Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable roads

YouTube00crashtest made these changes to the freeway section of the road types page without posting in the forum. This represents a change in guidance without consensus, I have therefore reverted these edits pending discussion here.
Do we agree with these changes?

I agree with reverting the changes until we discuss here.

I didn't study them deeply, but they appear to be mainly examples with links to Wikipedia entries and other pages of our Wiki. I don't think that is a problem if the examples are a good match for our content.

Just to throw out a suggestion - in order to reduce said wiki bloat, would it be better for the wiki to provide the basic instruction, and then there can be a "spoiler" inserted for the reasoning - this will reduce the Wiki's size and be more direct which may be more useful to the new editors, but still allow for explanations for those people that desire the explanation.

I agree, it was more of a concession to both sides that feel whether info should or should not be entered. With that as an option, we can say that reasoning information can be entered and there may be a way where we can organize it better, instead of flat out rejecting reasoning information because it feels as though it is bloating the wiki.

My own personal opinion is I would rather any manual whether it be the wiki or otherwise to really tell me how to do something, though I do appreciate if there is reasoning information behind it. Especially for new editors, being concise and to the point is more important I feel. Most need to start at the "what do I do" stage, later on they can learn the "why do I do it this way" as they learn the nuances of their project.

At the same time, with development, how things are planned to go and then what they actually look like upon release are often different.

Best we can do is do the best that we can with the best that we have got o_o.

It is done.

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Road_types/USA

I have posted an announcement in the United States forum. Perhaps it is also wise to post an announcement in the Waze Map Editor forum?

Also I made a tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/RoadTypesUSA (not case sensitive).

Is there a forum discussion on the implementation that's already going? There haven't been any posts here for a while. Thanks.

I did find that one, but thanks for reposting the link. It's probably true that discussion at this point needs to be local, primarily.

And we're still working on finding a usable FC map. The link in the Wiki for HI only works for those who can log into their restricted database. I've emailed the DOT to see if they have something for general-public consumption.

I'll try that, my next shot at IE (I'm on Macs all day long, but we have Windows at home). I hope in vain that my DOT contact would reply to my email, but no such luck so far.

Thanks!

Me too. The concepts give me a framework to hang all the details on.
We all have different learning styles.

In the short term, I'd like to see the already-proposed draft accepted.
After that, we can fine-tune the presentation.

It is possible that we might want to organize some of the pages into "quick reference how-to" and a more detailed discussion with the "why". We would benefit from input from someone who knows something about learning and learning styles. I think a fair # of editors claim some kind of executive function deficit. The community benefits if it is able to make it easy for everyone to learn.

I'm interested in the status/future of the dirt roads type, so sorry for this diversion...

But going back to the presentation issue and "bloat": Wouldn't using the collapsible sections (expand/contract) device help retain some of the rationale (which I also appreciate) and keep down the length for those who want "just the facts"?

Never a downgrade?

I routinely downgrade Minor Collector from Primary to 4x4 / Dirt Roads if they are not paved. This is the only way for the Avoid Dirt Roads option to work.

Otherwise, using NFC guidelines in SW Michigan has been very helpful.

I too thank you sketch for you efforts.

Maybe I have the objective of the road types totally wrong, but if they are for trying to single out roads appropriate for use in the middle of trips of certain distances, then urban arterials are a bad metaphor for Waze highways.

I think if the FC class is adopted nation wide, the guidlines for "what a freeway is" or "What a major highway is" outlined here will become obsolete. If every road is classified in the FC maps then there is no need to have a page that explain what roads meet the criteria of being a certain class. Make sense. Ill try to explain it better:

In areas that no editor has ever touched all the roads are streets. We used the above page to determine the class of the road. But sense there is a national standard for classifying roads (FC maps), there is no need to determine the class of the roads ourselves.

@Sketch: I am an active editor in Washington. The states standard is to type roads according to the FC Map. I have outlined the standards in Washington's Wiki Page. Seattle also uses the FC map. One thing I have noticed is WSDOT's FC map changes some roads class when they go from Urban Area to Rural Area and Vice versa. I think this should be considered with making the table:

Functional class / highway system	Waze road type
FC: Interstates FC: Other Freeways and Expressways (some) HS: Interstate	Freeway
FC: Other Freeways and Expressways (others) FC: Other Principal Arterials HS: U.S. Highways	Major Highway
FC: Other Arterials HS: State Highways	Minor Highway
FC: Major Collectors FC: Minor Collectors HS: County Routes	Primary Street
FC: Local	Street

Take a look at the table I made for Washington's Wiki Page.

Overall I hope those editors who are not a fan of the FC map should strongly consider it. It works great, coming from and active editor and driver in a state that follows the FC map.