Proposal: Reclassify Primary Routes as Major Highway

Map Editors Community United Kingdom
1

As many of you should be aware by now, we currently classify Trunk roads as Major Highway, and all other A roads as Minor Highway. Recently, it’s been suggested that maybe we should change this classification so that the Primary Route Network (PRN) is represented as Major Highway.
(Remember: all Trunk roads are Primary roads, but not all Primary roads are Trunk)

First, let’s review why Trunk was originally chosen for this classification. At the time, the road types were decided on rather subjectively, with different editors having different ideas about what constituted a Major Highway. We needed a clear cut, well defined rule that would settle the matter once and for all. The Trunk Road Network (managed by the Highways Agency) provided us with that definitive standard.

Now, “Trunk” is an archaic term which is not in common use any more. Very few drivers and editors really understand what the Trunk network is, and it’s not something that is particularly useful to have on the map. There’s also the confusion between the Trunk and Primary networks, which are not the same.

On the other hand, the majority of drivers are oblivious to the road types anyway, as the default map colour schemes don’t distinguish between them. Also, while the routing algorithm used to prefer high road types, it has been recently adapted to consider roads which are “highly rated”.

Edit: since I originally wrote this, I’ve heard from other experts that increasing the number of Major Highways does actually improve routing and traffic avoidance.

If we do decide to switch to having the PRN as Major Highway, then we need a single, consistent and reliable source. While we can use Google Street View now, looking for green signs along a road is a tricky exercise, and is open to interpretation. Therefore, it’s maybe better to go with a map source, such as the Ordnance Survey Maps, which has a licence that allows us to use it.

The Sabre Wiki also provides a quick “Route outline” for any A road (example, on the right), but does not always match OS Maps. You’ll find that other map sources will differ in places. As the classification isn’t very important to road users, then this single source should be good enough.

The Proposal

  • Upgrade all Primary Routes to Major Highway
  • PRN as defined by green roads on Ordnance Survery maps
  • Major Highways continue to be locked at rank 4
    Arguments for
  • Trunk is archaic term, and few editors understand what means
  • drivers don’t understand or care about Trunk either
  • Primary Routes have practical purpose, and are shown on other maps
  • previously there wasn’t a good source for PRN classification
  • anecdotal evidence suggests that routing will be improved
  • might one day allow us to have proper coloured road shields (sky bacon)
    Arguments against
  • the majority of drivers won’t notice because of the default map colour schemes
  • raising the lock level of A-roads would mean many editors cannot contribute
  • it will make little difference to routing (actually, it will)
  • there’s a lot of segments to change
    To show the differences, here are two views of York using the different classifications:

Screenshot_2014-07-02-00-04-53.png
Screenshot_2014-07-04-22-21-55.png

Discuss…

2

Important posts for newcomers

3

I’m pretty strongly against this change.

The major reason is fairly simple - it’s a cosmetic change that will have little or no effect on routing. It will not be noticed by the vast majority of Waze users because they won’t be using the Map Editors colour scheme in the App. It will therefore only be visible to map editors - who should understand why the roads are classified as they are.

We already experience a situation where cosmetic changes are made, which create extra work for editors, have no real effect on the majority of users and aren’t wanted by many of those affected. It’s called “Waze producing a new client version”. It happens regularly and I don’t often hear compliments about the process. :wink:

Whilst many people might think of “Trunk” as an archaic term (I don’t), it is still a real and used term. It is defined by law and there are official sources that define exactly which roads are trunk.

PRN is also a perfectly valid and recognised route network. However, the decision as to which roads are part of the PRN (apart from the existing trunk roads) was devolved to local authorities several years ago. After an hour or two searching online, I can find no central “official” list of PRN roads. The only official source is likely to be the individual websites of each local authority - assuming they even publish that information. They are required to report their PRN roads to the National Street Gazeteer - but the NSG doesn’t seem to publish a map.

If make this change, we will have to decide on one source for PRN - despite the fact that thise source will disagree with other sources. Ordnance Survey, Google Maps, Google Street View (green signs), Open Street Map, Sabre - they all seem to disagree with one another to some extent. OSM and Sabre are (afaik) crowd-sourced much like we are. So they’re only secondary sources. GSV has images up to 6 years out of date, not to mention that some sign colours are clearly wrong. We don’t know where Google Maps get their information - and we’re already not supposed to be copying them. That leave OS - if we have to pick a source, I guess that will be the best of the bunch, but there will still be arguments.

I agree that locking more roads up to L4 will lock out more of the less senior editors. However I think that, as a community, we provide a fairly good unlocking service. I also think that, PRN or Trunk, major routes do need protection against “rogue” editors.

I can think of one argument for this proposal that Tim hasn’t mentioned above. We cannot upgrade and lock a whole bunch of roads up to Major/L4 without first checking that they are completely “correct”. This will be good for the map - major routes can always stand a little checking. It could also be a good community effort for our Area Managers. We could “assign” sections to be checked before upgrade/locking. It’s also possible to temporarily assign AM areas for this purpose.

