Esri Complete Street Rule Discussion-Feedback?

[DavidWasserman]

Hi All,

My name is David Wasserman, the urban planner/programmer that wrote Complete_Street.cga that is featured in the Complete Street Example. I was hoping that if anyone had any comments on the rule or suggestions for changes/features/bug fixes I wanted to provide a forum for that on Geonet. So say what ever comes to your mind, but I would prefer constructive feedback. This could be a forum where everyone could provide input, discussion, and hopefully create a better rule. If you want to discuss transportation/parking/urban planning rules generally for CityEngine consider hitting this thread first.

I have attached some example renderings for those unfamiliar with the rule and its capabilities. In addition, there is now documentation for the rule available for download here. It is still pretty rough, so feedback is appreciated. In addition to the documentation, there is a new version of the rule posted about here, feedback would be appreciated.

In addition, this is also an ok forum if you are having problems with the rule. If you comment on here, I get buzzed. In the numbered section below I will recount a short summary of problems discussed in this thread.

Kind Regards,
David Wasserman

PS: If you  do anything with the rule or want to share a rendering you made (a nice one), feel free to share your images/experience.

Discovery 1: Webscene issues that were worked out pretty easily, small webscenes work typically better.

Discovery 2: Street rule is not compatible with CE 2013. Its Crosswalks Depend on 2014 UVSpace options, and there is not an ESRI.lib file for 2013. Rule is designed for and works best with the most recent version of CE (2014).
Discovery 3: For road segments to snap, you must make sure they are apart of the same layer. Merge layers if you have snapping problems.

Discovery 4: Short road segments are hard for the street rule to handle at times. A few work around with short segments include: Change crosswalks and stop types to none, making the CrosswalkBegin/End attributes a negative number, manipulating nodes to be longer, or deleting unnecessary nodes to create longer street segments (use simplify graph tool) (Thanks Steve).

Discovery 5: A discussion about curb extensions  and how to make them albeit an unorthodox way is both below and on this thread.

Discovery 6: Bridges have a minimum height requirement to generate (structure just does not make sense below a certain height). Also if you want Piers to appear regardless of Occlusion settings use On, Show All Piers. If it still does not work try: Making a new segment to test the rule one, restarting CE, or re-importing the road layer and starting again.

Discovery 7: When cropping or re-sizing your aerial for your CE project chances are you will need to georeference the image to your geography or another aerial. Georeferencing an aerial in ArcMAP will take on the ArcMAP scene projection but that is not enough. Be sure to use the "Project Raster" in the Toolbox and this will ensure proper scale and placement for your CE scene.

Discovery 8: Mapped Attributes: IF you map the streetWidth or sidewalk street parameters, and you want to adjust them after the fact you must change both the mapped object attribute AND the shape parameter. See responses below for details.

Discovery 9: Handles - Recent editions to the rule in 2017 have started to support handles for traffic lights and streetlights for more custom edits that were typically reserved for photoshop. If you have any suggestions for handles please add a comment. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notice: 1: There is a 2015 Version of the Complete Street rule. There was a bug in the street rule that did not make it work in 2015, and in this version of the rule the bug is fixed. It should work in 2014 as well as 2015 versions of CE.

[DanielInterrante]

Hi David,

I was thinking along the lines of setting it as "parallel" then reversing the dimensions to make the spots wider than they are long then flipping the cars 90, but I'll figure something out.  Thanks!

[DavidWasserman]

Hey Daniel,

Interesting. I am not sure if I lock it on Parallel, but if not that should work. It won't have the lines you would typically expect on 90 degree parking, but it might look ok. Good luck.

David

[deleted-user-OlpHy1NoMNug]

David,

First of all, awesome rule, thanks for the resource.

I have a general question about how the rule is set up.  I'm modeling a fairly simple road with a center turn lane and parallel parking but I keep getting a gap between the road and the sidewalk.  I've attached two screenshots here, the first showing the gap using the flag setting and the second using the best fit setting. 

Obviously with the best fit setting the road looks fairly normal but the parallel parking sticks out much further on one side compared to other.  Am I missing something?

[DavidWasserman]

Hey Scott,

That should not be happening, I will have to check this out. Can you send me the values of the rule parameters you are using? I notice the parking lane is 1 meter wide? Are you trying to represent a wider lane? If so I would suggest instead using the bike buffer setting, and turn it to asphalt. As a side question, are you using mapped shape parameters? If so did you change the object attribute value AND the street width parameter value?

When I try to replicate, I don't get those issues with the parking and center turn lanes. On my end, the best fit setting is functioning as expected. This is however a non-mapped network and being just drawn. As an experiment can you draw me a street from scratch and try the same configuration?

David

[deleted-user-OlpHy1NoMNug]

David,

I've attached a screenshot of the rule parameters I'm using.  I just set it at 1 m because 1.) I was adjusting the values to see if I could get it to fill in the gap and 2.) I thought if I just use the best fit method and make the parking width smaller it will come fairly close to representing what it actually looks like (though obviously not the best solution).

I am using mapped shape parameters but they were generic values so I've been editing them in CityEngine.  This was actually the thing that made me think I was missing something.  I set the street width for certain amount, say 20, and then edited everything so that it would fit into this 20 meters but it wasn't functioning as I thought it would.

Interestingly, if I create a segment from scratch and set both with parking at 2.2 width they act the same (Compare) but if I switch the parking width to 2, the new segment looks like it is adjusting properly (Compare 2).

Scott

[DavidWasserman]

This is a mapped attribute problem then, I am pretty certain of it. So I ran into this problem when I was doing data driven cross-section creation not to long ago, and this is an issue a lot of the street rules have. Essentially, there is the shape parameter that actually changes the street width, and then there is the object attribute "streetWidth" that you might actually be using from the mapping starting point.

Essentially, you need to adjust both the shape parameter and the object attribute that is mapped as "streetWidth". The reason for this is that the street rule is reading the mapped "streetWidth" attribute over the manually edited shape parameter. You need to make them the same number...it is annoying yet necessary. The street thinks it is less wide than it actually is because the mapped object attribute is saying it is. The reason why the flag function works is that it is geometry function dependent, the reason best fit won't work is that it is streetWidth value dependent. The reason the rule is not geometry function dependent everywhere is...complicated...

[deleted-user-OlpHy1NoMNug]

Yep that did it.  Thanks.

Scott

[deleted-user-OlpHy1NoMNug]

David,

Is there any way to suppress the bicycle symbol on a bike lane.  I'm creating curb cuts by doing multiple street segments but this results in too many symbols.  I've adjusted the bike symbol spacing parameter but it appears that the default is at least one at the beginning and one at the end.

[DavidWasserman]

Hey Scott,

Getting the symbols to adapt to short segments has been on my todo list for a while. The short answer is there is no immediate way to do this perfectly without editing the CGA. Something you can try is to simplify the segments that don't have curb cuts, or you can try replacing the bike lane with a buffer that is set to shoulder or asphalt. I can take a look at this when I get home, but for now try simplifying segments or experimenting with various buffer options strategically.

HOWEVER, because these are driveway entrances, on the shorter segments it might make sense to use the conflict spacing to denote the bike lane and push all the bike symbols back. This may not work, and did not in my case. I think I will take a look at this later.

David

Edit: Hey Scott, you get to be a tester. Download the most recent rule update and try and use the conflict spacing. Let me know if the symbols go away this time or if it creates any other problems.

[deleted-user-OlpHy1NoMNug]

Will do.  I;m assuming the most recent version is always going to be at the Google Drive link mentioned here: Complete Street Rule Update ?