Robert04101 wrote:Aside from traffic jam flagging, are there any other functional differences between a PLR and a PR currently? If not, then using PRs for alleys might be better, to avoid throwing yet more PLA URs.

Sounds good to me...my concern would be resistance from the perspective that the "private" in Private Road should literally mean "private". We have snuck in rare exceptions to that perspective here and there (for such things like respecting "no through traffic" signs). But official use of PR for public alleys would collide head-on with it, unless it's moderated in the last couple of years.

[EDIT: I found a recent post by the editor who at one time spoke forcefully for the perspective that "Private Road means Private Road". It appears he has moderated his views on this, and would probably not object to the widespread use of PR for public alleys. Of course there could be others who would still need to be persuaded.]

The Private Installations / Campgrounds thread has resolved that the Private Road type is the best choice for mapping campsite access roads.

The resolution revolved around three key concepts:

• The Waze app's visible differences in line thicknesses between the Street type and the PLR/PR types should correspond with perceived relative significance.
• Campsite access roads are really a kind of multi-destination driveway; they are not as significant as normal public residential streets, even within the context of a Private Installation.
• Traffic-jam highlighting is unlikely to activate on a road where traffic is always slow; so, the PLR's immunity to highlighting is not that useful for campsite access roads.

Currently, the Parking Lot Road entry in Road Types / USA explicitly supports use of PLR for trailer parks. In light of our resolution, this is not good. Trailer parks are similar to campgrounds -- the trailer access roads, like campsite access roads, are effectively private driveways.

Therefore, I propose (1) to remove the "Trailer Parks" suggestion from the PLR wiki entry in the USA Road Types article; and (2) to add trailer parks, campsite access roads, and significant driveways to the bulleted list of useful situations in the subsequent Private Road entry. The "significant driveways" item would link to the driveways article.

kentsmith9 wrote:I have seen neighborhoods with Mobile Homes that are not private, but because the lots only have mobile homes people assume they are a Mobile Home park. The difference is if the home owner also owns their own land or not. The private Mobile Home parks typically own the land and the home owner leases that land from the park.

Should we just state if the Mobile Home Park has private property or unnamed streets, you can presume it is private and should be mapped with PR? Otherwise we have areas with Mobile Homes that are on public streets and people may be confused.

Can you give an example of a mobile-home community where the streets are open to the public for through traffic (and presumably publicly maintained)? I'm not sure I've ever seen one.

By the way, apologies if I did not capture the essence of the discussion from the Private Installations / Campgrounds thread. If you'd like to send me additional bullet points I'd be glad to add them in an edit to that post.

kentsmith9 wrote:

DwarfLord wrote:Can you give an example of a mobile-home community where the streets are open to the public for through traffic (and presumably publicly maintained)? I'm not sure I've ever seen one.

https://www.waze.com/en-US/editor/?env= ... 640&zoom=6

There are dozens of neighborhoods in Arizona with Manufactured Homes / Mobile Homes that are located on properties that are connected to public roads. While it doesn't have a front entrance that says XXX Mobile Home Park, if you wandered the streets you likely would think you are in a Mobile Home park.

Thanks a bunch, that's a great example. No doubt in my mind that Street is an appropriate type there.

tonestertm wrote:

An argument was raised here, in a current thread regarding campgrounds, that Waze officially discourages use of the Parking Lot Road type for anything other than parking.

Patently untrue. Waze has never, to my knowledge, indicated that PLR are not to be used for anything but BigAssphalt parking lots, and they play no special part in the machine-learning process for Parking.

Indeed, I came into this because my PLRs for campsite access roads had been changed to Street type and I was trying to understand why.

Over in the Private Installations / Campgrounds thread a common theme seemed to emerge that PLRs are inappropriate for campsite access roads and trailer parks.

The reasons folks seemed to think PLRs were inappropriate there seemed to be because (a) Waze was making a big deal of parking management, (b) PLRs are the only road type we have that have an association with parking, and (c) campsite access roads have nothing to do with parking.

If I understood those reasons correctly, wouldn't they apply just as well to alleys?

Personally I have no problem using PLR for campsite access roads (or alleys for that matter). Based on my understanding of PLRs they are entirely appropriate. But over in the other thread I was a minority of 1 on that, so I agreed to PRs because it seemed like an acceptable compromise to everybody.

Clearly I am not getting something. It seems inconsistent to me that PLRs would be wrong for campsite access roads because those roads have nothing to do with parking, but absolutely appropriate for alleys that also have nothing to do with parking.

Anyway I've raised the question and people are engaged so I will just lurk from here on.

Residential mobile home/trailer parks would also need to use PR as they are essentially private installations.

Would this be for trailer parks without named streets? Depending on the definition of "Trailer Park", some are residential areas with named roads and should be treated like any residential area. Other "Trailer Parks" are KOA type facilities and I agree with PR in that situation.

juliansean wrote:I like this proposal. It seems much cleaner. The only question, if approved, would we be changing what was already done or just when creating new and modifying existing when other changes are necessary?

If approved I would think it would be handled on a State by State decision. Most likely as you come across you can fix but no need to go out hunting them down.

I like this proposal. It seems much cleaner. The only question, if approved, would we be changing what was already done or just when creating new and modifying existing when other changes are necessary?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk