PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Moderators: delilush, ply8808

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby PhoenixofMT » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:00 pm

I think some of the inconsistency stems from incomplete editor coverage, and the rest is from editor brain farts. I know that for a while after the linked discussion I relied too heavily on the map highlights and would knee-jerk-classify a yellow or purple highlighted highway as PS. When I came back later and noticed the highway number, I'd think "What doofus messed up the FC? Oooohh...."

I don't see this un/favored option. I remember seeing it sometimes for new segments, but not in a while. Maybe in another 25k edits. If this is an upper-class editor feature, there will be a LOT of work to sort it all out and only a couple of hands to do it.

Weird visuals... um, this is probably at the bottom of my priorities. As long as the FC is correct and the roads are aligned properly, I don't care if it looks like a demented spirograph. I don't think it's news to anybody that there are a lot of highway junctions in a transportation system. A person Heading south into Thompson Falls probably isn't going to be distracted by a highway that serves the other side of the river. If they get routed that way, well, like I said, the Waze SOP is to get suc.. I mean users to explore the map and fill in the time slots. Maybe that secondary highway gets you to Thompson Falls faster in the afternoon. Maybe it's a slow-moving nightmare. Every indication I've seen in the wiki and forums is that trailblazers get to suffer so that the followers don't have to. Editors aren't supposed to try and bend the traffic to their will. Otherwise, I wouldn't keep deleting the stop light cameras that pop up around Bozeman.
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 banished » Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:47 am

The routing tweaks are available at R4, I'm told, but point taken: There's not yet sufficient R4 editors.

So, how about this as a way to uniformly translate collectors (minor and major) to PS or mH? Truth be told, it's really no different than the national FC matrix, but does add clarity to correctly selecting the Waze road type for a major collector or minor arterial in Montana and I think it is pretty solid without any routing tweaks which should be trusted to local editors.

Using MT DOT's FC as reference (rural FC, not urban FC):

- An unnumbered road DOT FC'd as a minor collector = Waze Road Type: Primary Street
-- Example 1: Pleasant Valley Rd west of Kalispell -- http://arcg.is/8Kuyf
-- Example 2: Chevallier Dr between I-15 (Exit 216) and Lincoln Rd -- http://arcg.is/19frii

- An unumbered road DOT FC'd as a major collector = Waze Road Type: Primary Street
-- Example 1: Ashley Lake Rd west of Kalispell -- http://arcg.is/0nvCH4
-- Example 2: Recreation Road paralleling I-15 either side of Wolf Creek -- http://arcg.is/10uy5q

- A numbered road DOT FC'd as a minor collector = Waze Road Type: Primary Street
-- Example 1: None found, but included here for completeness

- A numbered road DOT FC'd as a major collector = Waze Road Type: Minor Highway
-- Example 1: Hwy 279 between MT-200 and Helena -- http://arcg.is/10KX4e
-- Example 2: Hwy 472 (Blue Slide Rd) between Trout Creek and Thompson Falls -- http://arcg.is/0KqiHi

(Go fast? No guardrail? I'm there!)
Capture.JPG
(48.19 KiB) Downloaded 159 times


Putting it all together, http://arcg.is/a5jnD would look like https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 303&zoom=4 in Waze. Does this make sense to most of you?

Note that I'm not including Nat'l Forest Development Roads as "numbered" roads; I'm just including numbered highways.
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 herrchin » Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:30 pm

I reviewed the 2013 MDT Roadlog, and there were zero noted miles of state numbered minor collectors, and only 0.743 miles of state-maintained urban system minor collector (Casino Creek Dr, here).

In the following sheet, it shows that MDT Primary Highways are almost 100% Minor Arterial, and MDT Secondary Highways are 96% Major Collector (4% Minor Arterial). Given that the county/local has its own substantial percentages of Major and Minor Collectors as PS, I think the classification of MDT Secondary highways as mH is the best choice.

MT FC and Waze Road types sheet. In this sheet, per latest clarification, the dark green cells in question would be mH, and the orange PS. And this is how the national FC already is; this is just another clarification.

mH would be 9.87% of MDT roadway miles, and PS 15.57%.
USA Country Manager / UT and IA SM
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
herrchin
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:05 pm
Location: Lincoln, NE, USA
Has thanked: 291 times
Been thanked: 210 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby PhoenixofMT » Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:14 am

I don't agree with numbered highways being PS, but it looks like a moot point anyway. Apparently, MDOT doesn't classify a highway below major collector. (Makes sense.)

