Post by qwaletee
If there's one thing I've learned from dealing with 20 years of process and classification documentation, its that you sketch out (no pun intended) the basic idea, then build the exception system before continuing. Because There Will Be Exceptions, and you need a system in place for allowing them... probably a combination of process (approval by a regional manager or champ, for example), and a list of common exceptions that may not need approvals. For approval, there should be some minimum of guidance, or you'll have the senior editors either tied up in knots and arguments, burnout and reactinary responses, or all of the above.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 962 times
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
Hi, sketch,

It may require more.

1) You don't want low ranked users "shopping" for answers from different champs who might be more/less sympathetic to their cause

2) Conversely, though, there should be an avenue to say "I disagree, I would like a second opinion"

3) We need to decide whether every decision needs to be level 6 or can sometims be lower

4) We need to decide if there are standard exceptions in very high or very low desnsity areas (there's already been some discusson of urban and rural areas)

5) We may want to allow more self-determination in cases where the routing engine has been making bad decisions based on road type

6) We may want to determine if all cases are "may I" or are there some potential "forgive me" allowances

7) We may need a trialing system
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 962 times
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
Banished, I'm very much with you.

I believe this system is not workable unless there is a way to add notes to a segment. That would also stop a lot of the edit wars in general.
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 962 times
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 962 times
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by qwaletee
CBenson wrote:Do we need to define at-grade connector? Specifically are roads at different grades required to meet the definition of "freeway" and "ramp." This comes up for roads like this. In this case there are no intersections that permit traffic to cross US-50. US-50 has an unbroken median. This combined with the fact that there are only limited access point to US-50 - that is the businesses do not have driveways that are directly served by US-50, makes me think this is a freeway. However, Duke St, Thomson Creek Rd, Castle Marina Rd, Cox Neck Rd, Dominion Rd, Chester Station Ln, Piney Creek Rd, S Piney Rd, Dundee Ave, Main St, Piney Narrows Rd etc all provide access to US-50 at junctions where there is no grade separation, because there is simply no access provided from one side of US-50 to other on these roads. There are BGSs at these exits on US-50 just like at the grade-separated interchanges.

So in the freeway definition it is stated that there should be "no at-grade intersections." I think that US-50 in this stretch meets the requirement for no at-grade intersections and the exit and entrance roads are not at-grade connectors and are thus properly ramps. However, given the current guidance and the proposed guidance if you interpret these access points "at-grade" then the US-50 would be a major highway and the exits and entrances should not be ramps.

I would state that if you can't cross the highway without either passing over or under the highway then all exits and entrances with acceleration and deceleration lanes along that highway should be considered "grade-separated."
Well, since the FC juggernaut seems to be rolling merrily along, what is its functional classification?
qwaletee
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 2939
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 962 times
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues

Post by pumrum
sketch wrote:I agree with you—though the scope of this overhaul was only drivable roads, and really public drivable roads. I intend to revisit the non-drivables sometime after this is committed
I forked this into the following thread with some ideas for when people are ready to discuss:

Road Types (USA) – Airports and Surrounding Area
pumrum
Posts: 669
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 301 times


Post by pumrum
There seems to be a little confusion about how Freeways are supposed to interface with the rest of the driveable network. I read the wiki notes below to mean that a Freeway segment may only connect to 1) another freeway segment, 2) a ramp segment:
Connected to other roads exclusively by interchanges:
Entrance via ramps only, typically with acceleration zones.
Exit via ramps only, typically with deceleration zones.

Is this an incorrect assumption? If so, can the Wiki be updated to clarify that it is acceptable for the segments used for entrance and exit ramps to be something other than "ramp" type?

If this is a correct assumption, can we add a note that the entrance and exit ramp segments need to actually be "ramp" types for all Freeways?

Thanks!
pumrum
Posts: 669
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Post by pumrum
I guess the $10 question now is: should we allow Freeway segments to connect directly to other segments that are not Freeway or Ramp? Either way, I think the wiki should be touched up to provide clarity. As it reads now, I am inclined to believe that a Freeway should only connect to another Freeway, or a Ramp. Never to a MH, dirt road, street, etc. If you want to connect to one of those, use a ramp.

If you are allowed to connect directly to freeways, then I think the definition needs to be re-worked to allow that, since connecting it directly to a street or dirt road segment would not provide for "only connecting via interchanges"
pumrum
Posts: 669
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Post by pumrum
After driving 8+ hour trips a few times over the last couple weeks, I can say that the new FC implementation in Waze is AWESOME. On several occasions I have been routed off a congested interstate onto a nearby US Highway or other MH/mH and around some very gnarly traffic (accidents, construction, rubberneckers). These are routes that would previously not have been considered.

If I could be granted one wish, it would be that everyone prioritizes getting the US Highway system upgraded to at MH or FWY (as appropriate). Spending most of my time in the New England area I really took it for granted, but driving more of the southeast and midwest I have come to realize how useful it is.
pumrum
Posts: 669
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 301 times