jondrush wrote:In the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and in the contiguous cities listed below, Minor Arterial routes without shields should be Minor Highways.

If we are going to override PennDOT FC beyond Philly and Pittsburg, this could get confusing to editors, might it be better to either keep it to Philly and Pittsburg or just make it a statewide change? I'm thinking of the KISS principle.

There is an FC overlay script Map-O-Matic made that overlays the Waze road type colors onto the map (green, blue, etc) based on PennDOT's FC map. If we made this FC change statewide, this script would be easy to change to show that. But if we pick and chose cities, this script won't work so well. Not that we should be making decisions based on a script function, but it may be worth considering.

jondrush wrote:We already have ambiguity in our guidance with endnote b.

Yes we do, now we would be adding ambiguity to another FC type, splitting Minor Arterial unshielded between PS & mH. If we stick to Philly and Pittsburg, that won't be too bad, but beyond that it's just my opinion that we are risking adding more confusion than we are clarifying.

Just a thought, but instead of changing all these PS to mH, could we leave them as PS and use the Routing setting to increase the routing type to mH? Same end result as far as routing, but this may avoid the problem in the future of someone making mass changes to match PennDOT FC type.

This also would have the side effect, good or bad, of locking these roads out to anyone who cannot use the Routing function, which is either L3 or L4 I believe.

Routing is restricted to L4+, so any editor can still edit the segment (geometry, name, SL, etc) they just can't change the road type or do anything that would cause the segment ID to change. This may or may not be useful for the issue here.

I like it. Maybe "Do NOT use post office names (unless it also satisfies one of the first three rules)..." should just read "Do NOT use post office names...". If the PO name matches the town name, there won't be a question; if it doesn't match, then the name shouldn't be used. Unless I'm overlooking an example of where a PO name that doesn't match the town name should be used.

Those PO names match the town names already, so there wouldn't be a question. I agree Do Not Use could be construed as specifically don't use it, even if it's correct, and if anyone takes it that way, then my suggestion would be wrong to include. Just trying to clarify it a bit without muddying it up.

How about "Post Office names that don't match an official township, boro, or CDP name should not be used"?

No objections from me.

Think it might be worth changing "You can check this sheet to find out if anyone has contacted a new editor yet" to read "You can check this sheet to find out if anyone has contacted a new editor yet or use '!Outreach <username>' in Discord"? And I still wonder if the SM column in the sheet is visible to everyone. Otherwise, this is a good change.

Looks good.