Restricted/private roads

[JWKilgore]

Is there a way to mark a road as restricted, private, or limited access? I found a few similar topics, but nothing directly related.

 - I live in a gated apartment complex; only residents and guests have access to the roads and parking lots. When I start Navigation from my actual address I get a notice that the starting segment is a "Restricted usage road". So I know this can be done.
 - I know of many roads that ARE roads, but are private with gates. For a specific example, my brother works at a reclaim-strip coal mine in Mississippi. As part of the mining process a large area was closed off to the public, including a few surface roads. Some of the roads still exist, but are not open to the public (locked gates block access). I would like to leave the road there because eventually it will be restored for public use. But it needs to be somehow marked as "Restricted" or "Private". Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be an option in Mapmaker. Marking it as "No Auto Traffic" would serve a similar purpose, but doesn't seem very accurate.

Is there a way for a common volunteer map editor to do this, or must I report an error and hope a higher-status editor fixes the problem?

[Saikrishna Arcot]

The closest thing that I know of available is setting the Priority of the road as Terminal. This will make sure that if a road is set as Terminal, then directions will use that road only if the Starting or Ending point is on the road or if you have to take that road.

[JWKilgore]

Dan, sorry for the delay, but here is a link to one of the roads:
http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x88606442bf968f95:0x8542d7b2428a9d9f

[Chaitanya Sri]

Hello,

Thanks for providing the link JWK. Saikrishna's guidance will hold good for the link you've provided. 

Although having an attribute, "Private/Restricted Area" sounds much better for these type of roads as pointed out by you. And, we did receive few feed backs on the similar issue & are working on it. Will let you know once the option is available.

Dan, I am concerned that some of the guidance from reviewers was not consistent & it would be really helpful if you can post back few links which might help us to resolve the confusion around it.
 

Thanks for your patience all !!

[statikuz]

I don't think they should be marked as No Auto Traffic. They are legit roads that do carry auto traffic - just not publicly accessible. Some sort of attribute indicating restricted access would be the ticket in this case. I think it would be obvious to people that the roads immediately around the White House wouldn't be accessible, but as far as parking lots within gated communities/complexes, I could see someone not knowing they were restricted. Anyway, I think the White House roads are properly categorized.

[Reddy BK]

Hi,

The issue here is marking the road in such a way that the road should have a restricted access indicating that it is a private road by usage. The one and the most simplest way out of this is by marking the road with the priority 'Terminal'. By doing just this all the issues you raised would be addressed.

Please read below the 'Terminal' road functionality defined on GMM,

Terminal Road: Does not support any level of public transportation; only for vehicles with privileges

Thanks,

~Reddy.

[Nathan Williams]

Then Google breaks its own rules, because they will mark every road that ends in a cul-de-sac as "terminal," regardless of whether they are public roads or not (which is actually correct based on the definition of the word "terminal").  It has been stated on these forums that "Terminal" is used for things other than strictly what the help documentation says.

I've pointed it out before in a review and I'll say it here again now - there is a huge disconnect between what is stated in the documentation, what is enforced by the moderation staff, and what the actual dictionary definitions are for much of the terminology in GMM.

 

[statikuz]

@Reddy - where did you find that definition of "terminal"?

In the User Guide > Priorities (http://goo.gl/45rY0) it says:

"Terminal road: A terminal road is typically an access road to a point of interest. It is often used for very small roads inside a neighborhood or the roads inside shopping centers and public promenades. Driving directions will route you onto a terminal road if your starting point or destination is located on it or another adjoining terminal road."

[Nathan Williams]

If you click on the question mark next to the label for the priority attribute while editing a road segment, you get that definition.

[statikuz]

@Nathan: ah I see, thanks! Chalk another one up for inconsistent documentation... :)

[Reddy BK]

@ Statikuz : lol :) 

@ Nathan : Thanks for helping out Statikuz find the terminology of a terminal road.

Thanks,

~Reddy.

[Chaitanya Sri]

Hi everyone,

@Dan, I agree with djboge - these should not be marked as 'No Auto Traffic' but, can be marked as 'Terminal' - as they only allow vehicles with privileges. Thanks Reddy BK for helping out.

@Nathan: Yes, there were couple of edits which marked the 'dead-end' roads as terminal roads but, those reviewers were given feedback about the same & it should be clear now.

Thanks All!
Chaitanya
 

[Nathan Williams]

@Chaitanya: So, what you are saying is that a road which ends in a cul-de-sac or dead end should not be marked terminal unless it is actually a private road?  Because if that is the case there are no "terminal" roads near me except driveways (which in my opinion should not even be mapped).

