Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable roads

Moderators: MapSir, USA Champs

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

Postby PhantomSoul » Sat Feb 28, 2015 5:39 am

Just out of curiousity, don't Interstates require a grade-separated crossing and full interchange at least once every 20 miles (or something like that) for like just in case someone needs to turn around?

I remember on like I-25 in rural Wyoming, I'd see like this overpass with 4 ramps, paved and all, without much signage, and then just like little jeep trails go off pas the interchange in either direction.
PhantomSoul
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00 am
Location: Union, NJ USA
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 521 times

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

Postby PhantomSoul » Thu Apr 16, 2015 1:07 am

sketch wrote:https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Road_types/USA#A_hybrid_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.


I always described it as a combination of FC and route type - the higher of the two for each segment.
PhantomSoul
Local Champ Mentor
Local Champ Mentor
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:00 am
Location: Union, NJ USA
Has thanked: 313 times
Been thanked: 521 times

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

Postby ply8808 » Wed May 14, 2014 2:41 pm

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?
ply8808
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:35 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1304 times

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

Postby ply8808 » Sun May 18, 2014 2:56 pm

I have driven approximately 1500 miles through parts of AZ and CA this past week with waze as the navigational tool, I will report that the routing was excellent and visual of map pleasing for travel and roadtype orientation as landmarks. It was also easy to see the why the classification of roads are set in certain areas, it breaks up the all too common Primary's that used to be the majority road feature.
A couple items noticed for consideration:
As stated before in another forum, I cannot find the actual post or topic at this time, the auto zoom level in the app (using map editor scheme) when slowing creates very wide segments for the MH and mH road types which are displayed as a blob at some intersections.
The other is that the MHs were quick to display the pop up "waze has noticed you are stopped, are you in traffic?" when at a stoplight, wondering if anyone knows if waze calculates that stop time for the pop up differently with each road type?
ply8808
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:35 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1304 times

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

Postby ply8808 » Tue May 20, 2014 6:34 pm

irowiki wrote:
nnote wrote:I have to give a shout out to my AZ team, after much debating the official state gov FC GIS, on April 30th we decided to go for it. Almost two weeks later of non stop editing, ------- AZ FC is completed! ----------



According to the wiki however, all US highways should be Major Highway, no? There's numerous US highways in AZ that aren't!


As nnote stated, the FC GIS is complete, we are now beginning the discussion of how to implement the waze minimal requirement classification. We made the decision to move forward with the change by starting with focus on the AZ GIS, and because of the transitions and connections of these to the waze minimal standards it would be necessary to view these in accordance to what had been done as it appears there may be a need for upgrades or adjustments in the rural areas as well as those connections into urban areas, not to fail mention of the state border crossings that would involve neighboring state consensus.
When we looked at the US Highways and the downgrade in FC GIS to Primary, we found that most of these were rural routes and that the number routes were minimal to only one and routing would not be affected. This thought process was considered when deciding how to proceed and set the map up for discussions on how to address the rural standards.
In conclusion you are correct in reference to the wiki and we are currently discussing the next step and possible common theme of the rural areas and waze minimal standards.
ply8808
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:35 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1304 times

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

Postby ply8808 » Sat May 31, 2014 2:38 pm

To begin this post I will encourage all who have not done so to read this thread in its entirety, and for those who have read/followed it, please consider reviewing it again.
Then read the wiki in regards in its entirety focusing on the minimum national standards.

I will accept the responsibility of being part of the AZ FC implementation plan and execution, to include the failure of guidance with creating the AZ wiki page and the disparities from the USA Wiki Standard.

With that said, I will address some of the issues reported with our AZ implementation, beginning with a short history of the plan we came to a decision on:

When the decision to move forward with the FC implementation was made (please note there was much debate and discussion), the plan was to start in our largest city of Phoenix, multiple editors were involved and many questions arose but were discussed and the implementation was finalized in approximately 3 days, we set it up to implement the higher level road types first and work our way down, the intent was to not cause routing errors as the tiles updated.
As soon as we started hitting the rural areas there was an obvious difference in the FCs and wiki minimum standards, a decision was made to move forward by standing on a strict FC implementation to insure we covered the entire state without missing anything.
Once finished we began looking at the minimum standards for the US and State Highways, this is where we began discussing some discrepancies and possible exceptions. This is also the point where in hindsight it would have been better approached by finishing to the national standard and then discuss the issues we were seeing, but hindsight is always 20/20 and we as humans err in the moment.

