It does automatically remove the first “to” if there’s nothing else before it. That’s the principle under which entrance ramps are named, like “to I-75 S”; it’ll say “Turn right, at I-75 South.” Because “Turn right, at to I-75 South” would sound ridiculous.
I think the standard currently in the Wiki for unnumbered exits is “Exit to Clearview Pkwy”, but I do agree, “Exit: Clearview Pkwy” is better because it allows for the difference between that and “Exit: to US-61”.
Ah, I didn’t think about the entrance ramps. Do we have a Wiki article that details the different wording for turns? I think we should have one, even if it’s just part of another article. Basically something that not only explains when you’ll see Exit right vs. Keep right vs. Turn right, but also the wording used for TTS. It seems clear to a veteran editor, but I am sure it isn’t so clear to a new editor. I know there’s a small detail commenting on Exit right vs. Keep right, but it doesn’t comment on turns and doesn’t tell you the wording. I think being able to see how the TTS is going to read the instruction can be valuable when deciding on how to best word a ramp. Just a thought.
It may be mentioned in the junction style guide.
I think it’s that any ramp, street, or primary street coming at a less-than-45º angle from a minor or major highway or a freeway will say “exit right”. Any segment coming at a less-than-45º from a street or primary street will say “stay to the right”, never “exit”, as will any minor, major, or freeway segment which is the same type as the street you’re coming from.
I’m not sure if a lesser highway coming at less than 45º from a greater highway (e.g., minor highway coming from major highway) will give “exit” or “stay to the”; I think it’s the latter.
If it’s to the left, it’s always “stay to the left”; there’s no “exit left” currently.
Any segment coming at a more-than-45º angle from anything will be “turn right”.
At any rate, “at” takes the place of “to” in every case. A segment labeled “to I-75 S” would say “Turn right, at I-75 South” just like it would say “Exit right, at I-75 South.” and “Stay to the right, at I-75 South”.
Thanks. I didn’t realize they all said “at”. I almost never have audio on except for alerts, so I haven’t learned all of the TTS verbage yet. 
I’m starting to set named Michigan Left turnarounds as “ramp” type.
Rationale:
Yes, it’s against the specific letter of the rules, but so are jughandles. An exception was made for them by the NJ community; the MI community can make an exception for these as well.
I’m okay with this, but you’ll want to make sure that every one of these has angles greater than 45 degrees. We don’t want people getting “Stay to the left” instructions (or “Exit left” whenever that is added to Waze). With ramps, that’s a concern.
Yes, absolutely. That’s the general consensus among editors for turnarounds in general, as far as I can tell. It will be included in the Michigan left guidelines when they’re committed to the Wiki.
While it goes against the grain for me to see these Mich Lefts becoming Ramp types, I clearly see the need. In the past, many were already set as Ramps. I had changed many of them to streets some time ago.
I also brought up the Mich Left issue some time ago in the forums, and it is good to see some movement on a resolution.
My recommendations to sketch (as he is leading this change) are:
Otherwise we will be fighting a constant battle with editors changing them back and forth, based on current information in the Wiki for the U.S.
The NFC adoption in Mich has the same issue already. Areas are being changed back and forth, and I’ve received PMs from editors on both sides of the issue complaining about road classification changes.
Even if there is not a consensus yet on the Mich Left guidelines, we need to make it clear in the resources that this is being considered and tested in WME.
I’m sure my old edits of the Mich Lefts did NOT account for connection angles.
Am I correct to clarify that:
Shouldn’t we also be appending directional letters to the actual main roads?
Here is what the WME Route Tester reports for sketch’s example above:
First turn is 35 degrees.
Second turn is 31 degrees.
Actually I’ve been doing two “turn left” instructions. It’s consistent with Jason’s and my U turn practice here, and although there is a turn lane, you’re still making a 90° turn.
I haven’t added to the wiki but I will. I’ve been locking every one to L5 for the time being.
As for naming directions on split roads, I’ve only been doing that on freeways and numbered highways (which are named as numbered highways on the Waze map). Otherwise, I fear it’ll confuse address search.
I had a dream last night that Waze implemented a shield selection tool. Alas, it was all a dream.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Ahh yes… I suppose adding the direction could be problematic. Didn’t think that through!
So then in the example above, why did the route tester report show just one “turn left” instruction.
