Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable roads

[qwaletee]

You can hack in an exit by putting in a short highway segment at the start of the AGC. Also, the rules for AGC being what they are, it will often be the correct type anyway.

Not sure what you are referring to by wiki guidance that has disappeared. Can you explain what it was and whee you found it? If it was inappropriately deleted, we need to know in orde rto correct it. If it was intentionally deleted, we have to figure out whether that means you're mapping incorrectly, r it was removed for specialized reasons but the method is still OK to use.

[qwaletee]

Well, yes, it would be more appropriate to JSG. Nevertheless....

It should not be necessary to mDL it, under normal circumstances. You connect it back far enough to make the angle, and voila, that typically works out well for visuals and for prompting. Whether you connect it as 10 degrees or 35 degrees, will change the prompt by perhaps a fraction of a second. Rally more about the visual, making a smooth but distinct appearance for the ramp divergence.

[qwaletee]

Theoretically, it should not be necessary to say that, Kent, because, well, the FC doesn't call them out as primary! Anyone setting them up as primary is not doing so based on FC, nor on our modified FC.

But if it is a point of confusion for some, then go ahead.

[qwaletee]

A little late to the party, but just a note on word usage.

The term is "crushed stone" not "crushed rock." If you think you know the difference between them, I welcome you to disabuse yourself of your insanity and avail yourself of the insanity of the two terms by studying this.

Macadam was developed as a layered crushed stone substrate with a binding layer on top. Asphalt, where the stone and binder are pre-mixed and go down together, has mostly supplanted Macadam. However, old names stick around, and it is fairly common to call asphalt paving "Macadam."

I think WT can be summed up as "don't use it unless signed off by multiple rank 5s, because nobody is expert in it for more than 5 weeks at a time." Seriously, though, we can say that WT is never to be used without the concurrence on the forum by routing experts who have recent knowledge of current WT routing behavior. They are never to be used for actual walking trails, unless a destination is only reachable y traveling a significant distance by foot, and then only with design help as described above.

I'd rather not have actual examples, because as this beastie evolves, it is always falling behind the times.

[qwaletee]

herrhcin,

Check the Wikipedia article on macadam. Unfortunately, many of the sources have gone offline, but if you search around a bit, you can probably find them.

[qwaletee]

I'm with twilde here. The stuff about dictionary versus numbering is much too specific. Actually, our definition doesn't really match the dictionary definition at all. We have a technical definition that is uniquely our own, and shouldn't muddy the waters that way. If we want to have some explanatory subpage that gives background into how and why the federal and state governments developed the functional classification system, that might be helpful there.

[roadtechie]

A few issues with the railroad section. Per the wiki page "For the time being they won't make it to the client indeed, but in the future we might want to use them for display purposes." This is outdated. Railroad segments are now visable to all wazers. Also, per the wiki page "Restrict turns to and from the railroad segments." This is also outdated since it is no longer possible to allow turns even if we wanted to.

[roadtechie]

Indeed. Can you propose some replacement text?

The best way imho would just be to eliminate the outdated text.

[Robert04101]

Regarding the Road Type/Exceptions section:

WME now has Routing (Preferred/Neutral/Unfavored) that (supposedly) tweaks up or down the status of a segment, e.g. a Preferred PS is treated by the routing engine as a mH. Shouldn't we be using this mechanism to manage the exceptions discussed in this section, rather than actually reclassifying the road?

[russblau]

Comment: in general, I think FC is a good basis for assigning road type; I think the references to route numbering should be removed. In practice, there is a fairly high degree of correlation between route numbering and road function, but it is definitely not 100%. In those cases where a US highway serves the function of a minor highway because it travels along a narrow street with traffic lights and driveways, or where a state highway serves the function of a major highway because it has few intersections and permits high-speed through travel, the road's function should take precedence over its numbering.

The references to "county routes" are useless in Virginia, since we don't have them, and in most counties literally every street, from the eight-lane arterials down to the 200-foot dead end around the corner from my house, has a "secondary state highway" number that is absolutely meaningless in terms of Waze's mapping needs.