Switch to full style
Post a reply

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

Sat Feb 14, 2015 7:20 pm

They shouldn't be mapped at all. I never did get around to the comprehensive revision of nonpublic/nondrivable road types, but this is well established. That language should be changed to read that they shouldn't be mapped.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:14 pm

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.

This is very old information. IGNs haven't edited segments in years. Not identified is correct for MPs. Think of it as "not a problem".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:21 am

jasonh300 wrote:I wouldn't say "years", but I was assured by an admin that the MPs would no longer be handled this way, which confirms (to me) that it was once handled that way. I can't find the emails now, but I believe the end result was that "not identified" now prevents that MP from appearing again.

I say "years" only because all the "Last edited by ign_*" seem to be from 2012. It may have been a bit less than that. Either way, I am sure I read that "not identified" now prevents the MP from reappearing over a year ago.

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

Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:12 pm

qwaletee wrote:
dbraughlr wrote:Can anyone speak to what policy exists for crossovers which are legal and useful?

Why wouldn't that be mapped like any other AGC? Well, maybe a a dirt road freeway :)

Not that it applies here, but median U turn segments should typically use the Street type, by the way (unless they're part of an MUTI or RCUT). There are two reasons for this: (1) except in an MUTI or RCUT, median U turns are only used to get from a start point or to a destination when the route goes the other way on a divided roadway; (2) using AGC rules – which means setting them to the same type as the divided road – has led to some weird and bad prompts in the client in some cases. This was supposed to be in the JSG somewhere but I guess someone (cough, cough *nudges self*) forgot to add in it. Anyway, it's a topic for a different thread if anyone doesn't agree with that policy :D .

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

Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:40 pm

CBenson wrote:
qwaletee wrote:I don't quite get this. Did you mean to say that only MUTI and RCUT are designed to supply a route directly to a different road on the other side? Because any type of U-turn potentially provides indirect access to roads that are connected to the other side of a dual carriageway, so long as it is a "U-turn" that Waze can make.

But that direct/indirect distinction is significant. If the crossover segment is supplying the direct route to the road on the other side, then you want the crossover segment to be of type that will not cause routes over the crossover to be pruned. If the crossover segment is only supplying indirect access to roads that are connected on the other side, then it can be street type and routes over pruned from consideration for longer routes. The only direct routes such a crossover is providing is to origins or destinations near the crossover, and such routes will not be pruned as the street type segment will be near an end of the route.

Exactly. Routes like those are supposed to be prevented by small detour prevention anyway.

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

Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:40 am

PhantomSoul wrote:As far no posted sign for emergency authorized access only, doesn't the Interstate standard prohibit any kind of at-grade crossing of traffic, and maximum angles of exit and entrance turns?

Yes, but there are a few exceptions, notably in west Texas (mostly, directly-intersecting farm roads) and somewhere in New Jersey or something (a few blocks of surface-level non-controlled-access Interstate).

For non Interstate roads, it might be due to re-evaluate whether such a road is actually a freeway. I've seen many cases where a road classified by FC as an Expressway definitely does not meet the minimum Waze characteristics for a Freeway, as defined in the Road Types wiki.

The FC "Other Freeway and Expressway" class, depending on the state, contains both Freeway and Major Highway roads. Freeway is used for members of this class which are fully-controlled access ("freeways"); Major Highway is used for members with only partially-limited access ("expressways"). Some states use this class exclusively for non-Interstate freeways; for example, Michigan names the class "Other Freeways", and Louisiana uses the full name of the class but often uses the term "expressway" to refer to freeways. But the FHWA standard calls for it to be used for both fully-controlled and partially-limited access roads, so many other states likely differ.

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

Sat Apr 11, 2015 5:11 pm

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Road_types/U ... rid_system

I have added this section to the road types page for the purposes of clarification. Nothing in this section changes, or describes a change in, the content of the page.

Some editors have taken to using "FC" as a shorthand for the road type system, possibly leading other editors into confusion about the nature of the system. The system was designed as a hybrid system from the start, and can only fully operate as such. FC is only half of the picture, so I would discourage use of "FC" as a shorthand for the full extent of the road type guidance in the future. I sometimes shorthand it as "FC+US/SR", which is certainly clumsier, but is accurate. Simply referring to "the current U.S. road type guidance" works too.

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

Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:35 pm

DwarfLord wrote:To follow up on this suggested change to the Dirt Road section of Road Types (USA), here is a proposal expanding slightly on kentsmith9's suggestion. Kentsmith9's suggestion in red, mine in blue:

Good idea, not crazy about the wording. The wording downplays the fact that the option is called "avoid dirt roads". Your wording says "due to roughness or poor maintenance" and not one thing about the road surface itself.

Use of the dirt road type for paved roads in poor condition might make some sense in your area, but it's too far "off-label" to be suggested in any general fashion or as a US editing standard. If you want to make it a special case in your state/area, that's fine, but it doesn't belong here.

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

Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:06 am

Fredo's change is good, though I'd change it up a little, see below.

My point, DwarfLord, is that nowhere at all in the first sentence of your draft was it even implied that the "Avoid dirt roads" feature would be used to avoid dirt, or even unpaved, roads.

Because Waze allows users to opt out of through routing over this road type using the "avoid dirt roads" feature, it is generally used for roads that some fraction of local Waze users may prefer to avoid due to the type and/or quality of road surface and the availability of smoother, typically paved, alternatives.

How many states will actually set the "dirt road" type for roads that are paved with a hard surface?

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

Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:33 pm

My bad on the overall wording of the article, then. In context, especially with the changes, it's fine. The reason I say "typically paved" is that throughout most of the country the preferred roads will be paved—typically, not always. We can change it to something like "typically but not always paved," perhaps.

There are certainly reasons to avoid roads with poor surfaces whether paved or not, but there are also perfectly valid reasons to avoid unpaved roads altogether. Dirt and gravel alike cause similar problems particular to loose road surfaces—things fly around, whether rocks or dirt or dust, and get all up in your undercarriage and also all up on your car. Maybe you have to pick up a client for business and the 5 minutes the gravel road saves you doesn't counterbalance the 10 minutes you have to spend at the car wash. Or maybe you just like your paintjob.

Point being that there are valid reasons to want to avoid roads with a poor surface and valid reasons to want to avoid unpaved roads. Many of the concerns with dirt roads which are intrinsic to the dirt surface are also present with other types of unpaved roads, whereas "poor surface" is not necessarily intrinsic to any particular type of road, simply more likely with some than others (which is why hard surfaces exist). I see two reasonably valid interpretations of the 'dirt road' type beyond just dirt, and the latter (1) is a more logical connection, to me, and importantly (2) does not require any value judgments or arbitrary decisions on a road-to-road basis.

I understand that the situation is quite different out west, but the purpose of this page is to provide the general rule, which states/regions can modify if necessary—because not every state will set its own standard. The better general standard is the one which is not subject to individual interpretation. Modify as you need, but don't necessarily play that up in the general article.
Post a reply