PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Moderators: delilush, ply8808

PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby banished » Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:59 am

I am looking to validate the correct setting of major collector state highways (e.g., State Hwy 330) as either a Primary Street (PS) or Minor Highway (mH) in Waze. I could not find anything in the MT wiki (https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Montana) to resolve this question.

A cursory look at the Functional Classification chart (https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Ro ... ence_chart) shows that a state highway is always a mH regardless of whether it is a major or minor collector. HOWEVER, studying the MT functional classification maps, these are more like county (e.g., Primary) roads. A lot of them are unpaved.

So after reading https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/doc ... ations.pdf, what I am thinking is:

- A state numbered highway = mH in Waze unless MT DOT has it set higher.
MT_state.JPG
(8.64 KiB) Downloaded 160 times

- A state secondary major or minor collector = PS in Waze unless MT DOT has it set higher.
MT_secondary.JPG
(8.74 KiB) Downloaded 162 times


If there was an undocumented decision made on how to properly functionally classify major collectors (PS or mH) in Montana, please let me know. The reason I ask this is because I have come across several major collectors that have been FC’d in Waze as mH. I’m thinking this is too high; they should be PSs else we'll end up with too high a ratio of mHs to PSs. However, after changing a couple from mH to PS decided it best to stop and ask for clarification. I’m here to assist, not break stuff.
GC, ARC, Veteran, CISSP, MCP
banished
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:03 am
Location: Northwest Florida
Has thanked: 262 times
Been thanked: 213 times

Re: PR or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby SkyviewGuru » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:51 am

Hi Banished,

(To avoid confusion, I'd like to clarify that I'm going to use PS for Primary Street rather than PR for Primary Road, since in my experience, PR is more often used for Private Road than Primary Road).

I am not aware of any undocumented procedures for setting functional classification in Montana. It has always been my understanding that state highways are to be marked at a minimum of mH per the aforementioned FC Quick Reference and Montana wikis.

The quick reference does not make any exceptions for primary versus secondary state highways and the Montana wiki states that we are to cross reference the ArcGIS FC with the FC Quick Reference table, so I've never made exceptions when I've been setting FC. If the roads are not paved, we should be using the unpaved checkbox with the appropriate functional classification. If the wiki doesn't go into unpaved, I can add it tomorrow.

That said, based on the PDF you referenced, which states in part that the secondary highways "were to be made up of principal farm to market and feeder roads", I agree with your proposal to make those routes PS unless classified as minor arterial or higher in FC as those do not sound like routes that should be prioritized in most cases.

Regarding the ratios of PS vs mH, I do not know anything about that. I've not seen any wikis referencing a ratio, nor anything implying that one should be maintained. If there is documentation about that, please let me know. I would like to be sure I'm following best practices everywhere I edit.

Thanks,

SkyviewGuru
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Idaho State Manager :: Northwest Region USA and Utah Area Manager
Waze Beta Leader (Android) :: WME Beta Tester :: Formal Mentoring 2.0 Mentor
Place Name Harmonizing Moderator for Northwest Region USA
SkyviewGuru
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:05 am
Location: Idaho, United States
Has thanked: 495 times
Been thanked: 111 times

Re: PR or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby herrchin » Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:02 pm

I did a pan around in ArcGIS, and downgrading them to PS initially gives me a few potential concerns:

  1. Pruning. Montana is big. At least twice mH have needed to be upgraded to MH to correct longer-distance routing (MT-59 near the Wyoming border is one example). I don't know the internal details on when PS is used for route consideration, but I see some Secondary highways FC'd as major collectors that are the best route. Example, Secondary highway 271 is a useful link between Primary highway 200 and I-90. Lincoln to Drummond is a 52 minute drive, but if you get pruned to sticking on mH, using Primary highway 141 is an 80 minute drive.
  2. Lack of local differentiation vs. county-maintained collectors, where both would be PS in Waze (under the proposal), but the state highway is a superior route. Secondary highways 379 and 365 are good roads to head east on when on I-15 north of Black Eagle, but if downgraded to PS would be equivalent to 24th Rd NE (the PS sandwiched between those 2 highways). It's possible that speed data would handle this situation. 24th Rd is unpaved, but rural Montana commuters aren't likely to enable avoidance of Unpaved.

