Switch to full style
Post a reply

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Mon Mar 24, 2014 8:52 pm

Like the chart as well sketch and the markup. As one more caveat to add to the page. If you are using old State Map Data (SC is a good example) they are still using the urban/rural distinction in these maps. I believe something needs to be said on the page to the effect of. Don't change a road from Minor to Major simply because it is in a urban area. I thought I read something to that in a post above but I cannot seem to find it now.

Otherwise I am going to end up with the same argument with the same person once this is implemented. Txemt knows who I am talking about and this time he may have a little ammunition.

Regarding CBensons concerns. I think those upgrades/downgrades of roads of whatever the "person in charge" of the area decides should find it's way into the wiki page for that state. We have a section and hopefully an actual page soon dedicated to such anomalies in North Carolina. Like you said there are some roads on the fringe but the exception page should get shorter by implementing these standards alone.

So sketch with that being said maybe another disclaimer near the chart

Note: This is for quick settings only, please check the specific state wiki page for exceptions.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:10 pm

I also think that Thortk theory does not take into account at the very least Minor (not calling them Highways anymore) labeled roads. As I stated before I have noticed the hybrid system first hand helping when I FC the counties in SC along my route for my trip to Florida in December. It stop trying to snap me to the Major and Freeways after a certain amount of time. Eventually routing does learn that it is more conducive to keep me on the minor/primary road I am currently on and getting me down the road farther.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:15 am

sketch wrote:That doesn't explain why the three routes given* are
  • I-90 - 372 mi - 5 h 17 m
  • I-94 - 532 mi - 7 h 45 m
  • I-25 - 535 mi - 8 h 4 m
Of course the first alternate should be US-212 - 328 mi - 5 h 21 m (est), but it's not available because of the mH bit in the middle. Instead because of the lack of other MH+ routes we are given two entirely non-viable alternates.

I wish I had a better answer for you on this one. All that I can tell you is using the modified FC in the SC counties along my route from Charlotte to Florida It did route me on mH after the time frame made sense. Meaning to me the freeway route finally ended up taking longer than staying on the primary/mH. Now the time difference between the two routes in the perfect world is about 10-15 minutes. So for the first 10-15 minutes that "I" deviate from the course it does try to route me back on to the freeway. I am thinking that every time I hit the server on a reroute that it falls into that consider every road within the 5 miles of origin or destination rule. Of course maybe I just beat the routing server into submission where it throws up his hands and say "ok, ok, you know better". I doubt that very much.

Now if you type my NC to FL route into livemap, I am pretty confident that in no way will you get the route I take as an option. But that could be because I have more Freeway and Major Highway choices on that trip then you would get in the West.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:44 am

Also from what I can tell from the very obscure Utah functional class map (http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:::::V,T:,1224). They have US-89 labeled as a major highway at that point. Can't tell what the state highway is as I couldn't find a legend but it was green if that helps.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:18 pm

sketch wrote:I'm not sure when it changed or if it changed, and the info I have gotten is nebulous at best, but it's surely something. It may be longer than 200 mi. Look at the MT/SD example about 8-10 posts up. The couple dozen miles of Minor Highway in the middle of US-212 led to that route's pruning even as an alternative route.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

If this was a response from my post, Read the following if not then there is nothing to see here :)

While I am not disagreeing with the pruning of routes based on mH from live map, my point being that on a reroute while driving it seems to be doing it correctly. Now it could be I am just seeing what I want to see but it does appear to be functioning correctly with respect to MH and mH using routing. I also would agree with you if you think mH need to be included in the long distance routing instructions as a viable option. I think everyone would agree with that, whether or not they would think that State Highways should be mH or not. I never liked the way the "broke down" the pruning distance on routes. Even as a commuter app, it seems like they eliminated a lot of possible routes at a very low mileage threshold.

I am heading down that way hopefully at the end of May so I will check the alternate routes from the app at that point where the decision to go on the Interstate or the back way is made.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:07 am

Lastly, neither KISS nor FC (hybrid or pure) work for the best route from the Florida Gulf Coast to Montgomery, AL. There’s a 20-mile stretch of 4-lane, 65mph (75+ on good day!) Alabama state highway in the middle of nowhere rated as “rural minor arterial,” mH. For routing to work (yes, I have experimented), it has to be MH, which means the FC would have to be “rural principal arterial” for me to legitimately change it to MH. (Google Maps gets this routing right.) I changed it back to mH even though the reality is MH.

That is why at least in NC I proposed a wiki page to post these anomalies (either upgrade/downgrade) changes that would differ from the hybrid FC type system. My thinking is that there would be a list for editors in NC to see why this road differs from the standard and then to bring it up in the forum for discussion if needed. I also believe, fingers crossed, that using this hybrid method would bring far fewer exceptions to the rule then the KISS, or what is currently posted in the wiki.

I think one fix Waze could implement (whether it is a simple fix or not I am not sure) is to include Minor Highways for longer routes. Again I am not sure what distance this could be to A) make minor highways more useful and B) not bring the routing server(s) to its knees. This also would probably bring up a separate topic of what Waze is. Is it a commuting nav app or a general nav app? I hesitate to bring this up by sidetracking the issue at hand but I think if you look at the "pruning" mechanism as I know it. I would lean more towards it being a commuting app that we are shoehorning a general nav app into.

Also as I stated above in an older post. I have seen it work the minor highways on a reroute the way I would expect it to. But that is real time recalculating and as sketch said before there could be some sort of mechanism in place for rerouting.

Like Alan asked is the beta routers seeing any thing different. Knowing this answer might even make this whole discussion moot.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Sun Apr 06, 2014 5:25 pm

To stir the pot a little bit, have they actually came out and said that the reference speed is now the speed used to calculate the road and road type is no longer factored in. The two posts above do not really address the pruning of minor highways. They just refer to the displaying of traffic jams. If road type no longer factors in then that indeed makes this argument moot. But I don't see where they make mention of it.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:29 pm

Three questions for sake of consistency.

1)I already have a link direct from the NC wiki page. Does anybody see any benefit to pointing the link from the NC wiki page to here or just leave it direct on the NC page?

2) I changed the NC link on this page to a page that gets you closer to getting to the actual interactive functional class map. I also can get a direct link that takes you right to the page that loads to the interactive map. Which would you all prefer?

3) This last one I am not sure deserves to be on this page or not but users can download the actual GIS data available for a gis viewer (aka shapefiles). I do not mind leaving this option only on the NC wiki (I am not too sure how many folks would actually download the data). But does anyone see any benefit of listing it on this general FC page?

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:48 pm

kentsmith9 wrote:On this question in particular, I propose that multiple placements of the same data is hard to maintain. Instead because we have this single, common page for all states, I propose each state link back here for the FC web links. You can use

Works for me.
I know that name is long, so we could also create a redirect for editors with [[FC-USA]] linking to [[National_resources/USA/Functional_classification]]. Then you could use [[FC-USA#North_Carolina]] on the North Carolina page to get to the NC entry on this FC page.

I might need some help figuring this part out. We can take that through PM if you want though.

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:45 pm

Two questions.

Major Highways
Are we leaving US Bus Routes classified as Major by default since it is using the US Route Number System or are we going to use the FC class of that road

Minor Highways
Same as above. Also, not sure if this is a NC thing, but we have roads classed as Minor Arterials. Or is the other arterials suppose to be an all catching term?
Post a reply