Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:48 pm
The following roads shall be classified as Freeway :
* * *
Roads classified in FHWA's functional classification as Other Freeways and Expressways which meet the following criteria:
Entrance via ramps only, typically with acceleration zones.
Exit via ramps only, typically with deceleration zones.
No at-grade intersections.
No stop lights (except sometimes on ramps).
No stop signs.
Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:14 pm
Thu Mar 20, 2014 4:17 pm
sketch wrote:There's a nuanced difference between the definitions here.
A freeway has no at-grade crossings
sketch wrote:and no intersections (and no immediate access to adjacent property). There are no at-grade crossings on US-50 there. An "intersection" requires that the roads themselves intersect, not via ramps, but on their own. So, those aren't "intersections", and that's a freeway. There's nothing to stop a ramp from being at-grade.
For at-grade connectors, if we don't want to have to rely on the "signed, numbered exit" exception (which should be expanded to encompass all BGSes regardless of number), we can either (1) define it circularly, saying that every road providing entrance or exit along a freeway must be a ramp,
sketch wrote:or (2) change the definition of "at-grade connector" slightly, to include only those at at-grade crossings or intersections. The latter (2) is logically more sound, but then what do we do with situations like this?
Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:26 pm
sketch wrote:"Crossing" to me means the road crosses from one side of the freeway to the other; i.e., it doesn't end/begin at the freeway. The reason "Intersection" should also be included is that it also covers roads that do end/begin at freeways — but only those that do at, well, intersections. Perhaps an "intersection" should be defined as "roughly perpendicular", where a road and another actually intersect, without the exclusive use of connectors or ramps.
Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:13 pm
sketch wrote:I don't envision anyone really having a problem with that being called a freeway any more than they might have had before.
Sun Mar 23, 2014 7:39 pm
qwaletee wrote:There's already code to treat unnamed ramps as if they were named with the same name as the next named segment on the route.
Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:29 pm
Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:48 pm
Thortok2000 wrote:It should route off PURE traffic data in my opinion. If the traffic data shows that road is the one to take, it should take it. It shouldn't take very long at all before the 'major' roads naturally become part of the majority of routing in the area. If you were to label EVERY SINGLE ROAD a major highway, you'd probably get the absolute 'best' route every time. However, it's easier for the routing system to 'think' if it only has to consider and compare 3-4 options rather than 30-40. Still, I think comparing every possible route regardless of road specification and finding the true fastest route is what we would love Waze to do, although there's little that we can do as map editors to make that happen. So FC it is.
Thortok2000 wrote:So the more major highways you have, the more routing improves along the major highways, but the less it works for lower classifications. Waze is like "I want to take a major highway and I'm going to unless there's a STRONG reason not to. If there is, I'm going to take only majors and minors unless there's a STRONG reason not to. If there is, I'm going to take only majors, minors and primaries, unless there's a STRONG reason not to." It's because of this 'STRONG' reason that it sticks to these routes like glue when shortcuts or shorter paths would actually be a bit faster.
Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:12 pm
dbraughlr wrote:I do not want routed through areas where I have to watch for children running into the street or trucks backing into loading docks.
Sat Mar 29, 2014 9:55 am
daknife wrote:(I also admit to a slight dislike for the Major type because the color used in the App is too close to the heavy traffic color occasionally making it hard to tell at a glance whether that's a Major hwy ahead or a major traffic jam that I need to avoid.)