BTW, new information has come from staff saying segments should not be 5 m or shorter. I have modified the segments you linked, davielde, to make the bit between the ends of the U turn and Jackson Plaza street 6 m long.

MeridianHills, in the case you linked, it depends whether traffic can turn left into the parking lot from NB Allisonville or not. If not, just connecting the "ramp" at the entrance will suffice. If so, a two-segment solution will be desirable. I think this is what davielde explained already,

Those are too early. The answer lies in the middle, I believe.

The best place to put it is at the point where the solid line begins. Putting it at the very beginning of the turn lane is too early an instruction. You don't want the instruction to leave off the screen before you've actually made that movement.

On it. You may wish to select the previous segment of Hall Rd when making the screenshots to imply the dogleg left turn instruction.

--
I was actually midway through adding to my last post, so I'll put it here instead:

For simplicity, some will make the turn around segment more or less straight sort of like here, though some take it to a further extreme. The idea is to keep it simple where there's no chance that someone will be instructed to take a dangerous maneuver — like from that parking lot road on the Hall Rd example. Keeping it simple makes editing easier.

I subscribed to this for a little while, but I think it's more important to have accurate navigational instructions. Instructions on the mostly-straight-across ones are too late to be accurate; likewise, those on Hall are too early to be accurate.

The best place for the instruction is at the start of the solid white line; depending on the state, crossing that line is either unlawful or discouraged. That's where the instruction becomes crucial; after that, it's okay if the instruction disappears from the screen after that, but not before. We also don't want to encourage people to cross it.

Good work. I'd include 3 more words, "as close to the start of the solid white line as possible", to be more accurate.

Using the names of the roads served gives the driver a more meaningful instruction ahead of time. So if you're driving, say, west on Metro Pkwy and need to go south on Dequindre, instead of just seeing "← 4.3 mi | Median Crossover", you see "← 4.3 mi | to Metro Pkwy E / to Dequindre Rd S".

Much more useful. It also follows the general rules for ramp naming — "follow the big green sign".

The resolution of this issue is found at the bottom of the first post of this thread. Draft Wiki guidance can be found here.

1.

I agree with removing the "proper signage" requirement for MUTIs in Michigan. Not all areas use the same type of signage, though. What works for Michigan will not work for Michigan lefts in Louisiana, for instance.

As for the naming of non-MUTI turnarounds, your understanding of the situation is incomplete. Naming them won't change anything, it'll still say "Turn left on..." as long as you are using the Street type. Use of the Ramp type for these is not proper and against the national standard. My suggestion is to settle on a uniform name for these, such as "Turnaround". In Louisiana we use "U turn" because many of them are signed as such.

2.

An MUTI comprises two 90° turns. The proper instruction for each of these turns is "Turn." The first instruction does not signify your entering into the lane, it signifies the first 90° motion you make. The guidance would be the same as with any other 90° turn.



"Stay to the left, then turn left" has a different meaning in Waze – get into a turn lane and then actually do the turn. Using such an instruction set in an MUTI would be misleading.



3.

Agreed regarding MUTIs (but already covered by the standard), not so much about standard turnarounds. But there isn't much you can do to a standard turnaround when the main road is locked, anyway, except renaming and geometry.

falco_sparverius wrote:Don't forget that we are in a right-hand traffic locale - I think this extends to mean that we give driving instructions under the assumption that the driver is travelling in the right-hand lane. Although there is no 'exit left' instruction (under a false assumption that you cannot have left-handed exits in a right-handed locale) 'keep left' is there in it's place, for a reason. I believe this is because the "keep left" instruction provides valuable lane-changing instruction in line with the intent of the MUTI's turn lane that "turn left" does not. Dedicated turn lanes exist to relieve congestion, similar to ramps guiding traffic away from the main road

Proposal: the determination for keep vs. turn left should be based on the road configuration, not solely on status as a MUTI or crossover.

An example of issue with two-turn MUTIs:

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but, you don't get a "keep left" instruction before any other 90° left-hand turn, why would you get one here? In other words, if you hear "In half a mile, turn left," and you're in the right lane, you're going to get into the left lane, just as you would if you heard "In half a mile, stay to the left." There's no difference. I don't understand the "issue" with the screenshot you posted.

I agree that the determination for keep vs. turn should depend on the road configuration, but the road configuration at just about every MUTI and turnaround I've been on in Michigan has been that of a mostly-straight median with near-90° turns at both ends.

I am new to WAZE, but I was wondering how this was resolved (if it was resolved) as I am doing some map editing in the Rochester, Rochester Hills, Troy, areas. And not knowing all the history of this issue, I was wondering why we aren't calling them what they are: "median crossovers"? That would tell drivers that the turn will not be at the intersection, but at a median crossover.

I like this discussion because I don't have these example nearby but it is good to know about these type or scenarios. I certainly agree that if the routing instruction was to go to Hall St when you were actually needing to route onto Van Dyke, I can see not being familiar with the area, like myself, I would be pondering why it is telling me to route onto the road I am already on. Since I can't really field test this myself, I'll do what I can to help support the direction this needs to go.

Reading back through the thread when this standard was drafted, a couple things stood out:

1.) Was naming inheritance a "thing" back when the initial standard was drafted? I don't see a mention of it, and I would think it would be a consideration in keeping non-MUTI crossovers unnamed. If indeed this feature was added after this standard was considered, that alone should warrant us revisiting this.

2.) Was the double-left turn requirement based on any other factors besides it being the long standing practice at the time?