Thanks AJ, agreed.
Some points to consider:
- Most rural roads aren’t intended to be residential streets, but alternate routes to destinations.
- We have to consider our handling of unpaved roads.
- We need to ensure we do not compromise the existing road hierarchies which work in non-rural areas and as per design.
- This may involve us deciding to have a separate hierarchy for non-rural road networks. If so, we’ll need to clearly define where it makes sense to have it applied.
I haven’t worked on a lot of long distance pruning problems, but here’s a first attempt for people to build on:
Introduction
- Before starting, you need to first read the article on how pruning works to understand how long distance routing works.
- Waze routing algorithm aims to get drivers on higher level road types as quickly as possible for long distance routing and will ignore lower level road types which may be faster mid-journey. We currently map a rural roads as a street or primary road type, and therefore, Waze long distance routing send drivers longer distances/times despite a short-cut being available mid-route.
- In order for the Waze routing algorithm to see the short-cuts mid-journey, we need to make the roads more attractive based on how important they are in a driver’s journey.
- All editors need to consider we are mapping a road network and not just roads. Consideration for how drivers will get between destinations need to be considered when a road is created, updated or reviewed.
- In rural Australia, “road quality” or a designation, or lack thereof, by a road authority does not accurately predict travel time on that road.
- In rural Australia, a “destination” is typically located within clusters of other destinations, such as towns, cities or regions, with little in-between.
- Mapping within clusters should be the subject of Australia’s traditional road type selection. The importance of roads on routes in-between clusters need to be given more importance to be considered by the Waze routing algorithm.
- We need to shift our focus from “what quality is this road” / “we can only use x road type if an authority classes the road as y” to “how important is this road in routing between destinations.”
- Higher level road types should never just “stop”, but to continue on, always linking to other clusters, thus forming a road network.
- The proposed alternative road hierarchy isn’t intended inside a cluster (city/town/region). Such as routing from Burwood, NSW to Granville, NSW, but for routes like Burwood, NSW to Balmoral, NSW 2571 or Barmedman, NSW to Thuddungra, NSW. We need to step outside our comfort zone and consider how we would classify the more obscure routes!
Possible Road Categorisation
The focus of these road type definitions is for connecting clusters (towns, suburbs, regions) which each other.
Freeway - Locked at level 5 - Should remain exclusively for dual-carriage way roads such as motorways, freeways and express ways.
Major Highway - Locked at level 3 - As a guide, an authority designates the road as a major highway or road, or is named with alphanumeric numbering starting with A, B or C (and possibly D for detour routes, they have to be pretty good, right?).
By assessing roads in the greater area, a “major highway” would stand out as the highest capacity road in the area except for “freeway” road type AND is intended to link with other clusters. If the road terminates into a cul de sac or dead-end, or a network of roads which do not connect with the rest of the road network, it is not suitable for “major highway”.
If the road is unpaved, it can only be allocated “major highway” if a road authority designates it so, or a CM or higher designates it essential for long distance routing such as in outback highways.
If I zoom out on max on WME, I have 50km visible. Is it worth setting an aim for a major highway every 100km? More input needed.
Minor Highway - Locked at level 2 - The most common road type used in connecting clusters together. If the road is unpaved, it can only be allocated “minor highway” if a CM or higher designates it essential for long distance routing.
Primary Street - Locked at auto / level 1 - Use of this road type should be kept to a minimum in rural Australia. It will be most suitable for unpaved roads that connect clusters of destinations.
What does this look like?
Consider two cities/clusters next to each other in rural Australia. The highest capacity / fastest road between them should be the “major highway”, all others should be considered “minor highways”, and any unpaved routes no higher than primary roads.
Where the purpose of the road changes from linking clusters to linking to something else, like giving access to residential or industrial areas, fire trails, dirt tracks, etc. it is more appropriately a “street” with the “unpaved” attribute flagged where appropriate.
I’ve written this as a draft to spark ideas. I’m not suggesting we implement this as is. This is not complete. Build on it if you want. Point out problems and provide solutions. If you take nothing else away, please consider the concept of linking clusters with any other suggestions. 
Let’s solve long distance routing in Australia!