I would also like to suggest using their interactive map: http://www.citywindsor.ca/visitors/maps/pages/maps.aspx
Their street centreline layer shows the road classification. I recommended a similar FC conversion in the past.
The only one not accounted for is the Scenic Drive.
LaSalle conversion is also fine.
Quick update on the Windsor FC:
It seems like Class 1 arterial has an extremely strict criteria (there are 3 in all of Windsor; these are more like parkways, similar to Hwy 7 between Richmond Hill/Vaughan), and there are a lot of Class 2 Arterials. I propose the following so that it matches closer to the āstandardā in suburban GTA.
I would like to revise the guidelines I made to:
Major Highway: Class 1 + Class 2 Arterials w/ 2+ lanes/direction
Minor Highway: all Class 2 Arterials
Primary Street: all Collectors
I think I actually prefer using the PDF, it is a very orderly progression through the pages 
Iād also suggest factoring speed limits and whether theyāre traffic locked to Auto(4) for the Class 2 MH Arterials.
2+ = minimum 3 lanes?
I meant 2 or more lanes. For now though, I think I will leave it as is. Currently working the collector roads.
In the meantime, however, I would like to do a quick pseudo-FC road upgrade in Bradford Urban Area. Although it does not meet population criteria, but in terms of road layout, itās very much yet another rubber-stamp suburban community. It seems like important throughfares (auto/4) are still classified as āStreetā, and it could use a few classification upgrades
Bradford-West Gwillimbury: pg 8,9
http://www.townofbwg.com/Shared%20Documents/Planning/Official%20Plan%20Schedules.pdf
Major Arterial, County Road, Minor Arterial - Minor Highway
Collector - Primary Street
Not using Major Highways for this area would āharmonizeā the transition between the rural and urban areas.
Here are the list of the major roads in Brant County.
Brant County Trasportation Master Plan PDF 6.2 County Road Classification System
Perth County Map: http://www.perthcounty.ca/fileBin/library/visiting/pdfs/county%20of%20perth%20map%202007.pdf
Proposed FC:
Provincial Rd: MH
County Rd: mH
Local rd - Paved: PS
Local rd - Gravel: Dirt Rd (unless SV shows paved then Street)
Area population was at 37K in 2011.
Iām currently reviewing the map for Barrie, and believe that some of the Arterial roads could/should be re-classed to minor Arterial = minor Highway. This would have to be user-determined though. Would it be okay, to recommend some Arterials as Minor Arterials for FCāing? My suggested defining characteristics are below:
Major Arterials - MH would all include roads that enter from outlying cities/towns/communities, that G1 drivers would need to use since the Freeway is off limits. Also included would be 4(+) lane roads.
Minor Arterials - mH would all include 2 lane roads and 2 lane roads with a turning lane that are not part of a Major Arterial as described above.
Also, I will need assistance on most of these, as I am not yet a high enough level. To confirm, is it best to make my re-classifying suggestions on CAN Unlock and Update Requests?
TrackMum: How Iāve done deviations or distinctions from the standard map is have StreetView images supporting your decisions on what specifically they look like (see Cambridge), and how Major Collectors and your definition of a minor Arterial are more similar than Major Arterials and your definition of a minor Arterials. If you want to further substantiate, youāre welcome to use other FCāed areas.
Keep in mind also (I believe) that even though some roads are narrower inside the old city (i.e., 2 lanes), they could be still of relative importance, relative to the local road structure. There would also be indicators like a lack of stop signs and traffic lights that signifies importance. Itās important that we still maintain a relative hierarchy.
Nagamasa: I did read your post regarding Cambridge, but when I clicked on the links, SVās werenāt visible, just the PL. Was the split window supposed to come up, or is it our job to call up SV on the PL?
Definitely intend to keep in mind 2 lane roads that are of importance. Please can you confirm that any proposals I wish to make should be directed to the Can Unlock forum?
Isnāt the FC process, by definition, supposed to be sourced from āofficialā government documentation?
If these documents are not available for Barrie, then we canāt legitimately āFCā the area. Doesnāt mean we canāt make adjustments to individual road classifications as part of ongoing maintenance, but on a āper roadā basis and not as part of a sweeping āFCā project.
Iām sure there might be a few exceptions for specific roads (e.g. where the municipality has planned to reconstruct a road to bring it up to mH standards, but the construction project was subsequently put on hold after the municipal planning documents were published).
By the way, proposals you wish to make should be posted to the Ontario forum for discussion, not the unlock forum. Keep the unlock forum strictly for unlocks and updates, no discussion items.
