# \[Page update\] Road types - pedestrian path/walking trail
**URL:** https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888
**Category:** US Wiki Discussion
**Created:** [May 18, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888 "2018-05-18T19:14:13Z")
**Posts on this page:** 17
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@anon33958190](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/anon33958190)
#### Post date: [May 18, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/1 "2018-05-18T19:14:13Z")
A fair amount of change has occurred with these types since the text of the page was last written. Therefore, I wanted to update the guidance for walking trail types. Since they are added by a separate function from other roads, I think it would be good to split them off to a separate page, and since we use US English here, I have used US English translations, which are far more accurate, in my draft. In this draft I have tried to:
- clarify which type affects routing, how it affects routing, and which types do not
- remove the thing about disconnected routable paths causing issues, as it’s not true anymore, and we shouldn’t be mapping disconnected routable paths anyway
- explain how virtual nodes work
- add a use case for routable path in rest areas shared between both directions with no drivable connection (yes this was finally fixed in production routing this week after being in beta for a year)
- add a use case for non-routable path where “A trail is a significant destination in itself that people would drive to but without a discrete trailhead or access point.”
- encourage editors to connect these, as there’s now no danger
- reorganize and provide pictures with actual use cases in the USA
- remove some warnings like “only work with an expert” as these types are better supported and less mysterious than they were in the past
[Here’s my draft](https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/User:Kartografer/Pedestrian_path) and [here’s the diff from what’s currently written](https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/index.php?title=User:Kartografer/Pedestrian_path&diff=164493&oldid=164427)
A few other small propositions:
- Move the emergency vehicle road section under the special case roads heading and just say “Emergency and Authorized Vehicles Only” and DOT Service Roads should not generally be mapped. These are found primarily through the median of divided highways to connect opposite direction lanes. If they must be mapped for some reason, use the private road type and add a 24/7 [[partial restriction]] prohibiting all vehicles.
- Move the ferry section under the other drivable heading (it’s drivable and categorized there in WME)
- remove the roundabout section altogether, as it’s super dated and roudabouts have their own page.
---
### Author:  [@ojlaw](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/ojlaw)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2018, 1:06pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/2 "2018-05-19T13:06:39Z")
thanks karto, this is a great improvement!
a couple things you may or may not want to address
1. maybe mention that HNs work on routable pedestrian path
2. maybe address where the driver will be routed if there is an HN or place on the routable pedestrian path if the routable pedestrian path is connected to two drivable road types.
3. what zoom level does routable pedestrian path show in the app? if there is a routable pedestrian path across a freeway will it show at freeway speeds?
---
### Author:  [@anon33958190](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/anon33958190)
#### Post date: [May 21, 2018, 2:08pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/3 "2018-05-21T14:08:33Z")
> [@ojlaw](#):
>
> thanks karto, this is a great improvement!
> a couple things you may or may not want to address
>
> 1. maybe mention that HNs work on routable pedestrian path
> 2. maybe address where the driver will be routed if there is an HN or place on the routable pedestrian path if the routable pedestrian path is connected to two drivable road types.
> 3. what zoom level does routable pedestrian path show in the app? if there is a routable pedestrian path across a freeway will it show at freeway speeds?
Done!
---
### Author:  [@itzwolf](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/itzwolf)
#### Post date: [May 22, 2018, 5:40pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/4 "2018-05-22T17:40:16Z")
I made a minor edit to remove an extra word in the routable pedestrian path section.
In the Non-routable pedestrian paths section under Applications, the trailtracks.png is currently shown i in the page text as “thumb|left” because it is missing the “File:” call. I did not want to change this as I was not sure if you wanted it in that location or possibly somewhere more fitting for the design of the page.
`=== Applications ===
[[Trailtracks.png|thumb|left]]There are certain cases where mapping non-routable paths can benefit drivers. For example:`
---
### Author:  [@anon33958190](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/anon33958190)
#### Post date: [May 22, 2018, 6:10pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/5 "2018-05-22T18:10:04Z")
Thanks! I fixed the image, uploaded a new version that fit better and added a caption.
---
### Author:  [@itzwolf](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/itzwolf)
#### Post date: [May 22, 2018, 6:31pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/6 "2018-05-22T18:31:06Z")
> [@Kartografer](#):
>
> Thanks! I fixed the image, uploaded a new version that fit better and added a caption.
Page looks good.
---
### Author:  [@DwarfLord](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/DwarfLord)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2018, 2:13am UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/7 "2018-05-28T02:13:04Z")
Thanks for the great work. I have suggested some slight modifications to the draft you can feel free to accept or revert. In particular I wanted to add back the idea of not mapping things that encourage non-driving Wazers. The difference between benefit and encourage is subtle but I think important.
