Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:18 pm
What makes you think that'll happen?daknife wrote:I'm not going to mark it as such in Waze, because the residents would not appreciate a sudden influx of misrouted Wazers, nor would the Wazers appreciate the routing.
Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:44 pm
Again, what makes you think that will happen just because the type is changed? Type does not include any preference when there's historical data and this has been demonstrated ad-infinitum. All type does it determine when a potential route running over it will get pruned depending on total route length, run length of the section in question, and where in that route that section is. Pruning is not preference.daknife wrote:One word, Construction. As I mentioned in another comment changing the road to a preferred road type would dump traffic because of a major construction project nearby, the sectin in question runs between a mH and a Primary road, a good deal of traffic is being diverted over to the primary road, but on a road designed for increased capacity.
Mon May 12, 2014 3:54 pm
Have you got an example of this where the Fwy/Expy isn't ending and no longer limited access?pumrum wrote:Is this an incorrect assumption? If so, can the Wiki be updated to clarify that it is acceptable for the segments used for entrance and exit ramps to be something other than "ramp" type?
Tue May 13, 2014 3:51 pm
This is what I was getting at with my early comment. Interstate/Fwy/Expy all have common occurrences of terminating into another road type, and it's usually the next step down in NFC.sketch wrote:A freeway can certainly end or begin at another type road, and many do. I thought of adding that a few days ago, but I wasn't near a computer.
When a concurrency diverges I'm not sure we can really get away with not using ramps simply because there's usually a need for pathfinders, at least until we get that new feature.sketch wrote:As for mid-freeway connections to major/minor highways, this is possible as well, especially at the beginning/end of a concurrency (say, when US-11 and I-59 run together for a time). This will be covered by this section of the Interchanges JSG, which is pending a rewrite. That's still a type of interchange, though. Interchanges may use non-ramp segments if they are freeway/highway splits, mostly to achieve visual continuity on the map, but the point is that it's an interchange and not an intersection.
If there's another type of junction you're concerned with, I'd like to know.
Wed May 14, 2014 4:08 am
There used to be separate Urban/Ural FC guidelines until 2010(?) and the last directives were supposed to unify the two, however some states have either not completed that work or have yet to publish it to publicly accessible locations. If you've got FC maps that have Urban/Ural legends, it's the old system and judgment must be applied.vectorspace wrote:What conclude (for now) by looking in AZ to see what they did I see two things I will try to describe more in a bit:
(1) Phoenix, a rather large city, is comprised of a bunch of Minor Highways and Major Highways. This seems odd at first. It seems biased toward having Major Highways every half mile or every mile or so. Take a look. It seems highly differentiated.
(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.
So, does this make sense?
Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:04 pm
But would be unable to do anything since they cap out at L3.txemt wrote:voludu2 wrote:Then the style/best practice for this should also clearly state that any MPs which arise as a result should be closed "not identified", just to be clear that we aren't going to let an MP tell us what to do.
No, don't ever close an MP as "not identified." IGNs get involved then.
Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:04 pm
But not as a result of MPs, and for this particular issue of emergency access connectors between *ways, they would be unable to do anything if the *ways are locked as they should be.txemt wrote:I've seen them editing in various places, specifically places. I found a few segments (random) in dfw from December 2014, so they're still editing.
Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:01 pm
That may be, and would work, but the disconnect would still throw MPs.qwaletee wrote:I thought reason originally made for mapping the turnarounds was to prevent pollution, and the no connection was to prevent routing onto them in extreme traffic.
Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:37 am
It's a developed rule of thumb for the west and midwest states. In rural areas frontage roads of freeways tend to be alternates to the freeway with a 55+ speed limit. IMO in certain states if the FC map doesn't class them as Minor Arterial and they're not a SH/SR/US they might want to be promoted PS.kentsmith9 wrote:I was reviewing a situation on Frontage Roads in a very rural area.
I see in April 2014 we initially added a section on when to mark Frontage Roads as Primary Streets.
There are a lot of statements on what Frontage roads do and how they work. The change points to this thread, however after searching this thread I cannot find a single entry about Frontage Roads.
Is the logic we are following on Frontage Roads possibly covered in another thread? I could not locate any thread discussing the operation of Frontage Roads and why they need to be Primary Streets if the FC maps do not indicate such.
The case that brought this up is here along I-15 in the desert.
The FC map clearly shows the Coyote Lake Rd that crosses the freeway should be Primary, but the parallel roads like Yermo Rd. is not indicated to be Primary.
I think at a minimum we need to reword the entry for Primary Street to be more clear if the FC map shows resolution for other Primary Streets, but the frontage road is not marked the same, then there is no requirement to make the frontage road Primary.
Unless someone can tell me why that would be still necessary.
Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:13 pm
Well it can't be re-used without first converting all existing to something else + unpaved checkbox. Once the unpaved checkbox affects routing it's then possible to automatically re-type and checkbox all existing unpaved-type. What people are asking for as a type replacement, 4x4/high-clearance, isn't really a type and is just another property checkbox which also doesn't necessarily also imply unpaved.bretmcvey wrote:The checkbox isn't functional in the app from what I've seen. Original plans were to deprecate the type, but I'm not entirely sure that's still the plans.
We do have an ask out for more information from staff to better understand how things will ultimately work so we can revise guidance.