Trans-Canada highway

Image

Moderators: MapSir, hmarian, doctorkb, manoeuvre, Canada Champs

Re: Trans-Canada highway

Postby hurley108 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:11 pm

erablian wrote:
hurley108 wrote:Should they, though, be Freeways through the national parks? The speed limit is lower, but more importantly, there's a lot of stopping all over the place, especially in the mountain parks.


Hwy 16 through Jasper National Park should not be freeway: It’s a two-lane road with a 90 km/h speed limit, and 70 km/h in several long sections.


Yes. The only reason I even ponder making it one is because Freeways are all that show up when zoomed all the way out.

Is Hwy 1 like this through Banff NP? It's been a few years since I was on that road.
hurley108
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:06 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Trans-Canada highway

Postby hurley108 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:03 am

scirocco84 wrote:I had changed highways 1 and 2 to freeway a little while ago (as far as my editable areas would allow anyway. If someone could finish the rest that would be great). However, I didn't change them to freeways through smaller towns (Strathmore, Nanton, etc.) where the speed limit drops to 50 or 60. I considered changing them to freeway to keep it consistent, but I thought that the client would route through the town, when it is usually much quicker to bypass using range or township roads.


I would say that 16 should be freeway for much of its length too. I've not been past Elk Island to the east of Edmonton, but I think it warrants Freeway for much of its length - Edson and Hinton being notable exceptions, where it should stay Major Highway.

Should they, though, be Freeways through the national parks? The speed limit is lower, but more importantly, there's a lot of stopping all over the place, especially in the mountain parks.

As to the rest of the highways, I'd say all the secondaries (500 and up) should be Minor Highways, and the primaries (1-100) should all be majors, except for the select few freeways we've been talking about.

doctorkb recently put Whitemud Drive in Edmonton to Freeway, I switched it back, but later came around. As such, should the Deerfoot in Calgary be a Freeway too?

scirocco84 wrote:Also, regarding range and township roads. Some counties have different naming conventions for them. Range road xxx, range road xx-x and range xx - road x. Range xx-road x is technically the correct way they should all be written. My questions is, should we be keeping them all consistent by leaving them as displayed on the map (range road xxx) or changing them all to range xx-road x. Or the third option, marking them on the map as they are displayed in each respective county?
Any thoughts?


It would be a major undertaking to rename those, and tricky to be consistent. I've only known them to be Range Road xxx, but if they're named something different, then probably keeping consistent with signage would be best, especially if someone's trying to navigate out in the country, they probably won't know how the system works.

Anyone know if there are abbreviations for Range or Township that work in the TTS?
hurley108
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:06 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Trans-Canada highway

Postby hurley108 » Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:22 am

james_8970 wrote:
doctorkb wrote:My understanding of the routing engine is that it will prefer the "higher" types, moving progressively lower until you get to the destination. Therefore, to discount the "Freeway" type simply because our beloved TCH doesn't fit the definition greatly reduces Waze's ability to route appropriately.

I was under the impression that Waze treated Freeways, Major/Minor Highways all the same, it just appears differently on the map. I'm fine if we end up using a freeway for the Trans-Canada Highway, but I don't want this to be our rational if what I said is true. That being said, I'd be fine to make it a freeway to differentiate it and its importance from all the other highways. I'd like to hear from others and what they have to say.


My understanding of the way the routing works is that when the road is initially drawn by an editor, the type it is given is used for routing until the system gets enough data to determine the segments' actual average speeds. That's why they're cookie crumbed for the first little while. After that, it doesn't matter what type it is, the routing just uses what wazers have helped it gather. The only road types I have heard of having a penalty are private roads and parking lot roads, and those are for entry, not driving along. As such, the choice of type should be based on usage and local perception.

As such, I'd say that Hwy 1, Hwy 2 (at least between Edmonton and Calgary), and Hwy 16 should all be Freeways. On that note, James, if you have the ability to upgrade the short sections of Hwy 2 south of Leduc to Freeway, that'd be great. I don't have the reach. :)

I also think this because (at least up to a couple weeks ago) only Freeways show up at the outermost zoom levels. Now everything disappears very soon....


Perhaps we need to say:
Primary name: Hwy 1
Alternate: Trans-Canada Hwy 1

See, I think the Alternate should just be "Trans-Canada Hwy". I'm not sure if this is exclusive to Winnipeg, but we never say Trans-Canada Hwy 1 here. It's either Trans-Canada Hwy or Hwy 1. I'm not sure if this varies across the country or not.

You make a good point about not having all caps in "Hwy". I originally started making Hwy in all caps, but I to begun to prefer Hwy, with the last two letters not being caps. Unless anyone else objects, I think we should make this a standard.

