Road types, again

Map Editors Community South Africa Standards And Guidelines
1

Hi all,

Dredging up this old chestnut again… I’ve been thinking about this some more, and examining the other country’s standards for road types, and I’d like to make a new proposal regarding road types.

This is a little different to what I’ve argued for in the past; in particular, having the map be drawn “correctly” is basically impossible due to how road types influence Waze’s routing, so I’ve given up on that principle completely. However, the designated routes still fulfil structural roles which should guide selection of road type to some extent.

On the other hand, “Avoid Highways” now only avoids Freeway road segments, so we have a little more flexibility with regard to using Major / Minor Highways in urban and suburban areas.

I’m thinking that perhaps N routes should be at least Major Highway? I know routes like the N2 comprise some really pitiful road segments in some parts, but dropping the road type down too far may result in suboptimal results for long-distance navigation.

Also, I’m not sure insisting on Minor Highway for R routes is actually reasonable; in some cases, there are R routes that include roads that are bog standard suburban roads indistinguishable from the roads around them that are not even Primary Streets (eg. where the R25 begins in Saxonwold). I think Primary Street may be sufficient for these cases without causing Waze too much trouble with finding longer-distance routes.

2

Unfortunately only the main N## routes in ZA classifies as long-distance routes, which means Waze SHOULD give them preference for long-haul routing. Freeways, Major Highways and Minor Highways are considered for long distance routing, vs Primary Street and Street ( or lower ) road types.
Future Freeway type G-roads are in planning, along with the current M-routes. Freeway M routes like the M1, M2 but not the M85 etc. R21 and R24 are also Freeways without any doubt.

They are technically thus the only candidates we have for long-haul routes, based on quality of the road surface, safety aspects and shortened routes. Most of them are tolled, but added benefits come at an extra cost. The shortened drive times & fuel usage vs the alternate routes usually still makes them the more logical choices.
They are a mixture of ‘pure’ Freeway types where they pass through major metro areas, to generally a ‘Major Highway’ classification match where they extend into the countryside. High speed, free run, with very few intersections, and even then, most intersections are restrictive for the adjoining roads, not the N## route itself.
Where they run through smaller towns, there are intersections, either controlled by just stop signs, or by traffic lights, which lends them more to ‘Minor Highways’ in the Waze classification in this scenario.

The ‘Avoid Major Highways’ option was changed in one of the recent Beta versions to affect routing on both Freeways and Major Highways.
After an outcry from the community, the agreement was reached that it would be reverted to only affect Freeway road types. I could not find any supporting post for that confirmation, but might find it using an Google search of the Forums, rather than the forum search.

If we classify the N## routes as Freeway throughout, this would give them the highest priority. It would also mean that inhabitants or another person with the ‘Avoid Major Highways’ option would be routed along all the secondary roads (Street / Primary Street) through towns along the N## routes, instead of through the usually faster ‘Main Road’.

My opinion is that we should likley classify all 18 of the current N## routes as Freeway throughout, except where they pass through towns. I would suggest that we reduce their classification to a minimum of ‘Major Highway’ in this case, as it should have no ill effect, and would be for short distances only.

Where the stretches exceeds 5 Kms of continuous intersections affecting the flow of the N## route itself, we should likely classify it as per the ‘Minor Highway’ category. I am not aware of any such long stretches on these roads that would effectively classify them as such.

If the majority is not in agreement with this, then we would need to look at the ‘pure’ road classification itself based on the Waze road categories.
Freeway only in major metropoles where ramps apply to access, Major Highway in the countryside, and Minor Highway as a minimum through small towns.

Anyone else have any other views or opinions ?

Carel

3

That seems pretty sensible to me -

I mentioned the following here:

Another thing to think about is temporary road closures (not the gated suburb type, but the actually closed type, as effectively happened around here due to the N2 washing away…!) and also perhaps roadworks where lane changes are involved (for example the major work between PE and GHT, locally, or the [hopefully now finished] GFIP chaos). How important is accuracy vs. routing?

Also, as someone who really likes taking “scenic” routes down dirt tracks, I’d quite like to start adding these. They’re not really that helpful for the average commuter, but it’s nice to have them in a fully featured map of a developing world nation, in my opinion.

4

Actually, I might be in two camps on this issue currently about the major sections of the N routes, and that’s just on my ‘main’ personality :wink:
RodNav raised a very valid point about no alternates being presented as options.
I have a draft saved from yesterday that I will look at later.

Our big issue is that not even the main routes likely route 100 percent. Majority of the alternatives are all likely still blotches of red that are not even classed as major or minor highways, so they would likely not even be considered as alternatives.

We would need to tackle them all in a consolidated effort, focusing on the main ones first.