The principal of "if it ain't broke..." may apply here. If mH secondary highways aren't causing issues, but downgrading to PS may create issues that then require exceptions to correct, that's not a great tradeoff. As far as road type ratios go, Montana is pretty sparse; I don't think we have to worry about the Manhattan problem?

The State of Montana choosing to retain responsibility for maintenance of the roadways in question (vs. relinquishing them to counties) should be an indication of some level of increased importance to travel, relative to other county major collectors?
USA Country Manager / UT and IA SM
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
herrchin
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:05 pm
Location: Lincoln, NE, USA
Has thanked: 284 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby PhoenixofMT » Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:48 pm

Following the guidance from the FC quick reference, I've been setting any numbered highway as mH unless the GIS FC is primary artery. The quick reference makes no distinction between primary and secondary state highways.
All collectors (major or minor, on- or off- system) as PS.
"County routes" in Montana are rare, but the one I've seen (can't remember where) seemed to fit the surrounding FC as a PS.
Generally, paved vs unpaved is difficult to determine since the street view is nonexistent or c. 2009 and gravel are indistinguishable from fresh chip seal. The satellite can be useful depending on the season.

Having followed this in many remote/rural areas, my intuition from the overall result is that it should work very well. The minor highway segments provide a rough net between major highways, and the primary streets make a finer net between minor highways.

Secondary 271 should be mH. I set the first segment from Drummond, but that was the only one I could reach after driving by a while back.
The secondary highways you mention (379 and 365) should both be mH.
PhoenixofMT
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Bozeman, MT
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby PhoenixofMT » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:03 pm

With regard to unpaved roads, I'll just add that most of the areas this applies to are miles away from a GPS point. Personally, I figure the Waze SOP of waiting for a vict.. I mean user to roll through and drop a report should take care of this. If no users are driving the road, it doesn't really matter; if users care, they'll let us know.
PhoenixofMT
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Bozeman, MT
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby PhoenixofMT » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:48 pm

There's also this conversation from 2015.

Kinematic wrote:
Lequs wrote:Just think of Montana's primary and secondary state highways as simply State Highways and apply the appropriate functional classification and designation standards.


Lequs FC is sounding more appropriate when it comes to FC of our highways. I did come across this. MT_FC_PDF
The current break down lists 5 types of major and minor collectors and the original 4 types of Highways (Interstate, US, State, and Secondary).

Noting the obvious in WME Interstate - Freeway
US Routes - Major
Given then the only other option as Lequs stated is combining State and Secondary into one FC (MT-XX), leaving that to Minor
PhoenixofMT
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Bozeman, MT
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby dmcrandall » Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:41 am

What about setting the Secondary highways as PS, and then selectively upgrading segments that need it?

The secondary highways in Herrchin's example could be bumped to mH.

Just a thought.
"This ain't Dodge City. And you ain't Bill Hickok." -Matthew Quigley
[ img ]
US Country Manager
dmcrandall
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 467
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:05 pm
Location: If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Phoenix
Has thanked: 256 times
Been thanked: 217 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby banished » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:13 am

For reasons in my first post in this thread, I think they should be all PS, and then selectively tweaked using the routing "favored" option, not by setting to mH. However, it appears a decision was made a couple years ago about secondaries being mH, but that was before the "favored" and "unfavored" routing tweaking options were available. The Lequs discussion was in early 2015; the routing tweaking options came out in late 2015...I'm reasonably sure.

