I 85 Business = Major Highway?

Map Editors Community United States South Carolina
1

I’ve been going through and updating the functional classification of roads in my editable area based off of these maps and this standard as recommended in this post.

So far so good, I’ve noticed lots of routing improvement and the map looks cleaner already. From what I could tell, most of the classifications either dated back to base import or were subjectively edited here or there. I’ve also noticed a significant improvement to routing on the client as well.

There’s one change that is major enough that I’d like a consensus on it before I make it (or request an unlock to make it.) I-85 business is currently flagged as the ‘freeway’ type, but, based off the GIS maps and the standard, it should instead be flagged ‘major highway.’

I agree with this, as it would be similar to I-585, nearby. It would also look better on the map, indicating that I-85 is not the same as I-85 business. It may also make a slight difference in long-distance routing as well, giving Waze more data to help make the decision to route users on I-85 or take the ‘shortcut’ of I-85 Bus.

As far as the standard in the wiki, the road itself meets every criteria for being a Major Highway, with exits and limited access and such, so no problem there.

So I vote we change it to major highway. Anyone else have any input on this?

2

I know I’m not editing in SC, but I’ll give my thoughts anyhow. SC editors can of course say differently.

I-85 BUS appears to have all of the characteristics of a Freeway. Remember that NFC is a minimum classification method. It doesn’t mean a road that meets a higher classification guideline shouldn’t be classified higher than the NFC. A general guideline that some states follow is that Business routes (and other types like ALT, SPUR, BYP, etc.) will have a minimum classification of one level below the main road. In other words, if the state classifies all US highways as at least major highway, then a US highway business route would have a minor highway minimum classification. That doesn’t mean it can’t be higher, but that it shouldn’t be lower. If the road meets requirements for a higher classification, or if the NFC classifies it higher in states using the NFC, then you would leave it at the higher classification.

Based on that, I-85 Business should not be classified less than Major Highway, but can be classified higher. In this case, it meets the requirements of a Freeway, so that’s what it should be. Not all interstate business routes will meet those requirements. This is just regarding that one route.

3

I agree with you, especially since a business route is meant to serve the local businesses and provide easier access to them. However, I have just started to try to clean up my area to better match the functional classifications, so I’m probably not the best person to answer. I have a feeling you’ll get better responses and discussions in the US forums, so you might consider asking over there, too.

P.S. I don’t envy you trying to use that 143 MB PDF

4

It meets all the classifications of a major highway to me. As far as I can tell from the standards, a major highway is essentially a freeway that isn’t the interstate, that potentially is less ‘limited access’ than a freeway but not as ‘non-limited access’ as a minor highway is.

It also fits in the standard of being ‘one less’ than the main route. The main route is freeway, and major highway is one less. I wasn’t suggesting putting it as less than major highway.

Which PDF file are you talking about? The biggest one I have to deal with is ‘greenville large urban’ which is 11731KB. And boy is it a pain.

5

Maybe a high level editor can provide better suggestions here, but there is a difference between a major highway and a freeway. A freeway is not limited only to interstates. You can have US highways or state highways that are freeways. Interstates are just the easiest to determine because they should all be freeways without exception (at least as far as I’ve ever seen). The note on one level lower was an example of setting the minimum rather than any indication that it’s the correct classification in every case. And that isn’t even a standard; It’s just what some states are using as a guideline.

Let’s look at what is needed for a road to be considered a Freeway…

Freeways are not going to allow any pedestrian crossings, will not have any stop lights or stop signs at all other than at toll boots, all access to the road will be by split grade interchanges with the exception of service buildings that may directly access the freeway or the emergency vehicle crossovers, and there will not be any allowed parking except emergency parking. Major highways may include some of those items, but shouldn’t be a perfect match. In this case, everything that would be required for it to be called a Freeway is there. If even one item wasn’t there, then it would be a Major Highway, but from what I see, every requirement for a Freeway classification is present. Is there anything that would disqualify this from being a Freeway? I’ve seen interstate business loops that have at-grade intersections with major highways. These were clearly not Freeways and were Major Highways. But I just don’t see anything like that in this case.

6

I agree that it meets every definition of being a freeway. I’ve driven on it. If you weren’t paying attention to the signs much you’d think you were still on the main interstate. In fact, the difference in signs is quite subtle and sometimes you really think you ARE still on the main interstate. Especially if TTS neglects to say ‘business’ sometimes (as has happened in the Google navigation.)

