I will offer my 2 cents as we have now started using AZ as a discussion point in this topic and we have come to a consensus in AZ as to implementation with consideration for future discussion.
We have had many discussions both privately and as a group on how to understand and implement the FC to the state of AZ, here are a couple of key resources we used in the process:
http://www.wacog.com/documents/FC_GUIDE.pdf
http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/technical ... T-MSRP.pdf
Not the easiest of reading but necessary to get into the minds of the engineers who developed the system.
I have found it easier for my engineering background to use a number system as vectorspace had mentioned, Freeway - 1 / MH - 2 / mH - 3 / Primary - 4 / Street - 5 / Dirt Road - 6, then placing the priority of roads using the criteria for best route, fastest route and secondary routes for closures/traffic jams/etc. This process worked for my understanding of the FCs but I had a hard time using this to explain the benefits of system and how it actually makes sense.
Thanks to Fredo-P for bringing enlightenment to my rambling dialog.
What appears to be the main debate at this time is the classification of the rural areas, as mentioned the FCs tend to fall short in these areas and does not seem to be a priority with the FC engineers, with exception of Freeways.
My thoughts on these areas and the minor and major collector designations are to refer back to the wiki on the minimum requirements of both waze and FC designation:
Public roads are designated by a series of minimum criteria.
If a road meets any one criterion for a type, the road must be at least that type.
For example,
a county highway (Waze: at least primary street) that is classified as a principal arterial (Waze: at least major highway) would be classified in Waze as a Major Highway .
a state highway (Waze: at least minor highway) that is classified as a major collector (Waze: at least primary street) would be classified in Waze as a Minor Highway .
a locally maintained road (Waze: at least street) that is classified as an other arterial (Waze: at least minor highway) would be classified in Waze as a Minor Highway .
If a road meets the criteria for multiple types, the highest of those types must be used, to satisfy every "at least" rule.
In many instances there is a waze designation of a route between cities/towns that is Principle Arterial or Minor Arterial, although the FC designates these roads as rural-major or rural-minor collectors, using the minimum requirement rule it is easy to justify the mH or MH designation.
In the special cases where there may be two of these routes and the local population would justify each as a main route but one has a stretch of well maintained dirt road so the designation is a rural-minor collector versus the rural-major collector for the other route which is paved entirely, this is an example of an upgrade/downgrade situation for routing clarification, rural-major collector = mH and rural-minor collector = Primary.
At this point I need to note that this is specific for the AZ region as our dirt roads are many times the only roads available in rural areas.
I believe I am started to ramble and lose the direction of my point as there is so much to consider, but I do feel there must be a national consensus on how to handle these areas as they involve crossing state borders, the exceptions should be on a minimum basis and discussion with neighboring areas a requirement.
So, how do we address the designation of rural-major collectors and rural-minor collectors on a general basis, or is this something that can only be handled as local specific?