Post by Fredo-p
Just want to put my info on this subject regarding Arizona.

I have been in contact with the Arizona Dept. of Transportation (ADOT) FC Coordinator. So I have been relaying all the information that he has informed me of with the AZ editors. I have also gone through the ADOT FC manual and created a pdf that summed up the way ADOT classifies its roadways and why. After some debate, we came to the agreement to utilize what ADOT has provided after I explained the way ADOT defines each road type.
vectorspace wrote:(2) Rural areas of AZ currently seem biased to be less highways and more primary streets and streets. So the major arterial between distant cities can be primary streets. It seems under-differentiated.
This was a problem when it came to deciding how to implement the FC system into Arizona. The major issue was that in the ADOT manual, it stated some cities/towns don't follow ADOTS classification system. At first, this seemed like a nightmare. But when I made a chart of the listed cities that followed their own classification system it made sense. These municipalities followed their own rules to an extent. One major reason is due to the population size and roadway network running through them. This actually made things easier. Since these municipalities didn't see a need to recognize minor or major types, they grouped them as one (Arterial and Minor). Some didn't even qualify for arterial so they did not use this type.

The other discovery that we found was that many roadways that we once thought of as just a street were actually classified as a PS. This changed many areas of the Phoenix area and began to show how ADOT routes traffic based on traffic density.

Some of the classifications have cause us to think about changing them. However, the final result is that we are to follow the ADOT FC map and, only then, make changes as needed. Since there was/is so much information about how the roadways classification works, I took challenge to read all the manuals and help translate how to make it happen in AZ. The top editors like nnote, ply8808, and itseric, have helped tremendously in making it happen and giving their opinion on the matter.

How this ties in with other states is something that the top level editors from each state will have to figure out.

The biggest thing to take away from all of this that has been mentioned in other posts is the way the FC's are named and identified in Waze. Don't get fooled just because a type says highway. It's just a classification name. What is important to remember is what that FC name stands for. Focus more on how each state classifies Arterials, Collectors, and Local roadways. If the data that the state provides seems outdated, get in contact with them. If this still proves difficult, the last option is to take the states DOT manual and implement the changes yourself. This would take time but prove more accurate versus waiting.
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
irowiki wrote:According to the wiki however, all US highways should be Major Highway, no? There's numerous US highways in AZ that aren't!
This all depends. The discussion about how to implement this change also referenced the way the the roads had been classified by Arizona standards. Everything that you see is how it is referenced as per ADOT FC guidelines.

We used the Wiki FC Chart as a guide but ultimately followed what ADOT has set since every county and state in this county operates under their own guidance. The FHWA FC guidelines aren't followed nationwide, so it varies everywhere. What you see in Arizona is how Arizona really classified their roadways.

It took us a while to get used to it.
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
As I have stated before, the radical changes seen in Arizona have been done after great debate, discussion, and contact with the Arizona Department of Transportation. I have, and am still, in contact with the Arizona Functional Classifications Manager. He has given me much information about the FC system and layout in Arizona.

As mentioned above,
kentsmith9 wrote: As I understood the FC system, it defines how the state (or local city) would like traffic routed through that city. Therefore when local streets are identified as MH or mH, it is to indicate what streets are desired to be used over other streets that are ranked lower.
That is correct. That is how the FC system is intended to be used. Here is a section from the FHWA FC guide:
Highway Functional Classification Concepts, Criteria and Procedures wrote:While Arterials, Collectors and Locals span the full range of roadway functions,
the Federal functional classification scheme uses additional classification
categories
to describe these functions more precisely. Distinctions between access-
controlled and full-access roadways; the urban and rural development pattern; and
subtleties between “major” and “minor” sub-classifications are key considerations
when determining the Federal functional classification category to which a
particular roadway belongs. The process of determining the correct functional
classification of a particular roadway is as much art as it is science.
The way each state designs their FC system is very specific and involves months of data and planning. There is a reason why each road is classed the way it is. The most important reason is the flow of traffic. Taking Arizona into this conversation, the roadways that you see as MH are due to the fact that they are primary arterial roadways. These are the roadways that are designated such as to handle all the traffic in and around the city. If you look at the map, you will see that all the highways and freeways don't run through all the cities. They surround them or cut through one or two major cities. So almost all travel must be handled by surface roads.

As for the rural roads, they share the exact same criteria as urban when deciding the classification type. Traffic flow data, population, location, road design are all taken into consideration. The FC given to many of the urban SR may seem wrong, but in reality, it is correct as there is a reason for that given classification.

The decision was made to move onto this nation wide plan with the idea that it would better enhance the way Waze routes drivers. It was never meant to change anything, but to add to the routing accuracy. As Kent has also stated, he was given alternate routes in heavy traffic via roads he never thought about taking.

Having a wiki attempt to make a universal FC guideline is impractical. Each and every state runs their FC system as needed. They then report this to the DOT. If anything, the wiki should emphasize that each state has individual guidelines for establishing FC's and should direct them to the states FC's website (if available) or to the states forum topic on FC changes (if one has been created already).

I think the wiki on Road Types should be updated, but that will be for another post.