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

5

If there are just some closed lanes on the highway, I don’t think there’s any reason to edit the map to reflect this. If there are actual detours / closed ramps / etc. and these are going to last more than a week or two, I believe there are existing conventions for naming highway construction zones and such on the wiki; let me know if you can’t find the link and I’ll dig it up.

I can’t think of any reason not to do this; Waze shouldn’t route you down dirt tracks unless you’ve allowed that option in routing (which isn’t the default). So by all means, go ahead and add these.

6

Incidentally, I’m driving to PE tomorrow, so I should end up with the whole N2 between there and GHT opened to my editing again in a few days time, so if some consensus can be reached, I’ll be happy to donate a few man-hours to sorting out that road!
I’m quite partial to it as I think I was the first person to put in much of that stretch of road. :slight_smile:

7

I found one in the US wiki here; I couldn’t see anything on this in the ZA wiki.

Yay :slight_smile: the ZA wiki suggests otherwise however.

8

To be clear, I meant the US / UK sections, not the ZA page specifically.

Yeah, that’s just one of the many things on that page I disagree with :frowning:

9

If we take the ‘pure’ Waze road type definitions, we would certainly map the majority of the N routes as Freeway and Major Highway mixes. I am not aware of any specific documentation that SANRAL makes available that has a standard classification of each and every section of all the ZA roads and types, similar to what might be available for the US NDOT equivalents. This is definitely not my area of expertise, so I could be barking up the wrong tree here. From what I have seen on the main site though, I have not seen any mention of publications, just local documents relating to specific projects and plans for roads and their upgrades or works in progress.

If I look at this from the ‘reverse’ side, the lowest road type that we should be considering for segments of long-distance N routes is Minor Highway.
Most of the N routes, especially where they have been improved and are subject to tolling, would in most cases qualify as Freeway in my opinion. They are multi-lane and access is only via ramps. Even if there are no large expanses of grass dividers or even concrete barriers in some cases, the access via ramps still holds true. As an example, this section of the N4 near Middelburg, currently designated as Major Highway is only accessible via ramps, despite having no physical barriers as is visible here.
This is also what the majority of other N routes look like. On the same road, further east, the road is actually divided and we get some intersections, but nothing that restricts the traffic flow of the N4 itself.

The main question here is, do we lower the classification for these, especially if there really is just one or two intersections in a 10 or 20 Km stretch ? The recommendation in the US part of the Wiki, is not to do this, at least for Major to Minor highway. I would expect that the same be true for downgrading of Freeway type to Major Highway.
That is why I suggest a ‘fixed length’ that conforms to another lower type before de-classifying or lowering the main type, be it 2, 4, 5 Km or whatever other distance.
Where the N routes cut through a town, we should definitely not classify them as Freeway in this case, as routing options set on the clients will prevent local routeing on the main streets in town.

A prime example of this would be the N17, where it runs through Bethal. The majority of the N17 in this vicinity does not really qualify it as a pure Freeway, and some points along the route itself might even stretch the ‘Major Highway’ pure classification. I still have editing rights there, and one thing I did earlier in November was to ‘reduce’ it to a Minor Highway in town. The whole highlighted section in town is less than 3 Kms, and including some intersections either side is of town it’s about 6 Kms.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, totally opposite of the above, a route from Cape Town to Pretoria (or back) routes just fine through Beaufort West, where the N1 is designated as a Primary Street. It does seems to prefer the Bird Street route adjacent to the main N1 though. This is likely due to traffic stats & wait times on the main street itself.

It looks like the routing engine does at least consider the shorter sections of other ‘lesser’ road types in absence of anything else. It might not be ideal, but currently seems totally workable in long-distance routes.

Most of our R routes would conform to Minor Highway, being mostly single lane that have many T or cross-road intersections with 4-way stops. I don’t have any issues on typing these as such, although some people would prefer to classify them as just street types. I’d prefer to keep the Street and Primary Street types to residential areas and roads that branch of other major and minor R routes. If you lean towards Street types, just keep in mind that Street or Primary street would likely disqualify them as being used for long route alternatives.

If I sit at the office in Sandton, Jhb and navigate to Bree St, Cape Town with ‘Avoid Major Highways’ option on, I get 2 routes calculated. One of 32h27 / 2608Km via the N12 & R67 and the other of 31h04 / 2536Km via the R554 and the N12.
Without the option set, I get 2 tolled routes indicated. One of 13h34 / 1412Km via the M1 (and N12 and N1 later) and one of 13h49 / 1442Km via the R59 and N1 ( N3(S), N12(W), R59 then N1 from there).

Navigating to the N4, Komatipoort section on a client with the option on does use N4 sections that is designated as Major Highway, but also seem to largely try and avoid the N4, possibly due to some funky turn restrictions.
Without the option on, I get primarily N4, but still get the funky routing towards the middle and end of the journey.

