that can be seen in street-view, and that this is guiding your decision to include a physical barrier.

Thanks for keeping up to date on this issue!

-Nels

[djboge]

> explain to them that your local knowledge indicates that there are physical barriers

> this is guiding your decision to include a physical barrier.

But they're not physical dividers... He's using the "Legal divider" value for the "Divider" attribute, which is correct, they're equivalent to painted lines.

Just wanted to clarify that and make sure everyone is on the same page.

[Nels]

Ah!

Good point Djboge, that's what I meant.

Simply making sure you explain the situation fully to the reviewer (highlighting local knowledge) is what I'm trying to get at :)

-Nels

[djboge]

Haha yeah, I knew you knew what you meant, but I could see a reviewer, after being pointed to this post or something, being confused over physical/legal. It's those types of semantics that can cause confusion, especially with non-native speakers, so its good to be (painfully so, in some cases) clear.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Thanks for the update, Nels.  Glad to hear that there is an update forthcoming.

And thanks to the rest of you for your support!  Hopefully, my feeble efforts are helping the rest of you too.

-Troy

[davdaven]

The help window for dividers has the following introduction:

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.

The dependent clause of the second sentence is key. A "divider" prevents you from legally or physically crossing to the other side, such as to turn left, because it is inaccessible. Therefore, unless the painted lines or Botts Dots are arranged in such a manner as to legally prohibit those left turns, they should not be marked as legal dividers.

See the fourth diagram at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traffic_lanes.htm for an example of a legal divider.

[Troy Tiscareno]

I just read through the new section on Dividers, and it is MUCH more clear and better defined than before, and, yes, the Botts' Dots are there!

Thanks Google folks!

[Nels]

I was just about the dig for this thread to tell you it has been updated Troy!

Happy to have some more clarity on this issue. 

-Nels