SO: I’ve tried to be fair. There would be some positives to take from this, but I think it is, overall, a waste of time that could be used better.

That’s just my opinion. I’ve stated it and I don’t intend to spend a lot of time defending it. From what I’ve heard I suspect I’m in the minority. However the minority also seem to be a bit quite, so I thought I’d speak up for them. :smiley:

4

I’m not not entirely convinced that there will be absolutely zero affect on routing. I do some experimenting.

There are two ways to classify our A-roads: the correct* way, or the way that looks right°
*for some agreement of “correct”
°which is rather subjective

:wink:

5

I’m not sure I’m clear why the change is proposed - because some A roads are Major Highway and some are Minor Highway so we’re inconsistent? I agree it’s good to have a consistent set of rules, but as a Level 3 Area Manager I don’t see the benefit and see it as a dumbing down of the Area Manager role. I understand and support the need to have, for example, Motorways as Level 5, but changing all A roads to L4 would be a PITA to me as a L3. It would discourage me from fixing issues as I see them because I’d have to write a “Please unlock road X, btw I am the “Area Manager” for the area” post, wait for someone to unlock the road, make whatever the change was then report back to the L4/5/6 to relock the road. It seems like a barrier to keeping the map up to date and more (unnecessary) work for L4/5/6s having to hand hold Area “Managers”. I don’t see the benefit and am therefore also strongly against the change as proposed.

6

Please note: this is not a proposal that all A roads should be major highway.

The Primary Route Network is designated as the network of routes needed to connect a list of strategic UK locations as defined by the Government’s Department of Transport. Although trunk roads form a major part of the PRN, other roads are needed. Local authorities “fill in the gaps” by designating additional roads to complete the PRN.

The majority of A roads will still not be part of the PRN and will remain as minor highway

7

This is not strictly true. There are some map colour schemes which do differentiate between major and minor highways, such as Vitamin C and The Blues. It’s only really Default that so unclear.

However, we can probably assume that the majority of drivers don’t bother to change how their map looks.

8

Here’s another argument for changing:

Traffic Scotland’s Trunk roads already closely match the Primary Network, but when a road meets the English border, the classification changes all of a sudden. There is only one example, which is the A68 between Jedburgh and Corbridge.

The same disjoint occurs at the edge of London, where some roads are considered as “Trunk” on the inside but not on the outside. Examples include, but not limited to, A10, A22, A24 and A4.

This is moot if drivers can’t tell or don’t care…

…but we could maybe change the default colour scheme for UK users to use colours that DO distinguish between the road types. Does that make it worthwhile then?

9

Ok, so it’s not all A roads - that’ll teach me to speed read :oops:

Have you got a figure of what length of A roads are designated Primary vs not - I’ve Googled and found other figures but not one for primary? Looking at the OS viewer green are primary and pink are non Primary A roads. Different parts of the country are obviously different and ignoring London I’d guess roughly 50% green, 50% pink, in which case I stick by my “it’ll be a PITA for L3 AMs”.

10

I’ve no strong view either way. I spend a chunk of my editing time changing street to primary street using OS OpenData currently anyway - so waze doesn’t look so heath-robinson for users cruising along the motorway in a sea of whiteness - and fixing a shed load of junctions/geometry along the way.

So if this means all the main routes will get a looking over in the process then sounds good. But if it’s just a ctrl-A, pick, ctrl-S exercise then perhaps not.

11

If checking the roads and raising the lock level is an issue for too many editors, then we’ll remove that from the proposal. We can revisit that later once we’re happy that those roads are ‘complete’.

12

I think checking the roads is what would make this worthwhile.

13

Why are we even discussing a major overhaul of the map because again (no offense) ONE person wants a change. It works and works amazingly well and this proposal was voted on nearly 3 years ago. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. No one will notice so don’t bother. Simple as that.

Not only that but we still do not have a one fits all non subjective reliable source. That is why we decided to use the scheme that is in place in the first place and I am seriously pissed that it’s even being discussed. I may not be level xyz but I along with most of you (and some that weren’t even here 3 years ago) agreed that a clear cut solution was needed.

That is still the case and as above there is no constant source to rely on so why bother.

And even IF there was, you’re going to have a hard time making those changes (let alone confirming every fooking adjoining road) and let’s be blunt…

This idea was proposed by someone who hasn’t edited for god knows how long. Suggest an idea, get everyone on side to what end? To do nothing except bitch about something no one else has noticed?

Search the forums. Find 3 examples of people bitching about it except Bain (within the last 6 months) and I’ll gladly agree.

The solution we have works. To suggest such a radical overhaul this late in the game is just bloody stupid when it works… And works well. Nothing to suggest anything would change with routing. We were told road type doesn’t count now.

