Hi Rob,
I certainly think all N- roads should share the same type, and the same for all R- roads, despite the variation. Waze's routing favours higher road types, but even if (say) the R- roads in a particular area aren't the best ever, we still want Waze to favour them over some even worse roads. It makes life much easier for editors too: once we know that a road is an R-, N- or M- road, we know what type it should be.
On to the smaller roads though:
So I'm inclined to agree: editors should use common sense. In general, all paved roads that aren't designated as R- roads should be of type 'Street', but those that have high traffic volumes, or are considered 'trunk' roads, or are wide and high quality (and, most importantly, are wide enough to allow to two cars to pass without slowing down) can then be of type 'Primary Street' - but up to the editor's discretion and sense.
I won't change the draft just yet until we hear from a couple more editors - Diarmuid Cogan has been active on this thread recently, and I'm hoping Arthur O'Hara will give his opinion too.
(in any case, even after we turn the draft page into the 'official' page, that doesn't mean it's set in stone - we can change it again in the future. (although I would prefer not to make any non-trivial changes without discussion on the forum first)).
If anybody reading this is in touch with any of the other serious editors, please ask them to give their opinions on this thread!
++David \ davidg666
I agree - there's certainly a vast variation in road quality within the same road type - we have N- roads that are comparable to motorways, and other N- roads that are narrower and windier than R- roads - and the variations carry on like that all the way down to the humblest road.bprob wrote:Regarding the road types, the more I drive and edit, I see that there is no relationship between quality of road and the rating it is given.
Was in Mayo this week and several R roads with 100km limits were just plain ridiculous.
However, we have to work within what we have so I would say in Waze, we have to stick to the broad categorisations you suggest.
I certainly think all N- roads should share the same type, and the same for all R- roads, despite the variation. Waze's routing favours higher road types, but even if (say) the R- roads in a particular area aren't the best ever, we still want Waze to favour them over some even worse roads. It makes life much easier for editors too: once we know that a road is an R-, N- or M- road, we know what type it should be.
On to the smaller roads though:
You have a good point; although I changed the draft wiki page after Diarmuid's remarks, there are plenty of places where there are good L- roads with numbers above 5000 and bad L-roads with numbers below 5000. As well as that, we only occasionally know the L-number of a smaller road, because there are only sometimes signs at the end (some counties seem to better than this than others, of course).bprob wrote:I have one caveat, which I have mentioned previously: L roads.
The strongest evidence for the lack of relationship between road quality and naming lies with the L roads: The ones from 0001 to 4999 are not, as a group, that much better than the ones named 5000 to 8999.
Some are much better, some are slightly better, some are the same, some are worse and some are much worse!!
The L roads from 10000+ are almost universally of a lower standard.
I really feel that we cannot categorise ALL L0001-L4999 as Primary St, just as we cannot categorise ALL L5000-8999 as Street. There will be some overlap between the two.
Also in some new urban areas, the higher numbers are being used on new roads, for the simple reason that the smaller numbers have already been used in that county.
As mentioned previously, Editors should use their common sense: The app will zoom out depending on the speed you are travelling.
If the road is of a standard good enough to allow you drive at a speed (safely and cars can pass each other) where it is visible when slightly zoomed out, we should use Primary street, if you have to drive slower, it should be street.
So I'm inclined to agree: editors should use common sense. In general, all paved roads that aren't designated as R- roads should be of type 'Street', but those that have high traffic volumes, or are considered 'trunk' roads, or are wide and high quality (and, most importantly, are wide enough to allow to two cars to pass without slowing down) can then be of type 'Primary Street' - but up to the editor's discretion and sense.
I won't change the draft just yet until we hear from a couple more editors - Diarmuid Cogan has been active on this thread recently, and I'm hoping Arthur O'Hara will give his opinion too.
(in any case, even after we turn the draft page into the 'official' page, that doesn't mean it's set in stone - we can change it again in the future. (although I would prefer not to make any non-trivial changes without discussion on the forum first)).
Agreed; there are many narrow paved roads that have grass down the middle. If a road really is just dirt, only then should be called a dirt road. (thankfully, unlike Australia and New Zealand (and probably other places) we don't have major highways that are dirt (really!)).bprob wrote:Roads with grass down the middle are still paved roads. If you can't see dirt either side, its not a dirt road. It shouldn't be categorised as such, it should be a street. Dirt roads are plentiful in the west, leading into bogs etc and are often private. They can be distinguished from each other.
If we categorised all roads with grass in the middle as dirt roads, there would be an awful lot of the NW, W and SW unnavigable in the app.
If anybody reading this is in touch with any of the other serious editors, please ask them to give their opinions on this thread!
++David \ davidg666
Re: Wiki updating consensus 3: road types