Nagamasa posted the link for Barrieās official FC documentation closer to the beginning of this thread. There are a few instances though, that even with the official documentation that Barrieās master plan doesnāt work.
In one instance, there was a dead end road, with less than 30 houses on the segment, and nearly no traffic, that was marked as Major Arterial. The plan does reflect a future road attachment to the other side of the highway, but until that is done, marking the road as MH may deter from Waze routing. I brought this road to manouevreās attention, and he agreed and downgraded it.
Thanks for the info on where to post/discuss the FCāing. Those roads that are clearly MH and concur with the city plan, I will request assistance for FCāing in the Unlock forum. Those roads marked MH but are better classed at mH, I will post in the Ontario forum for discussion.
If this is incorrect, please correct me. Thanks for your help.
Barrie, ON
I am looking to get some road updates done in accordance to the legend suggested in this thread, and the city plan.
I have regional roads feeding into arterial roads. The arterial roads are to be re-classed as MH, but the regional roads are currently classed as mH. Should I extend my re-classification beyond the city limits? Example below:
To the right of Simcoe Rd 27 is Dunlop St W, an Arterial = MH. To the left is Simcoe Rd 90, currently a mH.
So do I stop my changes at Simcoe Rd 27, or get Simcoe Rd 90 changed as well? Thanks.
Hey team Durham:
I think I found more jewels:
Context: my opinion is that the urban FC in the Durham is sightly under-classified compared to other GTA regionsā¦There seems to be a much bigger abundance of mH, and a lot fewer PS. That being said, Iāve never been down east.
I dug around a little deeper, and I found a forth category, āCollector Roadsā in each of the municipalities. Perhaps, Combining Type I and Type II arterials into MH, may be valuable, so that these community collectors can be mapped as PS and the Type III arterials can be upgraded to mH.
page 6: http://www.whitby.ca/en/residents/resources/pl-community_wop-op2010consolidation-schedules.pdf
http://www.clarington.net/en/live-here/transportation-network.asp
schedule b: https://www.oshawa.ca/city-hall/official-plan-conformity-exercise.asp
p389: https://www.pickering.ca/en/cityhall/resources/op6.pdf
You may also consider using Type 1 as MH, Type 3 as mH, and Type 2 as needing some local guidance for traffic volumes, importance, etc.
Thatās because we used the Durham Region plan as our FC map.
Certainly we could review the above plans as well to add more PS (essentially combining Type III and Collector as PS). The region shares responsibility for collectors with the municipalities), but the Region fully āownsā responsibility for MH and mH, in my opinion, not the municipalities.
Also, they definitely are built to different specifications ā personally I think the MH and mH in the area are sufficient for routing and accurately affect road design and maintenance levels.
Iām completely open to combining any of the two levels, MH and mH, mH and PS, or PS and the Collectors in the documents. Adding in the local connectors I think definitely will give that kick in the map to show all the different tiers of roads we have in the region. Up to you
For Durham Region, we should primarily follow the regional plan, since they are responsible for the planning, construction, and maintenance of the regional roads. Legend: Type A ==> MH, B ==> mH, C ==> PS. This is unchanged from the original Clarington, Oshawa, Pickering, and Whitby links near the top of this thread.
We should then supplement that with Municipal plans if they exist (4 of which you have provided). In all cases, ignore any differences with Type A and Type B, the municipality isnāt responsible for those roads. Any additional Type āCā ==> PS, Collector ==> PS.
Oakvilleās website has been redoneā¦and I donāt think I can find the old document anymore.
Anyways, I found a new one (iirc, the old one was really old), and both their classifications and my proposed cross-match is a little different:
http://www.oakville.ca/assets/2011%20planning/op-fig-e.pdf
MH: Regional Primary Arterial, Major Arterial
mH: Minor Arterial
PS: Industrial Arterial, Major Collector, Collector
As I was saying in this thread: https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=339&t=169076
The value of using FC isnāt just to upgrade, mH to MH, PS to mH. It also helps add definition to smaller municipalities, if the municipality has less than 40k population.
Hereās Bracebridge before and after:
http://imgur.com/Yz3gt63
https://imgur.com/PnjTxiS
(all upgrades thus far is only S to PS (fully-revertible); perhaps 1 or 2 PS to mH if this is OK)
It helps in adding in a lot of S to PS, and gives the town more road hierarchy than just its main streets crossing the centre.
For only the urban area of London:
Arterial: MH
Primary Collector: mH
Secondary Collector: PS