Calculate the best route based on both shorter time and distance. Not just one of them.
I prefer the fastest way, but only when it is reasonable.
I can never trust the option automatically suggested for me and I always find myself checking the routes. In many cases I switch to the second option.
Option 1: 49 minutes, 58 Km
Option 2: 50 minutes, 47 Km
I would rather spend 2% more time than spend 21% more fuel...
Most people would prefer spending another minute in this case. Why do we always have to bother going to the routes to find out.
The user can select his preference for either shortest or fastest way but I want the fastest way that is still reasonable.
Let us define the time/distance trade-off we prefer, or at least define a reasonable hard-coded default.
When there is crash ahead and traffic blocks ahead it would better suggesting alternative routes, which is with shortest / fastest route options. Even at the time of initial route planning, if it can give the user option to select, Shortest/ fastest route that will be a great boost. Talking to many people they tend to avoid this app due to the reason map is taking you though unnecessary routes which causing extra delay. Even I have noticed it so many times when driving with Apple map and Waze.
Kodi75  commented
It's been noted that LiveMap doesn't need a driver to be moving to provide a route. The caveat is if they are on a divided road (and the road has not been divided).
For better navigation, make the following changes to routing behavior when starting a new drive:
* If the user is on a two-way segment, and speed is less than some threshold, e.g. 6 mph or 10 km/s, and there is no current route, then make the travel direction undefined.
* Upon setting a destination, calculate two routes, one assuming initial travel in the A->B direction, and another in the B->A direction.
* Select the shortest ETA route but keep the other available as a nearby alternate (dotted route with "+# Minutes" indicator)
* Make the initial instruction "Head [Cardinal Direction] on [Segment Name]" or "Head [Cardinal] towards [nearest named segment]" when starting on unnamed segments (PLRs, PRs). The cardinal direction should be calculated from the geometry or junction nodes on the segment nearest the user's location. Better directions when the user is very near a junction node (e.g. on a corner) might be to "lookahead" 30 ft (10 m) and use the name of the segment and closest cardinal direction in that direction.
- Keep the other direction's route available just in case the user decides to drive that way or cannot drive the recommended way, so Waze can quickly switch routes without another computation. A UI button to switch driving direction may also be helpful in some cases.
- Once the speed is greater than some threshold (maybe 12 mph / 20 km/s) or the user has traveled some distance (maybe 50 ft / 15 m), drop the alternate route and proceed with normal driving behavior.
This "start driving" phase would provide users a more clear set of initial directions and better ETAs in many situations, for example, when starting from residential driveways or parking lots where they may drive in either direction without difficulty, or on two-way streets where U-turns are not difficult.
Pascal Olv commented
It would be very nice if we had the option to have the most optimized route based on speed (the shortest time to get to destination), distance (the shortest route, in kilometers or miles, to get to destination no matter the time), or fuel efficiency (the least gasoline/watts used to get to destination).
Users could set this option as a default, but there would be a switch to easily toggle this setting for a single ride.
So Support this idea !!
Also make a ROUTE BUTTON not have to tap some white area on screen !!
many times I need and want to see the available routes because I know the one I am on will be backed up or I am in an area and need to see other suggestions like right now
Hey maybe take the actual best route instead of making me consistently 30 minutes late to work driving through the ghetto.
I support this idea.
I have noticed that when a very bad traffic condition occurs, Waze gives only local alternative route options that rejoin the original route. I would like to see a "get out of a real problem" button.
This morning there was a parked removal lorry some half a mile from where I joined the queue. But all I could see was a line of cars in front going nowhere. One route option included a mile and a half detour around an estate to rejoin the original route a hundred metres further along on the wrong side of the parked van.
It would be handy for more radical route options to be available eg "give me some options that ignore the existing route entirely and if necessary backtrack and take me all the way round the area of the current route". It might mean a "James Bond Aston Martin seat ejector button" -type button :D to get me out of a problem, if you get my drift...?
I would like to see a a "radical re-route" list of route options.
Now I realise that Waze can only work with the current map data, but I am sure that others will have fallen foul of this problem too.
I would like something like this, but I would express it as "No more than 10% Motorway" or use your slider to make it "Maximum Motorway Percentage".
Chris H commented
I amazed this does not have more votes! TomTom calls this “eco routes” they’ve been doing it for years.
Today Waze wanted to add 20 miles to a 90 Mile journey to save 4 minutes! Crazy!
I move my previous post to here as a comment.
My usual route is 25 kilometers in 30 minutes. Time is money ;) so my basic routing preference is to drive the fastest way to my destination. However Waze always selects the really fastest way to my destination. Even if it is only 10 secods faster but 5 kilometers longer, it selects that route automatically. I usually check the recommended routes and often select the second fastest because of saving fuel/money. My idea is to implement a feature which would allow the user to set some tolerance in the application which would tell Waze which route it should select automatically. So an option like this.
- To save 10% time you are willing to drive 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 200, unlimited percent longer route.
Going to work from home waze recommends fastest route 35 km long, 30 minutes.
Second fastest route is 25 km, 33 minutes.
In this case second fastest route needs 10% (33/30) more time than fastest route, but fastest route is 40% (35/25) longer than the second fastest route.
If this setting for the user is 5,10,15,20 or 30 then Waze would select second fastest route.
If this setting for the user is 40 or above then Waze would select the fastest route.
Maybe the way how to include this among settings should be simplified somehow to make it eaiser to understand for everyone, but anyway for the sake of environment it should be implemented. :)
Instead of either shortest route or fastest route, why not a combination that would make the route the fastest and shortest. It is also my opinion that we should be able to add more than one stop on the current drive.
