Here a short while ago, a few editors noticed issues when taking INDOT Functional Classification and translating it to the Waze Functional Chart.
When looking at the " Local / Not Mapped" Column and moving over to where it meets the " County Route" Column it says Primary Street. Therefor according to Waze FC Chart all county roads should default to “primary street”. This also makes a majority of local roads also default to " Primary Street" Not all streets meet that definition, some are indeed true primary streets and others are not.
The Indiana Waze Community is working towards coming up with a solution to best solve this issue.
One idea proposed is to utilize the INDOT’s Traffic Counts tool and only select the non state route options. Any road with a traffic count of over 400 vehicles per day would be the minimal requirement for Primary Street
https://entapps.indot.in.gov/TrafficCounts/
Some additional pointers to be considered is any roadway that ends in a dead end, the dead end segment can’t be primary…
If anyone has any ideas on how to help the Indiana Community solve this issue, please feel free to add your input! 
Since the beginning of FC we have pretty much followed the image above and did not realize INDOT was calling pretty much every road in the county a “County Route”. It has worked for us so far, so I do not see an issue with continuing to do it the same way we have for the past year. We can post this image on our wiki for easy reference and anyone R1 and up should be able to understand it.
Of course there will always be fringe cases where the FC classification the State of Indiana gave a specific road may not make sense. I would suggest anything questionable that deters from the Indiana FC map should be kept track of in an excel spreadsheet for SM review. With SM approval we can deter from the image above. Also, by keeping track of fringe cases on an online spreadsheet any editor can review what has been approved to deter from the state FC map.
(I’m obviously new here, but…)
Does that chart really mean that essentially every county road should be PS? Could it be that there is some distinction between “county route” and “county road”?
If you look at the INDOT Functional Class map PDFs they don’t show anything below “rural Minor Collector” which we have as PS along with the Major Collectors.
Do we really want the app and the routing algorithm to treat every county road the same as a Major Collector? Does any other state actually do that?
I think there was confusion with some newer editors with the national FC chart. The state of Indiana has almost every road in the rural county areas as a “County Route”, so I am proposing the simple solution of Local/Not Mapped in the County rd column to be listed as street. This will take away any confusion. And thanks to MeridianHills for already posting the makeshift chart I made.
I like the idea of abolishing primary street in the county road column as a blanket fix to mediate INDOT to Waze FC Chart dilemma because it provides a solid answer that isn’t negotiable. However, I also like INDOT’s TrafficCounts because it shows hard data and is a tool that can be easily used and can determine whether a street should remain a street or a primary street. However, this tool would require Editors/AMs to periodically check for the latest data on roads and make appropriate edits. This alone can tie up an editor for long periods of time though, therefore decreasing time that could be spent elsewhere improving the map on issues that are more important.
Being able to set road types by traffic count sounds amazing. But how would you do it? Can it be done in a way that someone new would be able to understand? Would the same standards be statewide?
I’d like to see roadtechie’s proposed change to the chart made official for Indiana.
While the use of traffic counts sounds interesting, it seems like makes it more laborious to know if the Waze Map FC status is correct. Aren’t we almost second-guessing INDOT’s classification of minor collectors at that point? Every county road in my area with 400+ AADT already seems to be (at least) an INDOT minor collector and thus a PS without needing to check AADT.
First, agreed that the explicit FC has served well - tho exposing perhaps some “under-classification” on as-yet-unidentified county roads. New editors following explicit FC is very understandable - BUT with a caveat that there should be an organized way to note exceptions overseen by SMs. Blindly following erroneous FC assignments (yes there are some 
) is just as wrong. But it is far easier to know where the skeletons are when new versions of FC come out - or a local editor questions why certain roads not do agree between waze and most-recently published FCs.
Validating the use of traffic count data seems premature without knowing the frequency of update and the state-wide applicability/availability. Also, it might be prudent to be able to explain if traffic count itself is ever used in FC assignment either upgrade or (less likely downgrade)? If it’s already a decision point, then it could be redundant to use as an additional factor.
Or, we could try and slice it even finer and distinguish between a generic county-assigned street name that happens to use numbers versus a county-designated “route” that is designated to get traffic thru an area along roads that are maintained in specific ways. Yeah, try and explain that to newer editors.