I'm glad you clarified "numbered highways." I managed to find another County Road. It's marked like a highway on the GIS map. Our highways don't go above about 506 so 856 didn't look right. After digging into the county .pdf map from MDOT (generally of limited use) I found that it's County Route 858. After driving it last week, I can confirm that, at least this time of year, it's definitely unpaved and barely worthy of the Waze minimum PS classification, much less mH just for being numbered.
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 TheChrisK » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:59 am

I'd like to re-open this for discussion as it has been brought up a few times in Discord.

It would appear we are finding a lot of secondary highways unpaved which would be undesirable as mH and fall more in line with PS. I guess we need to really ask ourselves what the purpose of a Secondary Highway is.

Reading the other comments here don't really give me a definitive answer one way or the other in regards to re-classing Secondary Hwys to PS but I am open to the possibility and further discussion.

Thanks!
TheChrisK

Local Champ: United States
Country Manager: United States
Multi-State Manager: Montana | Nebraska | Wyoming
Waze Mentor

[ img ]
TheChrisK
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:05 am
Location: Omaha, Nebraska, USA
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby FzNk » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:26 am

As herrchin mentioned, pruning is a major consideration due to the state's size especially relative to its population. I've dealt with a number of issues in rural central and eastern Oregon where Waze would avoid a direct route because the road type wasn't high enough. Of course, this can be overcome with routing preference settings so you could, for example, have secondaries set as mH but drop to PS routing when they're unpaved.
[ img ][ img ][ img ][ img ]
NWR Assistant Regional Coordinator :: Oregon State Manager
Waze Beta Leader (Android) :: WME Beta
FzNk
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:05 am
Location: Salem, OR, USA
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 373 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby poweruser10 » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:25 pm

Having lived in eastern Montana a long time ago, I will offer my opinion FWIW.

First of all, avoiding unpaved is like avoiding the state altogether.

Second, unpaved state highways seem to be better maintained than the typical county roads; they tend to be wider and they see the road grader more often.

Third, if one opts for all paved roads, it could easily extend your route 30 - 60 miles in some cases, for something that starts out in the 60 - 150 mile trip as the shortest route.

Fourth, if most or all the county roads become PS, then the state roads (for the most part) should probably be mH.
poweruser10
[ img ] [ img ] [ img ]


State Manager (SM) Wisconsin-Great Lakes Region (GLR)
poweruser10
Waze Mentor
Waze Mentor
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:05 am
Location: Waukesha, Wisconsin
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby banished » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:40 am

Now having edited from Idaho to the Dakotas, and the Canadian border to Wyoming, over the past several months, I am convinced the correct course of action was as previously discussed: Numbered secondary highways should be at least Minor Hwy (mH). If local BOTG editors believe routing needs to be tailored as PS on some, then the unfavored routing option could be used. I initially thought secondary highways should be PS, but over the course of the discussion and extensive editing, reached the conclusion that mH as the minimum standard is the best choice.

Paved or unpaved makes no difference when setting FC. There’s a separate checkbox for that which will impact routing based on the user’s dirt road setting. (Setting the Dirt road option to Don’t Allow or Avoid Long Ones in Montana seems problematic in a state where dirt roads are so prevalent.)

Lastly, I would not encourage a decision to change secondary highways from mH to PS be based on the mH L3 lock-level being too high. If raising mH to L3 was the right the decision in the first place, then don’t second guess without significant evidence it was the wrong technical decision, even if administratively it makes it tougher for L1 and L2 editors.
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 TheChrisK » Sat Oct 14, 2017 2:11 pm

Thank you all for your responses. After going over discussions both here and in Discord we will leave things as is and only make changes as needed for improved routing.

Primary and Secondary Highways shall remain at least mH.
TheChrisK

Local Champ: United States
Country Manager: United States
Multi-State Manager: Montana | Nebraska | Wyoming
Waze Mentor

[ img ]
TheChrisK
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:05 am
Location: Omaha, Nebraska, USA
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: PS or mH for Secondary Highways?

Postby banished » Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:58 pm

The genesis for this thread was to seek PS vs. mH clarity on secondary highways as I started a project to apply Waze's hybrid functional classification standards to Montana. That project is complete, although I am still looking for anything I may have missed.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Montana

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users