To summarize, FC implementation should never be looked at by what Google Maps shows and how Waze considers the classification. It should be based on the states DOT classification and design. Only after the changes have been made, can editors then step back and make the needed changes. I agree not all of the FC changes may apply to Waze, but this shouldn't be reason to force change onto other states due to confusion. It defiantly should warrant anyone to take their own action and make the changes "they feel" are incorrect and must be changed without first discussing it with the local editing team.
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
vectorspace wrote: Without trying to be disrespectful, I would say that this AZ FC experiment is "naive" in that it is focused at optimizing the cities in AZ without respect to many other things: Rural areas, surrounding states, national FC policy in the WIki, etc. It does not likely account for long distance and rural routing. There can be some bizarre issues that come up for long distance routing. Sketch has already outlined some examples.
Just to clarify, this isn't an experiment and it is, in no way, focused at optimizing the cites. All of the changes we made are in direct reflection of the Arizona DOT FC map (which is current as I have been in direct contact with ADOT). There is no way this should ever be called an experiment.

We are confident and comfortable with the changes that we have made here in Arizona. Saying it's an experiment without confirmation is a bit bold. It may seem difficult to fathom the changes we have done, but, if anyone outside of Arizona participated in our conversations, you would have understood how we came to the decision.

Before any drastic changes are done on anyone's behalf, please feel free to chat with us so we can enlighten you on how we came to this conclusion. Sometimes change is a good thing. ;)
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
At no time have we ever tried to make it seem like we are thumbing our noses. If it came off like that, then I humbly apologize.

That being said, I think it would be a good idea to include in the US road types wiki page that even though a nation wide standard of practice for FC implementation is the route we want to go, every state has a different way on how they implement the FC's. An addition to the wiki would be a link of sometype to the location on how each state classifies its roadways and how it translates that into Waze. The links could direct editors to a specific forum, state DOT page, or social media site that editors are using as a central place of contact and discussion on local editing.
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
kentsmith9 wrote:I think there may be confusion between the FCs defined as the national standard and how we translate those into Waze Street Types.

I recently noticed the AZ FC cross reference has a rigid matching to Waze Street types, where the National FC will depend upon whether the road is a state or numbered highway or just a local street (not serving as part of a route). For example in the National Standard a Major Collector can be MH, mH, or Primary Street depending on the highway system traversing those segments. In the AZ table, it can only be a Primary Street.

It appears that the AZ system is too rigid and is not selecting the correct Waze road types in some cases.
I can see how the AZ table I made seems to rigid as I didn't include the rest of the sections as the National FC table includes. I will update the AZ table to reflect that. Maybe this may have cause some confusion in regards to the changes from the state and national level views.
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
After reading, thinking it over, and sleeping on it, I have now realized something that has caused problems for us in AZ and the rest of the editing community that is solely my fault.
After reading Kent's comment
kentsmith9 wrote:I think there may be confusion between the FCs defined as the national standard and how we translate those into Waze Street Types.

I recently noticed the AZ FC cross reference has a rigid matching to Waze Street types, where the National FC will depend upon whether the road is a state or numbered highway or just a local street (not serving as part of a route). For example in the National Standard a Major Collector can be MH, mH, or Primary Street depending on the highway system traversing those segments. In the AZ table, it can only be a Primary Street.

It appears that the AZ system is too rigid and is not selecting the correct Waze road types in some cases.
I realized that the way the FC changes went about had a great influence on my behalf. Granted Ply8808 and nnote did have private discussions on this, eventually bringing me into the conversation, it seems my great efforts in attempting to understand how to implement the changes into Waze requirements have been a misguided effort. The critical error that I made was excluding the road types from the Waze National Standards table. I used the FC road types, but failed to include the road types themselves. This resulted in an extremely strict and biased decision making tool.

I greatly apologize for this error and all the trouble it has caused. I'm currently in the process of rebuilding this table to ensure it meets and follows the National Standards Table provided in the wiki.
:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
Hopefully we (I) can learn from this and get back on track to implementing and helping others implement the changes as needed.
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
The table that I am building removes the road types that aren't used or recognized in Arizona. Only using what is in the ADOT system. For example, County Routes and Business routes aren't used in Arizona.
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
Okay,
I really, really hope this helps resolve some of the issues that have happened as a result of the very strict and "simple" table I have created. This is the new table I have made. What I did was remove only the road types that are not recognized in Arizona. I have also relabeled the classifications to how the Arizona DOT has labeled them.

Is this a more usable table that follows what is on the road types wiki?
new table.jpg
(90.02 KiB) Downloaded 645 times
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+

Post by Fredo-p
Could it be possible to have every state champ create a list of sorts for how every state recognizes and classifies their road types, then submit this information in one massive pool with all the champs to examine?

Once all the data has been grouped, examine the similarities and differences between each state, and try to come up with an "allowable tolerance" to what can and can't be recognized, per state, so that a "flow" is established nation wide.

Of course, a national standards is extremely hard to meet since every state runs their DOT very differently. But it may be possible to find a median to all of this. Of course I, like many, was never a part of the Champs discussion on the matter, so I don't know what kind of planning or how much research was done. For all I know, I may be recommending something that has already been done.

Of course, such a task is also labor intensive and requires a lot of personal time to accomplish, so it may be difficult to perform as we all have real world matters to tend to.
Fredo-p
Posts: 2008
Has thanked: 242 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Arizona Wiki | @Waze_Arizona Twitter
Verizon Samsung Galaxy S8+