Please excuse my lack of comprehension skills here, but I'm trying to get it right the first time. :)

[Cory]

Would this be a good example for your question?

http://www.google.com/mapmaker?gw=39&fid=0x88f3e0a64eef84c9:0x971f6a388588729f

Why is the last segment of a Local road marked Terminal just because it ends in a cul-de-sac?

There seems to be three definitions of Terminal floating around that don't always align:

1) The end of a road / terminus

2) A road routed only if necessary to reach the terminal destination

3) Private Road (for vehicles with privileges)

There is no reason to mark a road as #1 because its obvious from map view, and it doesn't affect routing.

#2 makes the most sense in that its for roads that are signed "no thru traffic" where there are other (longer) routes that should be used instead.

#3 needs its own category or marking (some shouldn't even be mapped, but sometimes road changes status, or the privileged group is very large).

[Nathan Williams]

Perfect example, Cory.  As for the three definitions...

1. Totally agree here, except this is where you'll run into the mass of Google Reviewers who will tell you that the road should be terminal.  The other point I will make is that the dictionary definition of "terminal" would make this the only category which truly applies.
2. I believe that this is the intended use of the category based on the documentation given for it.  I.e. a road should be marked terminal if it is inappropriate - for whatever reason - for through traffic to be using it.  This is where Google Reviewers need to be reminded that the local editors probably know more than they do because it may not always be obvious from the satellite image that a road isn't intended to be a through street.
3. This is the primary shortcoming right now, especially if Google is going to insist on everything in the satellite image being represented somehow on the map.  There needs to be a way to indicate that a road is not only terminal, but completely off-limits to public traffic, so that the average user perusing the map doesn't try to take a Sunday drive through Farmer Joe's cow pasture.  Ideally these roads would stand out visually on the map, either in a different color or style, or have some sort of toggle in the user's settings as to whether they are shown.
   

[D C]

@Nathan Williams:

@Cory:

     I agree with both of you, especially your point #3 (Nathan).  It seems that the real issue isn't how we should mark them now, but convincing Google to add a new category for restricted/private roads.  And as you also mentioned, these roads need a new appearance in Maps, possibly with the word "private" actually shown as the street name (for unnamed streets) or right after it, maybe even in red type.

     A major problem with Maps is that no matter how precisely you indicate detailed information in Map Maker, what is displayed in Maps is generalized and vague.  The difference in symbology between Local and Terminal (that many have been arguing about here and on other threads) is really not that visible in Maps.  I doubt that most users can tell the difference between them.  And those that do probably assume that Terminal roads are slightly narrower than Local roads. Another big problem in Maps: NO legend!  Every map is supposed to have a legend to tell users what each symbol means.  If there was a legend, more symbols could be used without confusing users, including a symbol for "private".

     On a related topic, why is there no way to indicate gates across roads?  A gate is a strong indicator that a road is private.  Also, Maps will route drivers through closed gates (because it doesn't know that they are there), which will make users mad, because this is vital information, if you actually want to get to where you were going.  This is even more important that knowing toll roads/bridges, because those will at least allow you to get to your destination (slightly poorer).

[John]

All good ideas here.  There really needs to be an obvious, unmistakable designation of private property.  I can understand that mapping many private roads could actually have some value - if someone is visiting the owner, or if emergency personnel must respond to the property, for example, it could be good to know that certain access routes exist.  However, this must come with easy-to-use designations that make it clear to all parties involved that even though they're mapped, certain areas are private.

[Gary Cox]

I think that it is very important to distinguish between street hierarchy and legal access:

--Hierarchy, at least as far as transportation planners know it, is a sliding scale between more access and faster travel.  A freeway has less accessibility but higher speeds.  On the other end of the spectrum, a local street has lots of accessibility but low speeds.  The "terminal" setting in Google is essentially the lowest on the totem pole of this scale.

--Legal access, on the other hand, is a sliding scale between a being an enshrined public right-of-way (like public streets) and, on the extreme of the other end, a street on which essentially no access is allowed by anybody (such as in Chernobyl).  In between would be private property, and private property that allows public access.

It is true that we need a separate setting for private streets.  After all, a cul-de-sac is a terminal street, but is also a public right-of-way that requires no privileges to use.  Only having the terminal hierarchy setting affords no distinction between a public cul-de-sac and a driveway to an office -- even though everybody is allowed onto one, and only a some people are allowed on the other.

It is important, though, that a "private" setting not simply be added to the list of hierarchy items.  We need a separate field (dropdown list) for legal access.  I say this because although very low hierarchy streets are often private (such as driveways), and high hierarchy streets are usually public (like freeways), there are some situations that don't fit the mold.