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.
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. :)
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?"
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.
Very true, I think , it is best to by your experience of the Roads - Traffic Patterns.
Some roads are taken by slow drivers, Some roads are faster, though they pass thru construction zones.
Waze has never saved me a lot of time. Compare it to Garmin - it just about does the same. The only advantage, it will find you back roads. Well, then your knowledge of the area can surpass this and you would be a better judge of the suggested route--- will going through a back-alley with 6 - 8 Stop Signs, and getting stuck in a long traffic light.... Hmmmm.
Waze very difficult to understand... and difficult to keep up with.
@Revital Ferster I like your point.... Sometime the time saving is so insignificant... . On most occasions Waze shows a big time saving, and as you near the destination - it say Oops!! traffic is building up and shows a BOLD RED LINE.. as if I never knew.
But yes, Thanks to Waze i learned all the back roads of toronto really well. Don't use the app anymore. It is plain confusing, and it like having a nagging backseat driver.
I am not driving an Ambulance or an emergency services vehicle.
Absolutely. Every single morning Waze presents me with 3 options:
1) 25 miles, 30 minutes
2) 15 miles, 32 minutes
3) 16 miles, 32 minutes.
It always defaults to option 1. Route calculation should take into account time and distance.
This is a wonderful idea.
Revital Ferster commented
An hour ago I got these options (luckily I checked the routes):
Waze best option: 45 minutes , 50 Km , toll road
Second best: 51 minutes, 23 Km
Default route indeed saves 6 minute (11%) but is more than twice as long, and moreover, you have to pay.
Would most people prefer to pay more than twice as much, (fuel+toll) just to arrive 6 minutes earlier? A smarter algorithm would have probably switched these two options.