The main reasons I suggest it changed to major highway anyway though are:

  • It meets the classifications for major highway just as much as it meets freeway’s definitions. While freeway is specific, major highway is vague and could potentially include a road such as this.

  • It serves less traffic than the main interstate. I’m not sure but I think the speed limit is a little lower as well. By this I mean it’s more prone to traffic backup and/or heavy traffic, because more cars drive on it than it can support.

  • It’s not a required standard but it’s a pretty common standard for a business route to be one rank lower than the main route, for both map display purposes and routing purposes.

  • Which leads to the next point, it assists the routing algorithm by giving it a slight avoidance penalty to switch to business versus staying on the main branch of the interstate. If you look at the map overall, you might think it was shorter/faster to take the business route but it usually isn’t, especially since it usually has much higher traffic.

  • And finally, it would better match the classification guidelines posted by the state NFC maps. I’ve yet to see them be wrong in any case other than being out of date.

7

Well, I-585 WAS mapped as major highway. It was changed by someone to freeway yesterday. Sigh.

So now that needs to be changed back to major highway again for the same reasons (the biggest selling point being the NFC/GIS map.)

There hasn’t been enough response yet for a consensus. So far we have two yes from people who live in SC, and one no from someone that doesn’t live in SC. Any other input?

8

I know I’m not in the state (I’m in NC and we have the same type of business loop on I-85), but I’ve been very involved in the NFC discussions and attempts at getting that to become the standard for classifications. I have also been one of the main people pushing for use of the NFC and have updated about 1/4 to 1/3 of the state of Michigan to the NFC classifications, so I do have experience with using the NFC. The push to use the NFC for classifications is designed to fix roads that are classified too low, not to lower classifications of roads that have a reason for a higher classification. The NFC is meant specifically as a minimum classification guideline only. It is not meant to be used as the one and only classification guideline. It’s meant to provide us with a minimum classification that will properly identify the roads that are necessary to get from place to place in a way that makes sense, based on traffic data and other factors that the DOT has available. After that, any road can be classified higher if there is a reason to do so. The same goes for the suggestion in some states that business loops and similar roads have a classification one level lower as a minimum. That suggestion does not state that the roads have to be classified one level lower. The suggestion is there just so that it isn’t felt that the business loops and such have to be the same classification as the main road or that it’s okay for them to be more than one level lower than the main road. It doesn’t mean that it cannot be the same level. For that matter, it could be a higher classification, though that’s very unlikely to ever be true.

Sure, a Major Highway description in the Wiki could potentially match a Freeway classification because the Major Highway description isn’t specific. But that doesn’t really mean that it should. If you use that as a reason, you could say that every interstate should be mapped as a Major Highway for that same reason. Obviously, that’s not what you are saying, but that reasoning is not limited in scope. If you use it here, it applies everywhere.

It’s been stated in the NFC discussion many times that the current descriptions of the different road types in the Wiki is not valid, which is a main reason why we are pushing for the NFC as a minimum classification guideline. And keep in mind that we are not using only the NFC to begin with. If the NFC says a state highway is a Collector, that doesn’t mean you should mark it as a Primary Street. In many states, all US highways are mapped as Major Highways regardless of NFC classifications. Some states aren’t doing that, but there seems to be far more people who think all US highways should be shown as Major Highways for consistency and to follow what you see in other maps. There are even times when you could see a US highway shown in the NFC as a Collector. You certainly wouldn’t map it as a Primary Street just because that’s what the NFC says. Once again, the NFC push is not to use the NFC as the one and only method for classification. It’s specifically only for determining minimum classifications of roads.

And you’re talking now about I-585 instead of I-85 BUS. If it’s an interstate, then it definitely should be shown as a Freeway. Business loops can be questioned and SC can do what they want with them (I’d get your regional coordinator or at least level 5s or 6s involved in the discussion first, but that’s just me), but any interstate should definitely be a Freeway.

Regarding what you said about the business loop… If it’s faster, you should be routed on it. In many cases (not all), interstate business loops have the same speed and merging onto and off of the business loop is usually seamless (i.e. you don’t have to slow down at an exit or anything like that and without a sign telling you which was which, you wouldn’t normally even know which way was the main interstate and which was the business loop. Waze will route you the best way. If the traffic suggests that the business loop is faster, then you should take it. If it has higher traffic and is slower, Waze will route you down the main interstate without needing assistance from a penalty.

9

I understand and agree with pretty much every point you made, Riamus.