James Bloom-Scheff commented
Sometimes, waze picks a non-optimal route. When I ignore waze and use my judgement, waze decides that my new route is quicker than the one it has chosen. That shows that waze is calculating the time properly, just giving me the wrong information
Use case: When I am not in a hurry when I am going somewhere by car (that is, most of the time) I avoid the highways and drive on smaller roads where you pass by, and can stop and visit castles, churches, views, local markets and similar.
The problem is that Waze don't really have a way to give directions that suit this type of driving. I can deselect motorways but quite frequently that means that the suggested route it 50% longer and takes twice the time, just because somewhere along the road there is a motorway bridge over a river and avoiding that bridge means a 2h detour.
I want instructions that makes a sensible compromise between time and non-motorway. That is, if I save one hour by driving ten minutes on the motorway I want to do that. However if it takes 45 minutes to drive between A and B on non-motorway and 40 minutes on motorway I want to avoid the motorway.
Ideally, I would like Waze to suggest two sets of directions, "100% focus on saving time" and "100% non-motorway", respectively. Then there should a "lever" that I can drag between these two extremes that, if I start at the non-motorway side, "cherry picks" the motorway parts of the trip that saves most time. In other words, if I go to 98% it should suggest a route that takes motorway for 10 minutes so I take the bridge over the river mentioned above and save 2 hours. Next step might be 10 minutes on the motorway around a city rather than driving through it that saves 50 minutes. And so on.
many times it doesnt even show me the best route to take. if i know its shorter & quicker it doesnt show as an option BUT if i go that way then it will reroute and it is better than the initial 3 options. can this be fixed??
John Devenney commented
The other thing to consider, especially in non-rush hour, is road design. Commonly used routes are likely to be BUILT for all that traffic. They are going to be simpler, straighter and more convenient for impromptu stops (gas, snacks, chores-en-route). Would love something like this suggestion + tolerance thresholds for switching to a faster route. Also perhaps a voice driven selection when a faster route has been determined. "Good news we have found a route which will reduce your trip by 10 minutes. There are tolls and it's 5 miles longer. Do you wish to take it?"
The alternate routes are often very similar. It would be nice to have an option that was a radically different route, just for purposes of comparison.
Next to the shortest and the fastest route, I propose the "most efficient route" mode. The idea seems not to be new (someone requested a "blended quickest-shortest route" in the past) but the difference is that I come here with a concrete and simple proposal, rather than only a request.
The idea is to score each route with:
Efficiency score = Distance x Time (the lower the score, the better).
Doing so, route A will be seen as 4 times more efficient than route B if, for instance:
- route A is 4 times faster than B (for the same distance)
- route A is 4 times shorter than B (for the same time)
- route A is 2 times faster and 2 times shorter than B
- route A is 2 times longer and 8 times faster than B
Route A: 20 km in 35 min by small roads
Route B: 35 km in 20 min by highway
Route C: 25 km in 25 min by intermediary roads
Route A is best in "shortest" mode. Route B in best in "fastest" mode. Route C, although arguably the best compromise between distance and time, is second best in both modes.
With the "most efficient route" mode I propose:
- Route A scores: 20 x 35 = 700
- Route B scores: 35 x 20 = 700
- Route C scores: 25 x 25 = 625 (most efficient)
This solves the issue of getting one of the fastest routes, but not at the expense of too long a detour.
And this would solve my own issue: most of the time, to go home from work, I am proposed a route usually 1 min shorter (12 min instead of 13) but close to twice longer (8 km instead of 4.5) that the shortest route (and selecting the shortest route is also not a solution, because I know it already, and I am actually using waze to know if there is any reason NOT to take the shortest route).
Liran Friedman commented
רציתי לנסות ולהציע הצעה קטנה לשיפור.
כרגע, הגדרות הניווט מאפשרות בחירה בין אופן חישוב מסלול הקצר ביותר או המהיר ביותר.
אף אחת מבין השניים היא לאו דווקא האופטימלית ביותר בכל מצב.
מה שהכי מעניין זה באיזה מסלול ייקח הכי פחות זמן להגיע ולפעמים צריך לעשות הלוך ושוב בין ההגדרות הללו על מנת לבחור באיזו דרך אני אגיע הכי מוקדם בפועל.
לכן, חשבתי להציע אופן חישוב מסלול משולב אשר יציג את המסלול עם זמן ההגעה המוקדם ביותר על סמך 2 אפשרויות חישוב המסלול הקיימות, הן המהיר והן הקצר.
Bart Youngblood commented
I agree. There needs to be a more significant amount of time saved based on the total length of the trip before it defaults to one that results in a significantly longer route. I, too, find myself checking the routes before I go to make sure I'm not driving an extra 4-5 miles just to save (on average) 1 minute of driving time.
An easy way to solve this would for the routing server to look at the average time and distance of all three choices. If the shortest time wise is also the longest distance and exceeds the next fastest route by a certain percentage of the average route length BUT saves a significant amount of time (15-20%) over the average travel times, then it will still take the longer route. However, if the time saved is insignificant, it will take the next fastest route.
Simply put, saving 1 minute on a 30 minute drive isn't significant enough to make me want to drive even 2-3 miles longer. Same goes for some of the really odd routes it suggests at times to avoid making left hand turns (going straight through, pulling a u-turn, then turning right at the desired intersection, for example). Instead of simply basing route choice off of a fixed amount of time, it needs to be tied to the time saved as a percentage of the total route time.