RodNav’s observation of alternates being discounted for N types being just Freeway & reduced to major or minor in towns is a valid concern. Based on what I’ve seen from playing around a bit, I certainly now would lean towards a ‘pure’ classification of the N routes, without enforcing the Freeway style throughout.
I still think the Freeway style is appropriate where ramp access is the majority, like the N1 northwards of Bloemfontein currently is mapped, reducing it to pure typed Major or Minor as applicable. I looks like there is currently no ill effect of Primary Street typing where it runs through towns. Minor Highway likely would also not affect the detour in towns vs passing straight through town on the main streets, as the average traffic speeds would probably have the biggest effect on these choices.

Looking at speed averages on the major routes, it also seems that slower moving traffic ( trucks / mini-bus taxis that stop anywhere, etc. ) heavily influence the segment averages to far lower values than I would have expected in general.

Considering all of the above, it also indicates that we likely need to concentrate on getting all of our R routes mapped out properly to provide a larger number and better alternatives to the N routes. As I mentioned before, these are likely a mess of unconnected red roads in most places.
Speaking of the R routes, a final thing to consider is that there currently would be very few properly mapped alternatives if we have toll road avoidance enabled in ZA.

Cannot agree more as as far as Standards are concerned.

10

Argh, I had a long response typed out which got lost as Waze decided to log me out :confused: Anyway, most of it turned out to be more or less in line with the ZA wiki anyway…

Perhaps what we could do is have a couple of Case Studies that we can refer to and guide budding editors into seeing things the “WAZE-ZA” way?

We should probably establish a consensus on what we do inside towns - local to me (Grahamstown), several R roads are Primary Streets, but could perhaps be Minor Highways. Indeed, there are no Highways of any type designated within GHT city limits. These are the major “thoroughfares” in most cases, but in a larger town, calling them “minor highways” would be laughable. Indeed, I think we need to aim at a global South African road hierarchy that is consistent throughout the country from megacity to klein karoo dorpie!

Another thing to perhaps consider is that international visiting Wazers may be confused if we diverge too grossly from what is done overseas.

11

The distinction between “minor highway” and “primary road” has to do with purpose more than actual road quality / type. A primary road is a primary throughfare for routing within a suburb / neighbourhood / township; a minor highway is a route /between/ areas, which is the purpose of our R routes. The USA wiki has this to say about Minor Highways:

This is why I would like to argue for making any R route Minor Highway at a minimum. The upgrade from minor highway to major highway would then be determined based on limited crossing / access, speed limit, and so on.

12

That makes sense to me - once we have a consensus, I’ll wield the clicky mouse buttons of doom to make it so hereabouts. :slight_smile:

13

As you said, the typing should focus on the purpose of the road. If we discount all of our ‘pure’ Freeways & N routes, the R routes are our only other long distance alternatives between regions. Most of them are in a good enough condition to be excellent candidates for alternate routes. In fact, some of them (not all) are likely in a better state than sections of the main N routes.

I am also in favor of mapping these as no less than Minor Highway, as any lower typing might cause the routing engine to discard them as candidates for routes they should realistically qualify for.

From one or two quick samples that I looked at on the NA server, the US typing typically remains the same for Minor & Major where they run through smaller towns. This would be consistent with the Waze classification as per the most parts of the Wiki pages.

Next question is, are we happy with leaving the equivalent but relatively shorter M routes predominantly mapped as Primary Street types ? Currently they seem to function fine as this type.

I have not extensively tried any form of major routing inside of Jhb or Pretoria from the client, as I mainly use Waze for my commutes. Maybe somebody that uses it extensively for client visits or deliveries could comment here ?
My main concern is that we have no real large mix in Jhb of the 3 Freeway types, so would not know if we are presented with enough alternatives having mostly just Freeway and Primary Street types mapped.

With the amount of updates we had recently, it would be easy enough to differently type a few of them like the M9 , M85 etc. and see if they do pop up as eligible routes as standard, or if pure traffic stats would still largely keep to the normal 1 or 2 routes for routing into Rivonia, Sandton and surrounds.
We should be able to revert them fairly quickly.

Any comments or thoughts on this ?

14

Certainly most of the M routes are basically just regular shorter suburban roads, which can probably stay at Primary Street. Some of the more important and longer ones might qualify for an upgrade to Minor Highway, especially the ones that actually travel between different urban/suburban areas. For example, if we upgrade William Nicol Dr (R511) (runs from the N1 on/offramp northwards) to Minor Highway (something I have not done yet, but is sort of on my todo list), it might make sense to upgrade the other half of William Nicol Dr (south of the N1, designated M81) to Minor Highway as well. For that matter, you could take it all the way along Jan Smuts into the CBD; I think that combined route qualifies as “a labeled route that can be followed to get from one city/town/neighborhood to another”.