However, if the NFC is the minimum standard, then there should be some kind of maximum standard, and while I’m all for the map appearing consistent and similar to other maps in regards to the display of state/US highways, I don’t want that to come at the cost of more efficient routing based on classifying the roads as what they actually deserve to be based off their ability to support traffic.

I would think it would be easier to code highways to APPEAR like major/minor when appropriate without actually labeling them that way for routing purposes. You could probably hook into the same code that the shields use. But that involves Waze changing something based off a request from us which I’ve come to learn happens extremely slowly and usually never.

Again, I totally get your point about NFC being only a minimum. But if that’s the minimum, what’s the maximum? Personal discretion via subjective interpretation of the wiki? Consensus among local editors?

I have to say I really don’t want the street I live on (Wade Hampton Blvd, US-29) to go back to major highway. I’d probably quit Waze if that happened. It’s an important road that sees a good bit of traffic, but it’s not THAT important. Compare it to J Verne Smith Pkwy to the east, THAT road is a major highway. It’s got signs for exits and everything. Given its location in relation to urbanized areas and the fact that I don’t really go that way very much I’m not sure how much traffic it actually gets. But it’s certainly capable of a good bit of high speed traffic just from its structure.

Long story short, I think classifying something too high is just as bad as classifying it too low. While I can agree there’s reasons to go above what the NFC suggests, the most common being new construction, that really does seem to be a case-by-case basis and to be used in cases where routing needs a little boost and the road structure supports the higher definition/classification.

The most common example I can think of for why a too-high classification is bad is basically routing. Routing will attach to a high classification much more strongly if it’s higher than the surrounding roads. Just like how you don’t want a business route to be more than 1 level lower than its main route, having roads that are more than one level higher than the surrounding area basically kills routing altogether. A major highway with no minor highways to support it doesn’t work with the primary street network nearly as well as a minor highway does in its place. And if that major highway doesn’t even have a primary street network to use (which was the case in my area before I started editing, maybe 20% of the primary streets the NFC says to map existed), then it’s like you may as well not even have any other roads on the map, the routing is pretty much ALWAYS going to take you on that major highway if it’s even slightly in your path. And it kills traffic avoidance, too. It’s too harsh a penalty to get off and back on again, the system even goes so far as to use detour avoidance.

I still reject the idea of ‘appearance as a higher priority than routing’ for labeling highways a higher classification than they actually are in real life. Don’t get me wrong I have a huge priority for appearance, I want to look right as much as possible, but I’d rather it work right than look right. Y’know? It’s bad for the map for roads to be classified too high. Higher than NFC, sure, I can totally get that, NFC couldn’t possibly be perfect. But there needs to be good reason and strong supporting evidence to indicate the NFC is inaccurate or out of date, first. In my opinion.

You say minimum, I say ‘baseline.’ If other users that actually drive these roads want to keep I-85 bus as freeway for instance I’d back off in a heartbeat. I’ve driven I-85 Bus maybe five times in my life, and the stretch of I-85 that goes around it maybe 20 times. Local users would know better than I if I-85 deserves to be bumped up to freeway instead of major highway that the NFC says it is. But until/unless there’s a supporting reason for it to do so other than just purely name (or in this case structure since structure overlaps in the wiki definition of major highway and freeway), I still think NFC as minimum also makes a good baseline. Better than base-import classifications, at least.

~

Going back to the subject at hand, though, I still think I-85 Bus should be major for the reasons I’ve already said, which again includes appearance to distinguish it as well. The Waze routing of either using or avoiding the segment should still apply with a classification change, if it’s faster to go through the Bus route it will take you that way, and if not, it won’t.

And as for I-585, It’s so short (and as far as I’m aware, rarely used) that I barely consider it an interstate, which I’m pretty sure is similar to why the NFC doesn’t classify it as such. I’ve never had reason to drive on it though so I don’t have personal experience to contribute. Unless the never having reason to drive on it can be considered as personal experience. =/

~

I’m still interested in what other locals actually have to say. If there are any.

10

Based on your reply that the I-85 Business loop meets all the requirements for a freeway, I would say leave it as a freeway. Riamus makes a good point that the NFC should be used as a minimum, but that you shouldn’t lower higher-ranked roads in waze simply because the NFC says to; it would probably be safer, and better, to leave these at the level they are than downgrade them. Hopefully, if waze does add another road classification, we’ll be more easily able to map between the NFC and waze road classifications. At this point, I would say we would need a higher level to weigh in, but I would now side with Riamus based on the discussion I’ve seen and research I’ve done.