It was because I discovered inconsistencies with how FC was being applied to State Hwys that I opened this thread, wondering if there was an undocumented decision already made. FC is meant to eliminate inconsistency, and with the routing tweaks, it works uniformly. The state wiki lacks clarity on this. But POMT found an old discussion where apparently a decision was made. With the introduction of the routing tweaking in late 2015, I am dubious it's still the best decision, but it's a decision, none-the-less. That's what I was looking for.

So numbered state highways will be mH by default, which I believe means any other collector would be PS. I’ll continue on that basis. If enough MT editors (all 4 or 5? :-) ) think changing that decision is worth another look, then that is a separate issue.

State Hwys as minor arterials (mH) will result in some weird WME visuals like here http://arcg.is/0KqiHi in Sanders County where there will be two mHs nearly parallel (MT-200 and State Hwy 472) where the geometry of MT-200 is clearly the more expeditious route, but hopefully that’s an aberration, not the norm. From a routing perspective it will be OK because of speed data, but setting State Hwy 472 to "Unfavored" should be considered.

SkyviewGuru, here's the FHA information. The total Collector mileage is typically one-third of the Local roadway network. Typically, there will be fewer mH miles than Collector miles, fewer MH miles than mH, and fewer Freeway miles than MH. Tables 3-5 and 3-6 discuss percentages. This is a good study for every editor.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/proce ... tion03.cfm. Thanks to Sketch for finding this for me.
GC, ARC, Veteran, CISSP, MCP
banished
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:03 am
Location: Northwest Florida
Has thanked: 262 times
Been thanked: 213 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby SkyviewGuru » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:42 am

@banished, I appreciate you bringing up the new routing priorities as a means to enhance the effect of the road types. You raise some good points. I personally lean this direction, but I also understand the potential repercussions that @herrchin and @PhoenixOfMT raise.

Regarding unpaved, I do not think there is harm in marking it as you find it even though a lot of it probably is in GPS-lacking areas. Sometimes you'll find unpaved roads by means of a complaint in a UR, but you may just run across it as you're checking for elevation fixes, speed limit, etc. I'm not suggesting a campaign to set unpaved, either; just saying that I would rather we not change road types simply due to the road being unpaved since that is what the new attribute is all about.

@herrchin's #2 bullet is interesting as well. As far as Wazers are concerned, I think the routing priorities would settle any concerns they'd have but I could see how the differentiation in WME may be nice. As a side note, both PS and mH have a locking standard of R2 so they'd be at the same level of protection regardless.

Those are some of the thoughts I have at the moment; I will do some more thinking about this. I appreciate any further input that you have. Thanks for going with "business as usual" until a decision is made, @banished. I hope we can collectively make a decision soon. I hope that @AlanOfTheBerg will chime in with his thoughts, also.

--SkyviewGuru
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
Idaho State Manager :: Northwest Region USA and Utah Area Manager
Waze Beta Leader (Android) :: WME Beta Tester :: Formal Mentoring 2.0 Mentor
Place Name Harmonizing Moderator for Northwest Region USA
SkyviewGuru
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:05 am
Location: Idaho, United States
Has thanked: 495 times
Been thanked: 111 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby herrchin » Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:48 pm

banished wrote:For reasons in my first post in this thread, I think they should be all PS, and then selectively tweaked using the routing "favored" option, not by setting to mH.

Doesn't this functionally lock the segment to L5 editors? (last I knew it did) For "finished" areas, that wouldn't be a huge concern, but in areas with few editors, things tend to be completed in multiple passes over long periods of time. FC, then Speed Limits, paved/unpaved, turn confirmations and basemap cleanup, etc.

To clarify my position, I'm in no way opposed to testing PS even without setting Favored. All our tests would probably need to be synthetic though; I don't think we can count on Wazer URs to confirm any results ;)
USA Country Manager / UT and IA SM
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
herrchin
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:05 pm
Location: Lincoln, NE, USA
Has thanked: 284 times
Been thanked: 194 times

Next

Return to Montana

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users