14

Thank you for that rant. I find I have to disagree with several points, even though you’re apparently on my side.

You were at the UK Conference, so you should be well aware that more than one person wants this. I find your attitude towards faitaru particularly offensive as he was performing a perfectly proper function as a Country Admin - going through the list of topics we had collected for discussion. It isn’t his idea, even if he supports it. Had I been the one who had been standing there, would you be saying that about me? I find your comment about who has edited recently particularly offensive.

I don’t deny that the issue hasn’t been mentioned recently on the forums. It was last discussed about a year ago here, when many of the same points came out as are being discussed now. Given how often people get scolded for posting on old issues, I’m not surprised it doesn’t come up often. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth discussing.

I wasn’t here three years ago when, apparently, the decision to adopt the current classification was taken. But I do know that, in the two year I’ve been with Waze, a lot has changed. The very fact the original decision was taken so long ago makes it worth re-examining - whether or not we change anything.

We were not told that road type does not count. We were told about mechanisms by which the routing engine will not be entirely bound by road type. This is a good thing - rules are needed to help correct road classification. But any rule has exceptions - the new mechanisms will allow the routing exception to deal with such exceptions, either based on accumulated traffic data or manual input from editors.

To all participants in this discussion: I am surprised at how much passion this discussion is producing. I have, indeed, found myself taking it far too seriously. :oops: I’ve certainly found myself unable to stick to my original decision - post my opinion and leave you all to it. Could we please try to maintain the tone at a reasonable and polite level?

15

Just a quick point. I have missed a lot especially the meet but I’m pretty sure I’m still right in saying it will affect routing in a good way. As the distance for off and on avoidance is much greater for major roads.

16

That is a very good point, Superfraggle, one I had not considered. Very interesting.

17

Offense taken. You’re completely wrong. More than one person has asked for this change.

If you felt that strongly about it why didn’t you vote against it in the straw poll we had at the UK Conference, which incidentally was suggested by NOT me.

To be honest Roy, you have no idea how much I have and haven’t edited recently. Ignoring that, I have a very good understanding of the editing process and I have constant input into road layouts, junction functionality and naming of many of the major routes in the UK.

Find one example of me bitching about it. Oh wait, there are none. This is a topic that has been in various stages of discussion for us at various points over the years. I am NOT the only one who would like to see this change come in. I brought the proposal to the UK Conference at the behest of several other users who had mentioned it to me.

Late in the game? Is waze ending next week or something? We weren’t told road type doesn’t count.

Roy, I think your constant referrals to “being here for 3 years and knowing better” are belittled by the ease with which you decide making personal attacks against people is a good idea, not to mention your general attitude towards other users.

If you have decided you are against this proposal that’s fine, but please make constructive and sensible arguments like others have and refrain from ranting for the hell of it.

18

Some random thoughts, apropos of nothing:

When someone suggested that all the ramps needed renaming, it was strongly opposed to begin with. But with the introduction of TTS, there was a shift of opinion and a consensus was eventually reached.

As the map matures, the role of editors changes. The editing community itself has evolved and changed over the years too. What was right for us 2-3 years ago isn’t necessarily what’s right for us now.

I was against this myself when it was first proposed, but now I’m starting to see some merit to the idea.

If drivers are generally oblivious to highway types, then it won’t matter if we do change them. Meanwhile, that tiny majority who do take an interest in how the map looks will appreciate the improvement.

If road types doesn’t affect the routing algorithm, then it won’t mind if we change the road types. If there’s a tiny chance that it will affect routing, then increasing the route-ability of primary routes can only be a good thing. It certainly isn’t going to do any harm.

There’s at least 1 junction that will see an instant improvement to routing, possibly a handful more.
The alternative is to ask HQ to raise their threshold for detour avoidance on minor highways, which they may or may not do for us.

So, it seems to me we have two choices:

  • on one hand: the status quo, living with the decisions that were made years ago
  • on the other: a chance to make the UK map better. Isn’t that what we do?

PS: Iain linked to a very good thread on this same topic that was had last year.

19

There’s a reason why so few people got involved at the meet up. They’re not allowed with this senseless elitism. A vote will make no difference it’s already been decided.

20

I’m all for this change too, where I may not have been at all times in the past.

For me the decision is simple!

I drive a lot and as I approach 100,000 miles on Waze it still annoys me that no map colour scheme can match what I see on road signs, namely Blue (Motorway), Green (PRN) and white (other) routes.

I realise that no source will be 100% accurate but if say OS was adopted as a benchmark for defining PRN this this would be achievable.

I am already in the process of producing colour schemes for the current OS mapping colours and ‘Classic’ Google maps (I can do the current Google maps to if anyone really wants that disaster).

All these colour schemes can be installed on your Android/iOS device without rooting or jailbreak (Not sure about Windows devices) and when I’m ready to share them I’ll post installation instructions.