With regards to Edmonton, I'm not sure if anyone saw this:

BEING A BYLAW TO ESTABLISH THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF EDMONTON

Specifically lists freeways, etc.

I'd like to chime in with my support of this change. I've always held the opinion that either we need an additional road type, or we need to make expanded use of the highway types in large Canadian cities. It makes a lot of sense that it would help the routing system to be able to distinguish between the wide range of "Primary" streets that we currently have. I also like to visually distinguish the major arteries from other primary streets.

I'd love to implement this in Calgary as well, depending how the experiment works in Edmonton. Keep us updated. Of course I'd be eager to work on it if needed, but it would be difficult without level 4 rank now that we have traffic locks. I'm glad I worked on making the Primary Streets more closely match the official City of Calgary maps before the extra locks when into effect. The Calgary maps seem to do a very good job of showing four different road types using highlighting.

All in all, I think this is a step in the right direction.

Excellent! I think we should be able to start on it right away.

I don't really care for that map you linked to, though. It's difficult to see the colour differences (at least on my screen) and it's pretty generous with what it has marked as "Expressway." Many of them are 70 km/h, two lanes in each direction, with at-grade intersections. Most of those should probably be Major Highway in Waze, and the ones marked as "Major" should probably be Minor Highway in Waze.

I think our best bet might be to use the interactive maps here: http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/ca ... rymap.aspx
At the wider zoom levels, it shows two different shades of yellow/orange for the major arteries. As you zoom in (far enough to see the building shapes), it shows collectors in bright yellow (should probably be Primary St in Waze.)

I think the wiki definitions look great, and should mesh well with the above.

doctorkb wrote:I'd suggest that some of the expressways are the "major highway" type, but some are freeway, too

Yes, sorry, I should have included that as well: the "Expressways" from that map will either be Freeway or Major Highway, depending which fits better. I was mostly talking about the slower ones, with only at-grade intersections, that should be Major Highway. The roads marked "Major" on that map are the (mostly) 60 km/h or slower divided roads, with much lower volumes than the major arterial roads.

Sounds like we're on the same page. I'll get started on it as I have time, and ask for feedback once there has been some progress. You'll probably be seeing several unlock requests, as well.

doctorkb wrote:Sounds good. You might consider engaging Jay91150 as well.

Absolutely. Any help is appreciated. I'll be starting in the NW with the Major/Minor Highways, so maybe we can start from different corners. Changing collectors back to Primary St might be the most work, and will be possible for newer editors to help with as well.

This actually should increase the likelihood that your preferred route would be suggested. I'm guessing that Metis will end up as either mH or MH under this scheme.

Yes, Metis Tr will definitely be Major Highway, while Beddington will only be Major between Country Hills and Deerfoot. The section between Stoney Trail and Country hills is much slower, and will remain Minor Highway.

Regarding Glenmore and Crowchild, they mostly meet our modified Freeway definition (80 km/h and grade-separated interchanges). The sections that don't, are still considered major arteries by the city, and are some of our most-major roads, so should be Major Highway regardless of the Provincial Hwy designation.

I just thought I'd update on the progress a bit. All the Major Highways should be done, and I'm about 80% or so done with Minor Highways. Just the west-central area left. I've been adding Primary Streets in some areas as I go through, but most of that work still needs to be done. The City seems to have many more roads designated as collectors than I thought, and that might be the area where we need to use some judgement. For the highway types, the City seems to be very consistent and I've seen very few places where things don't match up really well with our definitions.

Also, I've already started seeing the routing benefits in my own drives. On one drive from the NW to the NE, it offered Metis Trail as the fastest route instead of keeping me on Stoney Trail all the way to McKnight then back-tracking. And on the way home, it directed me in the opposite direction on McKnight to Deerfoot Trail instead of McKnight back to Stoney (which was closer). In the SE Foothills Industrial Park, I am now seeing options for Glenmore or Peigan to Stoney Trail, where before I would just get directed to Deerfoot if that was closer. Anyway, it seems to be an improvement for me, at least.

Hey all, as the one who wrote the US FC rules which inspired this experiment, I'm gonna keep an eye on the progress here. Looking good so far. I've made a few notes to the Doctor in PM, which he is free to reproduce here.

Hi,
Im new to waze editor but was a cartographer for many years in Australia and invented the first electronic maps for GPS navigation.

Some thoughts here:
Types of road clasifications as i know them:
1. single lane unsealed
2. dual lane dual direction unsealed
3 single lane sealed
4. Dual lane dual direction sealed
5. Dual lane or more single direction sealed
6. 4 lane multi direction

Colurs would depict if it was a standard road, expressway, freeway / motorway, or toll road.

when we invented this system a gps rout could be determined by the vehicle traveling on it was supported including weight class for bridges.

Hope this helps, Warren