As for having a maximum, I would say in most cases it should be no more than 1 or 2 “types” away from the NFC, but we should take into account the way the road is used by locals. If the NFC classifies a road as similar to a primary street, but it gets used more like a minor highway, classify it as a minor highway. To be honest, though, I think the roads in waze will never fall too far from the NFC that we will have to worry about it (I doubt a “local” street in the NFC would wind up being a minor highway in waze, unless the maps are just that outdated). If there was a hard-and-fast maximum standard, we would be severely limited as editors in making waze the best it could be. If there is major discrepancy between the NFC and what an editor believes it should be (NFC too low OR high), then it should be discussed in the forums and a consensus formed.

Off-topic: I downloaded the Greenville_Large_Urban_FC.pdf and got a 170 MB document; maybe I just got a different one from you… But either way, it is a pain…

11

Off topic, I didn’t download it so I don’t know filesize on a computer, I just know what the site says it is. It is horrendously slow and I wish they’d at least split the pages. =/

12

In case you’re viewing those in your browser, I’d recommend choosing to open them in Adobe Reader instead. It’s considerably faster than using your browser to view them.

13

Will definitely check that out next time I review them, thanks for the tip! Until they update or my editable area changes (or I get convinced to follow a different standard than I already have) though, I have already completed my editable area per those maps and the standard I was originally given to follow.

14

Ironically enough, I’ve had I-85 bus in my editable area for less than a week and I already have a UR (dated for Nov 30 for some reason even though I check for UR’s daily) as follows:

https://www.waze.com/editor/?zoom=4&lat=34.96375&lon=-82.03887&layers=TBFTFFTTTTTTTFTTTTTTTTTTT&env=usa

“is to get on business 85 north, when that is not necessary, you only need to stay on 85 N., not get on the business loop”

While changing this to major highway instead of freeway wouldn’t fix this (nor should you make a change like that just to fix UR’s), it’s definitely a potential symptom of the wrong classification being in effect.

I’m dead tired from a long day. I’ll think of a good way to word ‘Waze thinks this route is faster’ politely when I wake up tomorrow.

15

I agree with Thortok2000. I use I-85 business every day and can verify that Waze should not suggest the loop as an I-85 shortcut. The speed limit on I-85 is 70mph for three lanes of traffic, whereas I-85 business is 55mph for two lanes. However, the high number of cars on the business loop usually slows the speed to 50mph (and worse during rush hour). Because 85 and 85 business are classified as the same type road, it makes sense that Waze routes users from 85 to business and back again. Unfortunately, 85 loop is not a shortcut. I highly suggest a change in algorithms (or classified road types) to keep users on 85 and avoid the loop.

16

Nevermind. Another editor has closed this report as ‘not identified’ so it isn’t on the map to be used as an example anymore. =/

My fault, I should have asked that it not be closed.

17

So just another out-of-state here with a comment. Waze learns which route should be faster for a given time of day so it should be directing users toward the faster route, whether it be I-85 Business or I-85. It does however give some preference to higher classification roads, which would be a somewhat weak argument on its own to reduce the classification on the Business route.

With them both being identical classification, if it is routing drivers down the Business route as you are indicating, then either Waze doesn’t have enough driving data to make the determination, or the route is actually faster based on the algorithm. Granted driving speed is only one part of the algorithm so perhaps it could use a tweak.

18

Just to reiterate what @kckfire said, road type is irrelevant with regards to Waze routing. If I-85 Business Loop is the faster route, Waze will route you that way, even if it’s labeled a street.

In my opinion, I-85 Business Loop in Spartanburg is a freeway (maybe not as nice a freeway as I-85 mainline, but still a freeway). It is fully access controlled with no at-grade intersections, as is I-585 and much of US-176 between I-85 and I-85BL. And, I do drive it from time to time. :slight_smile:

In any case, great question and thread.

Regards, Eric.

19

Mostly correct for the first sentence :slight_smile: The discussion of road types is rather long in this thread at this point, but make sure that everyone understands the “pruning” concept (search “pruned”) brought up in a number of the posts. It comes into play when first generating a route for longer distances.

If the business loop were a street rather than one of the highway types, Waze would have no trouble selecting it if you were close at the start or end of your route. If you were commuting from further away and it was in the middle of your route, it would more than likely be “pruned”.

20

You are correct, daviedle. Pruning would have an impact, something I encountered on my commute yesterday. Thanks for the reminder.

[edit] And, great link, by the way! Thanks again!