Now to address the issues posted:
The wiki is clear on the minimum standard of US and State Highways, MH and mH respectively.
Our AZ wiki page does need adjusting to include the national standard, Fredo-P was not part of the original discussion of these items and I did not provide the necessary guidance to him.
Discussion on certain aspects of this implementation are still ongoing but a national standard has been agreed upon and until discussion and consensus of any changes we should follow those guidelines.

It should be noted that these are my opinions and may not reflect the entire AZ State management team, but we are still in discussion regarding these items and our approach may be adjusted with an agreement.
With that said and not to sound defensive, it is disappointing to me that I have not received a single PM with regards to the concerns that have been posted, I would have certainly engaged and most importantly seen the errs and upon discussion with fellow state management these issues would have been addressed.
It is also easy to get defensive about our cities FCs being stated an experiment when they match what most are implementing elsewhere, but on the other hand we chose to drive this venture and let the community know our progress so we should expect and thrive on that scrutiny. We have set up a statewide platform for not only the visual effect and possible discrepancies but also for routing tests, we simply need to finalize our plan to match the national standard otherwise the platform is not complete and the discussion is not focused where it should.

Finally I will say that we are all very different in our management/leadership/and editing styles but we are a community that uses all of these resources to drive the waze program, and with that comes the debates and different perspectives but ultimately we are a team and these are not only necessary but also promising to our future endeavors.
ply8808
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:35 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1304 times

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

Postby ply8808 » Sat May 31, 2014 10:21 pm

Our actions were not intended as either experimental nor a snubbing of our nose to the community, but I can see how that may have been perceived now that the defenses have dropped, there were some touched nerves.
ply8808
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 1134
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:35 am
Location: Arizona, USA
Has thanked: 1537 times
Been thanked: 1304 times

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

Postby Poncewattle » Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:54 am

Greets. While looking over changing this page, please be aware that this (bus or cab only lanes)

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/index.php/Ro ... only_lanes

conflicts with guidance on this page (vehicle type restrictions)

https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Partial_rest ... hicle_type

Basically the former says to set a bus only lane to private road, the latter says to use vehicle restrictions. Granted this is assuming that checking "private vehicles" and not checking bus will actually prevent routing and that the client assumes (for now) all vehicles are private vehicles -- which I believe is the case.
Poncewattle
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:00 am
Location: Virginia/Delaware, USA
Has thanked: 291 times
Been thanked: 182 times

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

Postby Poncewattle » Sat Nov 07, 2015 12:37 pm

Fredo-p wrote:Ah, so it's a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation.


Not necessarily. I think we all have to consider the situation of each intersection and our local knowledge of it when designing it. If traffic regularly backs up at the light past the junction where the AGC would start, and the AGC isn't really needed, then it may be a good idea to get rid of it so quicker right turns and slower straights and lefts are tracked appropriately.

If the AGC starts far enough back where it's needed for an early turn prompt then the junction node will also be far enough back where it may not pollute the data too bad on backed up traffic.

And since we can't go putting JBs everywhere, we're stuck with these sorts of considerations for a long time. So one rule really doesn't fit every situation -- and that's why we are all brilliant editors, and brilliant people rarely all agree with each other! :lol:
Poncewattle
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:00 am
Location: Virginia/Delaware, USA
Has thanked: 291 times
Been thanked: 182 times

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

Postby pumrum » Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:11 pm

THANK YOU! for doing this everyone -- it is so great to see continuing standardization in Waze.

One quick nit-pick on the wiki page: You mention FAA identifier but then listed an ICAO identifier. I would recommend using the FAA identifier rather than the ICAO identifier for runway markings. I think if you try to standardize on ICAO (KXXX) you will just end up confusing the masses -- most people recognize the FAA identifier. Further, some airfields don't have an ICAO identifier but all airfields have an FAA identifier.

"SMF Runway 16R-34L" instead of "KSMF Runway 16R-34L"

I would also recommend at least mentioning taxiways -- either give guidelines on how to map taxiways, or state that taxiways should not be mapped; whichever the decision is.
pumrum
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:02 am
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 299 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Wiki Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: steveinark