Also, I’m confused about routing behavior for non-drivable paths. The draft says “House numbers are fully supported on all three pedestrian path types, although on the non-routable types the user will be navigated to the closest drivable segment rather than the end of the pedestrian path”. How is navigating to “the closest drivable segment” on a junctioned non-routable path different from navigating to the segment’s junction with a drivable segment on a routable path? It sounds like the same behavior? Also, the information that HNs are supported on non-routable types and Waze will route to them seems to contradict the statement that non-routable types have no effect on routing…?
Finally, regarding emergency or other authorized-vehicle access roads. This is actually an important part of the wiki, since roads that are only available to a handful of specially-authorized vehicles – I always imagine white vans with logos on the doors – come up in editing all the time. It’s not just those dirt connectors between two halves of a freeway (which I would agree don’t need mapping); it’s roads in public parks that are only available to park-service vehicles, access roads in theme parks only for a few employees, etc. I think it’s important this treatment be retained somewhere.
---
### Author:  [@anon33958190](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/anon33958190)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2018, 11:35am UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/8 "2018-05-28T11:35:58Z")
> [@DwarfLord](#):
>
> Thanks for the great work. I have suggested some slight modifications to the draft you can feel free to accept or revert. In particular I wanted to add back the idea of not mapping things that encourage non-driving Wazers. The difference between benefit and encourage is subtle but I think important.
>
> Also, I’m confused about routing behavior for non-drivable paths. The draft says “House numbers are fully supported on all three pedestrian path types, although on the non-routable types the user will be navigated to the closest drivable segment rather than the end of the pedestrian path”. How is navigating to “the closest drivable segment” on a junctioned non-routable path different from navigating to the segment’s junction with a drivable segment on a routable path? It sounds like the same behavior? Also, the information that HNs are supported on non-routable types and Waze will route to them seems to contradict the statement that non-routable types have no effect on routing…?
>
> Finally, regarding emergency or other authorized-vehicle access roads. This is actually an important part of the wiki, since roads that are only available to a handful of specially-authorized vehicles – I always imagine white vans with logos on the doors – come up in editing all the time. It’s not just those dirt connectors between two halves of a freeway (which I would agree don’t need mapping); it’s roads in public parks that are only available to park-service vehicles, access roads in theme parks only for a few employees, etc. I think it’s important this treatment be retained somewhere.
I can get behind your revisions. The reason I avoided using the word encourage originally is that it’s hard to know what encourages someone to do something. I have looked around the country at busy bike trails and found the same amount of biker GPS tracks on them, whether or not a trail is on the map, so I’m not sure whether the way we map will make that much of a difference in improper Waze use, but I suppose we need to put ourselves in others’ shoes as editors anyway.
I tried to change (apparently can’t edit right now) the sentence about HNs on non-routable to read:
> [@](#):
>
> House numbers are supported on all three pedestrian path types, although on the non-routable types the user will be navigated to the closest routable segment to the stop point of the HN rather than the end of the pedestrian path.
HNs work, but since the road they’re attached to isn’t routable, they become coordinates that go to the closest routable segment instead, like a Google pin or place (on a good day 😉 ). Search ≠ routing. Maybe there’s a better way to say this?
As for authorized vehicle access roads, your white van vision is why I suggested to put this in the private road section. Do you agree with that placement and the wording I suggested for it?
---
### Author:  [@DwarfLord](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/DwarfLord)
#### Post date: [May 28, 2018, 4:37pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/9 "2018-05-28T16:37:11Z")
Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand how routing to non-routable works now. Maybe I can offer a few slight mods to your suggested change:
> [@](#):
>
> House numbers are supported on all three pedestrian path types, although on the non-routable types the user will be navigated to the closest a point along the nearest routable segment closest to the stop point of the HN rather than to the closest node where end of the pedestrian path and a routable segment meet.
Regarding “white van with logo” roads, apologies, I didn’t quite twig that you were proposing the Private Roads section as the new home for this guidance. That sounds fine to me. While we’re discussing it, here’s a suggested modification for that text:
> [@](#):
>
> Limited-access service roads, such as those marked for “emergency and authorized vehicles only”, and DOT Service Roads are to be treated as non-drivable roads. These are found primarily include, for example, fire roads prohibited to all non-service motor vehicles; patrol roads for park service vehicles; and service cutoffs across the median of divided highways to connect opposite direction lanes. If mapped at all, they should not be disconnected tofrom any drivable road, with properties set to road type Private Road, and locked the segment at as high a rank as possible, up to rank 5.
---
### Author:  [@anon33958190](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/anon33958190)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2018, 1:43pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/10 "2018-05-29T13:43:11Z")
I like your modifications to the HN paragraph. Now that editing the wiki seems to work again in source mode, I made some changes based on your clarifications and also split this into a separate subsection.