James


I'd agree to calling it "Hwy 1" with alternate "Trans-Canada Hwy."
hurley108
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:06 pm
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Trans-Canada highway

Postby geoffb » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:47 am

Who is the person changing all the street names involving the Trans Canada to completely unintelligible abbreviations with secondary and tertiary names appended on the end? Not only is it impossible to read, but when spoken it either comes out wrong or takes forever to say.

I don't want to see "to Hwy 1 W / 16 Ave N / city centre," mainly because it displays poorly on the app but also because it takes 8 seconds for the Waze voice to say it.
geoffb
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:07 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Trans-Canada highway

Postby erablian » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:17 pm

hurley108 wrote:Ray Gibbon is 70 km/h max. The rest I'm not sure.


Oh, in that case, maybe it should be primary street. I would prefer to see minor highway used only for roads that have a highway number (even in urban areas where they might be indistinguishable from a primary street) and for rural roads that have same speeds, width, etc. as numbered rural highways in the area.
ImageImage
erablian
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:08 pm
Location: Edmonton, Dominion of Canada
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Trans-Canada highway

Postby erablian » Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:55 pm

doctorkb wrote:That said, it is still the highest speed limit in the area, and access is limited (not by ramps, but by collector frontage roads). It may still make sense to call it a "Freeway" though it doesn't meet our usual interpretation of that word.


I think making it a freeway would be going to far. A two-lane undivided road should at maximum be major highway.

doctorkb wrote:Just to through one more wrench into this... what about the un-numbered roads that go between cities (e.g. Wye Rd, Manning Dr, or Ray Gibbons Dr around Edmonton)? Are those "minor highways" or "primary streets"?


I wondered about this too when I saw Ray Gibbon Drive marked as minor highway despite not having a provincial highway number. (But isn’t Manning Drive part of Hwy 15?) But I guess it makes sense to have them as minor highway since they are designed as major commuter routes between a major city and a nearby smaller city and they have speed limit 90 km/h or higher.
ImageImage
erablian
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:08 pm
Location: Edmonton, Dominion of Canada
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Trans-Canada highway

Postby erablian » Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:04 pm

hurley108 wrote:Should they, though, be Freeways through the national parks? The speed limit is lower, but more importantly, there's a lot of stopping all over the place, especially in the mountain parks.


Hwy 16 through Jasper National Park should not be freeway: It’s a two-lane road with a 90 km/h speed limit, and 70 km/h in several long sections.
ImageImage
erablian
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:08 pm
Location: Edmonton, Dominion of Canada
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Trans-Canada highway

Postby erablian » Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:58 pm

scirocco84 wrote:Also, regarding range and township roads. Some counties have different naming conventions for them. Range road xxx, range road xx-x and range xx - road x. Range xx-road x is technically the correct way they should all be written. My questions is, should we be keeping them all consistent by leaving them as displayed on the map (range road xxx) or changing them all to range xx-road x. Or the third option, marking them on the map as they are displayed in each respective county?
Any thoughts?


Their names on the map should match the style each particular county uses on their signs, but I would not make it a high priority.

Also we should (eventually) rename all Alberta highways from "xx Highway" to "Hwy xx", to match how Albertans actually call them. I am sure many users are momentarily confused when they hear directions to turn onto "xx Highway".
ImageImage
erablian
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:08 pm
Location: Edmonton, Dominion of Canada
Has thanked: 96 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Trans-Canada highway

Postby doctorkb » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:29 am

invented wrote:
doctorkb wrote:I suppose that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

James & I both agree that it should be marked a Freeway at this time... and unless someone else cares enough to get in this discussion, it seems majority wins and it stays a Freeway.

It doesn't even matter in bumf*ck Northwestern Ontario where it's the only King's Highway around, Waze would be hard pressed to route you onto anything else. Try that crap in the GTA and see what happens. :lol:


We aren't talking about the GTA. But from what you just called that area of your own province, it seems to me that you're interested in having everyone else conform to your ways. Sad to say, it ain't gonna happen today.

And yes, if we made it a private road, waze would route people around it unless it was in the first or last 10km of their route. :P
Waze Global Champ, Country Coordinator
Country Manager: Canada
Area Manager: Edmonton, AB; Prince George, BC; Maui, HI; Georgetown, KY and various places in between
doctorkb
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 4177
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:17 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Has thanked: 623 times
Been thanked: 1640 times

Re: Trans-Canada highway

Postby doctorkb » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:21 am

I suppose that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

James & I both agree that it should be marked a Freeway at this time... and unless someone else cares enough to get in this discussion, it seems majority wins and it stays a Freeway.
Waze Global Champ, Country Coordinator
Country Manager: Canada
Area Manager: Edmonton, AB; Prince George, BC; Maui, HI; Georgetown, KY and various places in between
doctorkb
Coordinators
Coordinators
 
Posts: 4177
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:17 am
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Has thanked: 623 times
Been thanked: 1640 times

PreviousNext

Return to Canada

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users