Also could you do me a favor? Could you edit (and lvl 5 lock) this PL to conform to your suggestions? I will be traveling there next Thursday and would like to field test it:
https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=6&lat=42.28857&lon=-83.83875&layers=TBFTFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTFTTTTFT&segments=61384800&env=usa
Do dreams ever come true?
In order:
Because I did it wrong 
Down here, I make my U turns such that they say “turn left” and then nothing, because of the way they’re designed—you’re facing at sort of a 45º angle already when waiting to turn onto the next street. In Michigan, you’re facing almost at 90º to the next street, and usually there is a light. Also, down here you’re more often trying to take a quick U turn and then right onto a residential street, whereas many U turns in Michigan are set off a significant distance from the next right, and often in wider medians, giving Waze more time to rattle off instructions.
Done.
I sure hope so!
After some initial positive feedback on the Michigan left from Jackson Rd E to Zeeb Rd N, I was asked to extend them to a few other areas around Ann Arbor that I can drive regularly. In each case, I’ve left a temporary “Other” landmark locked at 3 explaining what is going on and with a link to this forum topic. In each case, the angles are set for the “turn left onto the Mich Left / turn left on the main road / turn right onto the crossing road” TTS instruction.
Eisenhower Pkwy and Main
Jackson and Wagner
Jackson and Zeeb
Jackson and Baker
Huron Pkwy and Glazier Way
All of these are “standard” Michigan Lefts, but two also offer a continuation straight onto other streets in addition to the left turn. The main one is Jackson & Zeeb into the Meijer parking lot. Typically, these continuations are unlabeled and only the main cross street is mentioned. The Meijer intersection is something of an exception in that it has a small sign though showing arrows, but it has no text for the “straight” option. For now, these dual-purpose connectors are just labeled as standard Michigan lefts. Depending on signage or the importance of the straight option, how these are labeled could be an element for discussion. I can test any suggestions out at that intersection going forward.
Here’s the signage at Jackson Rd W to Zeeb S. It shows the left “only” arrow and the left/straight arrow for the right lane. The same sign appears above the traffic light.
Observation… The landmarks, why don’t you use “Junction” (if you name it, it will appear on the client if is big enough.)
For the shared left situations, I’ve typically been using one segment for each purpose, like here: https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=-82.9002&lat=42.55329&zoom=8&layers=TBFTFFTTTTFTTFTTTTTFTTTTTT&env=usa
It eliminates the confusion of someone seemingly being told to turn onto the other side of the road when they’re actually going to a mall parking lot or some other street.
It could be accomplished with two stacked segments using the same nodes and tailored turn restrictions, which may look better on the map, but this is easier for other editors to see and understand. I haven’t looked at this in the client to verify.
I believe they’re being used here only for editor reference purposes.
Because my RC said so 
As sketch points out, they’re only for temporary editor reference and not meant to display elsewhere.
I swear that I saw a discussion somewhere about a potential future feature that would allow us to designate the number of lanes on a segment. I just spent ten minutes trying to find it on the forums, but was I just dreaming? If not and the champs are aware of it or its in beta, are # of lanes still under consideration, and would each lane have different turn restrictions?
BTW, the stacked segment only works if you enable the turn onto the ramp It’s just outside my editing area, and since you’re likely to see it as part of this discussion, would you mind fixing it? If not, I can post to the Unlock and Update Request forum.
HA! How embarrassing. Thanks.
Thanks for the testing and documentation davielde. Good job.
Yes I asked davielde to use the “other” landmark as temporary notes to other editors, since we are testing this in the clients and discussing it here. I’m reluctant to sign off on these exceptions to the Wiki until we have sufficient agreement, and can document it properly.
Thankfully he has documented it well here so that we can track these tests and delete the landmarks once we have the consensus on how we want edit these turns.
I’ve also asked his to check the NJ forums to see if their “jughandles” were being discussed there. It would be better if we could have both states come to an agreement on how these should be edited, so that we don’t have too many divergent standards from the national standards.
Regarding the stacked segments.
I think I like the concept, but wonder if we could use a common departure node rather than adding two nodes to the departure segment.
Thoughts?
I thought jughandles were in the Wiki already, but I couldn’t find it yesterday.
Regarding the double segments sharing an origin node, yes, I think that’s a good idea. I’d prefer not to have them share an end node, though, for editor visibility and because of the documented problems with segments that share both nodes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2