As for limited-access service roads, I like your examples, but at least to me it’s confusing to say that they should be treated as non-drivable roads. There are different ways to treat non-drivable roads, most of which don’t involve disconnection anymore, and these are clearly drivable anyway. The disconnection thing seems to be a relic from the past when restrictions were not reliable. I feel like it would be more straightforward just to recommend only mapping as a PR with 24/7 TBSR when necessary for visual reference but not mapping most of them. The lock also feels like a relic; perhaps suggest using a map comment to justify mapping them instead?
---
### Author:  [@DwarfLord](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/DwarfLord)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2018, 3:35pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/11 "2018-05-29T15:35:11Z")
The disconnection and locking language is something of a relic for sure. But the underlying issue that led to that language persists, which is that junior (and sometimes not-so-junior) editors looking for something to do will sometimes map everything in sight.
For example, we had a MapRaid in the SF Bay Area a few years back and one of the outcomes was a blossoming of mapped service roads, particularly barely-maintained two-track used to access transmission-line towers in the boondocks. One visitor even mapped all the golf-cart paths in a golf course (that editor is now an R6 CM but that’s a different story).
And yes, we did get URs from people routed over these service roads afterwards :mrgreen:
The point is that some volunteers, bless them, can be powerfully motivated to map absolutely everything including limited-access service roads. If one simply removes such roads, often they eventually reappear – wash, rinse, repeat. So, guidance to map service roads properly can forestall them from, one day, getting mapped improperly.
This situation is, I believe, the genesis of the disconnect-and-lock approach.
I agree we don’t need to say “treat them as non-drivable” as that is confusing given the “non-drivable” road types. But disconnect-and-lock remains, I think, a valid approach. I also like your idea of connect but add a 24/7 TBSR, which has the benefit of providing a “description” field that can be used instead of a Map Comment. Maybe the guidance can support both approaches, so we don’t end up with a campaign to change existing solutions…?
---
### Author:  [@anon33958190](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/anon33958190)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2018, 6:21pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/12 "2018-05-29T18:21:59Z")
> [@authorized vehicles only](#):
>
> Limited-access service roads, such as those marked for “emergency and authorized vehicles only” should not generally be mapped, and if there is a need to map them, they should not support routing nor appear like other roads. The clearest way to do this is to map them using the {{Private Road}} type, add [[partial restrictions]] on them to prohibit routing for all times and vehicle types and include a description within the restriction to explain the reason for mapping. Another, older method also involves using the {{Private Road}} type, disconnecting the limited-access road and locking as high as possible. This also valid. Examples of such roads include fire roads prohibited to all non-service motor vehicles; patrol roads for park service vehicles and service cutoffs across the median of divided highways to connect opposite direction lanes.
How about adding that as a subsection under private road?
Any other thoughts on the pedestrian path page before I publish?
---
### Author:  [@DwarfLord](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/DwarfLord)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2018, 8:25pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/13 "2018-05-29T20:25:40Z")
OK on all counts, except I’d suggest either (a) adding a semicolon between “patrol roads for park service vehicles” and “and service cutoffs…” or (b) adding an oxford comma in the above spot, and changing the previous semicolon to a comma.
---
### Author:  [@anon33958190](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/anon33958190)
#### Post date: [May 30, 2018, 9:19am UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/14 "2018-05-30T09:19:27Z")
> [@DwarfLord](#):
>
> OK on all counts, except I’d suggest either (a) adding a semicolon between “patrol roads for park service vehicles” and “and service cutoffs…” or (b) adding an oxford comma in the above spot, and changing the previous semicolon to a comma.
I forgot to change your semicolon to a comma. I’ll do that and add an Oxford comma. I don’t normally use those, but it would remove ambiguity here. I think also the “connecting opposite direction lanes” can go, as it’s obvious what cuts in a median are for
Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk
---
### Author:  [@anon33958190](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/anon33958190)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2018, 6:50pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/15 "2018-06-04T18:50:54Z")
I have published these changes by revising the [road types](https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Road_types) page and moving the [pedestrian path](https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Pedestrian_path) page to the main space.
---
### Author:  [@subs5](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/subs5)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2018, 7:06pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/16 "2018-06-04T19:06:55Z")
Just the way that the various title headings are formated it is hard to see the three types till you scroll all the way down to the bottom. It might be worth just listing the three types in a list under Types and before Routable pedestrian path
---
### Author:  [@anon33958190](https://www.waze.com/discuss/u/anon33958190)
#### Post date: [June 4, 2018, 7:18pm UTC](https://www.waze.com/discuss/t/page-update-road-types-pedestrian-path-walking-trail/209888/17 "2018-06-04T19:18:06Z")
> [@subs5](#):
>
> Just the way that the various title headings are formated it is hard to see the three types till you scroll all the way down to the bottom. It might be worth just listing the three types in a list under Types and before Routable pedestrian path
Done. Thanks!