Within smaller areas, I think the Waze routing engine is far less reliant on road typing to “hint” it into considering major routes; it can consider most of the viable routes and find one for you based on speed data, rather than having to lock you to a highway. On the other hand, ducking down through a side road can land you up in the unfortunate situation of waiting 30 minutes to turn right at a stop street across a major route full of traffic (Waze really need to start tracking turn times through a junction); I believe Primary Street segments receive little or no benefit when routing, whereas Minor Highway and up receive a more substantial bonus which may make it less likely for Waze to “stray” from these routes. On the other hand, that may eliminate alternative routes it might otherwise have shown… I guess the only thing to do in the end is to try it and make adjustments as necessary.

It’s definitely been one of my longstanding peeves how basically all of the roads in Johannesburg except the actual freeways are marked Primary Street at the most.

15

I agree that most of the M routes are relatively short, and likely work well for the average 20 to 30 Km commutes typed as Primary Streets.
In reality, the R routes should retain their Minor Highway classification even where they travel through suburbs and/or cities, especially where they are still labeled as such via signage. Where the R route becomes an M route, retaining this classification would make sense and likely be beneficial as longer-route alternatives that cut through metro areas, instead of always getting routed around on the Freeways and Major Highways.
I’m not sure that these are currently considered for the longer route types, but it would make sense to have a few Highway type alternatives that are presented or at least considered as viable East-West or North-South candidates.

Woodmead and Sandton being prime examples. It seems almost impossible to find just a normal street :wink: Likely not that bad, but to our defense, a lot of the M routes do actually pass through here.

My major peeve is that we have tons of work outstanding as far as this, naming suburbs properly and just fixing normal routing is concerned, and yet, a lot of editors seem intent on rather mapping every parking lot and private road leading into the smaller housing complexes.
We are all aiming for the 100/200K mark, agreed, but contributing positively to the map as far as routing is concerned, or getting our developed area’s streets mapped should be a priority in my opinion.
[/rant]

16

That’s probably either a result of either (likely a combo of) 1) low hanging fruit (adding these is easy and quick) 2) the inherently more “rewarding” feeling of adding a NEW thing rather than “just” tweaking an old one or 3) they live/work/shop there and think it’s important. It’s also pretty easy to just skip tutorials and not read anything and click merrily away on the map.

I guess the point allocation system is pretty rudimentary; contributing to a really “effective” network of routable roads should be given some kind of multiplier; how you’d actually work that out without Waze sending a car around the whole of South Africa, I don’t know, as such an experience is somewhat subjective.

It’s also perhaps unfortunate that driving gives you the same kind of points as editing - if you commute about 700m to work, you’re not going to be racking up driving miles at any significant rate… (and rush minute is such an inconvenience)! I think Waze should rival google maps in completeness, hence my desire to map small places where people won’t generally even use something like Waze. But it’s particularly cool if they grab the app and find their little town and street happens to be in there; it certainly ought to be if they bought a garmin/tomtom or loaded the google maps app. It’s also handy for the out-of-towners.

17

Well, to be strictly accurate, editing the map also adds to your “Map Updates” which you can only get by editing the map :slight_smile:

But there’s no “Map Updates” scoreboard, unless you consider editor level as a kind of score, and I think maybe there shouldn’t be; encouraging spam-editing isn’t a good idea.

18

Indeed not.

I guess as ultimately a “community”, waze should be given more “community management” features - editing karma (good [awesome edit, +1] and bad [retarded edit -1; really retarded edits, lots of, banhammer]) and a moderation/reporting system that’s integrated into the WME. Heck, even the option to add notes to a road or area would be useful (like sticking a “post it” to a car park saying “this is right, stop adding all the lanes, here, read this wiki link”).

Of course, having a hierarchy always seems to lead to more narrow “cliques” of experienced users vs noobs, so some way of encouraging new blood needs to be found.

19

At this point, I’d settle for a reliable way to communicate with other editors; I’d far rather have an argument by email (or forum post, or forum PM, whatever) about some map issue than an edit war, but as it stands, I have no way to contact most editors so I can’t do anything besides either leave their edits alone, or revert them… :cry:

While there are likely a few malicious / obstinate editors who wouldn’t listen to reason anyway, I suspect most editors just aren’t familiar with Waze standards / conventions and so on, and would respond positively if I had some way to contact them and explain things. But the editors who don’t read the wiki / forums are the same editors who will probably never read their forum PMs.

20

I guess the simplest way to deal with non-reading of the PMs is to have a “you have a new PM” nag screen in the Waze client. :smiley: