Post by t0cableguy
Why not just change the wording to refer to the functional classification page and be done with it.
Drink from the firehose or don't touch road classifications.
t0cableguy
Posts: 1083
Has thanked: 307 times
Been thanked: 416 times
I'm no longer editing. Please don't contact me with things regarding Waze, unless you want the info on how to take over the SE URcomments list. Then email or send me a message on GHO at gmail.com t0cableguy@

Post by t0cableguy
Cconsulting your regional managers is the best policy on those situations. Violating hybrid fc in my region requires a lot of research AND ongoing issues.
t0cableguy
Posts: 1083
Has thanked: 307 times
Been thanked: 416 times
I'm no longer editing. Please don't contact me with things regarding Waze, unless you want the info on how to take over the SE URcomments list. Then email or send me a message on GHO at gmail.com t0cableguy@

Post by t0cableguy
@sketch. I fully agree with your illustration of the issue. We have been doing that for a very long time. Even before my own appearance on the map editor. and yes, it would be nice to have a wiki on it.

A highway is a highway. These roadways are getting federal funds to support the status they hold. County Roads may not, but most if not all state highways, and anything that is a collector or above receives funding as part of the national highway system. These maps come from the governing body itself, and most if not all of these roadways are mapped to their standards. There may be the occasional error on the waze map, but if a road is classified a minor arterial by the state transportation governance, its a minor highway. if its classified a major arterial, its a major highway. I dont see the issue, but after working with Functional Classification for a bit it is more understandable. The information that we map to isn't directly available in the editor, we have to use the government provided information.

A two lane road can easily be a highway. If you want to argue its not, look at US-A1A in Florida. Its an alternate. It's a highway that traverses the coast along almost every beach.Its a highway, despite the thought that a two lane road isn't a highway. Grammatically it may not be, but by our definition its a highway.

I've had this argument way too many times with an editor that wants to get into road classifications, and just because its not in your local gis, doesn't mean its not getting funds.

This is like Dirt road/4x4 getting a new name....

And now that i read back a bit... yea the dictionary definition should be removed from the wiki. because 95% of the time we map to the FC maps and highway designators only...
t0cableguy
Posts: 1083
Has thanked: 307 times
Been thanked: 416 times
I'm no longer editing. Please don't contact me with things regarding Waze, unless you want the info on how to take over the SE URcomments list. Then email or send me a message on GHO at gmail.com t0cableguy@

Post by the1who
I have an issue with the https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Road_types/U ... .2FTaxiway Wiki.

When I review it, I read it, and then I see the image next to it, the image referenced is very misleading. I say this as the text says, do not map taxiways, but yet the image shows runway/taxiway road type for a bit of a taxiway between the runway threshold and the community, which the wiki is saying don't map. Can someone either replace the image or modify the example? Thanks!

Noticed in the Wiki, after posting this post originally, a link to the cited community. I found some issues highlighted in this image here: http://goo.gl/5lfaMg

I believe, that the runway/taxiway segment should be deleted, highlighted by the red X. The reason is because of said above, only runways should be mapped essentially.

I believe the road segment should be extended highlighted by the yellow arrow. The reason for the extension is the lack of navigation to the legitimate house highlighted in the red circle, which is also noting no house number associated with the segment, compared to the others with the green circle.

I'm only pointing this out, as I could go in here and do these modifications myself, but the said reference is contradicting the text of the wiki. Could use the discussion tab of the wiki for this, but since the tab referenced this forum thread, figured would discuss it here.
the1who
Global Champ Mentor
Global Champ Mentor
Posts: 991
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 185 times
Global and US Champ, USA PLN A/RC Emeritus, and US Country Manager
Android Beta Leader
Direct E-mail: waze.midwest@gmail.com


Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra - 10.0 | Waze 4.67.0.0

Post by TheGridExe
Time to revamp the page with the new map editor today. Dirt roads are now unpaved.
TheGridExe
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 363
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Post by Thortok2000
I got to page 5, I'll read the rest later.

Some points:

- It's quite clear that routing is based off of the specifications. Since this is the case, functional classification plays the highest role in improving routing and offering better alternative routes.

- Therefore, ANY system which is based on FC is going to improve routing, whether that's 'hybrid' or 'pure.'

- Bumping up specifications in Waze adds route options that otherwise have heavy penalties before being considered. However, they're still 'considered' based on actual traffic data. If the speed of that route hits the penalty mark, then a route that includes lower specifications will be considered. But UNTIL it hits that penalty mark, it tends to stick to the higher specification like glue. (This is often wise; it's better to stay on the interstate with a little bit of traffic than a dirt road with no traffic at all, etc.)

Essentially, my main problem with this system is that it's got two major flaws in my opinion. The first is that the routing system has a pretty high penalty for NOT using major highways and freeways when they are available. There are plenty of times where a 'shortcut' would more than likely be faster, but because it's not a US highway, Waze wants me to take the US highway as far as I possibly can before getting off it closer to my destination, assuming traffic is clear that day. Generally speaking, unless there's a traffic jam on every route that includes a major highway, then the only options I ever get are major highways, from the closest point to my starting position all the way to the closest point to my destination.

Secondly, I don't like that the system routes based off specification. It should route off PURE traffic data in my opinion. If the traffic data shows that road is the one to take, it should take it. It shouldn't take very long at all before the 'major' roads naturally become part of the majority of routing in the area. If you were to label EVERY SINGLE ROAD a major highway, you'd probably get the absolute 'best' route every time. However, it's easier for the routing system to 'think' if it only has to consider and compare 3-4 options rather than 30-40. Still, I think comparing every possible route regardless of road specification and finding the true fastest route is what we would love Waze to do, although there's little that we can do as map editors to make that happen. So FC it is.

Finally, my main flaw with the hybrid system is that it doesn't allow for down-grading the US/State highway system based off of FC. Just like my point of where major highways are considered for paths, because there is a major highway there, Waze almost always wants me to take that US highway rather than looking for shortcuts or side streets that might get me there faster, as that US highway is really not THAT high of a specification when compared to streets in the nearby area. I could drive the next street over just as easily and get there just as fast, it's just not the US highway.

Essentially, if all things are equal, it will drive that US highway and only if there's 'enough' traffic on it will it suggest the next street over. Especially if that next street over is 'street' and not primary or minor highway, the 'enough' in 'enough traffic' that it takes to suggest the next street over is pretty prohibitive. (Especially because of 5 mile detour prevention as well...if taking the next street over for a few blocks before getting back on the US highway would be faster, shorter, or more direct, it gets automatically ignored because it's detected as a 'detour.' Roads that are not functionally classified as a principal arterial or higher do not benefit from this treatment simply for being a US highway and the roads near them suffer from it.)

This happens where the FC classifies a major highway too, but it's much less of a problem because it actually IS a major highway and the point of "better to stay on it and in traffic rather than get off it and drive the back roads" actually applies. When the 'major highway' in question is just a US highway that's pretty equivalent functionally to the roads around it, the 'better to stay on it' does NOT apply but because it's classified as 'major highway' Waze will give it the 'better to stay on it' treatment, or as I like to call it, 'stick to it like glue.' If you don't allow for downgrading, this is going to be a consistent problem. Yes, this US highway is offered as a route when it wasn't offered before (because the 'stick to major highways like glue' was sticking to other major highways in the area and this wasn't classified as a major highway before), BUT, instead of MULTIPLE paths through this area being considered if the penalty for that other major highway is hit, now the ONLY path through this area that's offered is the US route, and for any OTHER paths to be considered, BOTH major highways (the original and the new US route) have to have penalties for non-major highways to be considered.

So the more major highways you have, the more routing improves along the major highways, but the less it works for lower classifications. Waze is like "I want to take a major highway and I'm going to unless there's a STRONG reason not to. If there is, I'm going to take only majors and minors unless there's a STRONG reason not to. If there is, I'm going to take only majors, minors and primaries, unless there's a STRONG reason not to." It's because of this 'STRONG' reason that it sticks to these routes like glue when shortcuts or shorter paths would actually be a bit faster.

The amount of "Waze took me some crazy way when it would have been simpler and faster to go X" has significantly increased after moving to sketch's hybrid system. Before, when I was using pure FC, I almost never got the 'why did it take me that way' complaint at all.

The same 'stick like glue' problem happens at lower grades too (State highways that shouldn't be Minor or higher) but it's particularly noticeable with US highways as the functional difference between 'major highway' and what they actually should be can be quite extreme.

This is why I'm against the hybrid system that doesn't allow downgrading. And if you allow downgrading and upgrading why even bother with hybrid? Therefore, I figure pure FC is the better option, at least until the routing system improves and is no longer based off of specifications. Then we can turn it all on its head and classify purely based on the highway system as it would be just for appearance's sake, hopefully.

In previous discussions with sketch, the ONLY reason I've agreed with a hybrid standard is because long-distance routing across rural areas is allegedly broken without it. But I think these should be the true 'exceptions' and when AM's or CM's find these 'holes' they can fill them as necessary, until the routing engine gets fixed itself, and lock them at rank 5 or so, so newbie editors don't downgrade them to match the FC.
Thortok2000
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 722
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 141 times

[img]https:///tdL1sG[/img][img]https:///ubk1Zx[/img]
Area Manager of Greenville, SC! ^_^

Post by Thortok2000
bgodette wrote:Except that doesn't actually happen in places typed to NFC+US/SR.
alts.jpg
Can't reproduce: https://www.waze.com/livemap?zoom=15&la ... -104.99708

All three options there seem to be following major highways almost exclusively. Unless I'm reading that wrong?
bgodette wrote:Current routing basically does what you'd like it to if:
1. The map is very well edited. This is still rarely the case outside of major metros.
2. The map has actual viable routes typed appropriately.
As I said in my longer post, 'typed appropriately' is kind of subjective. As long as two roads that should be typed about the same are typed about the same, and two roads that should be typed one higher than the other are done so, the routing system works better. It still isn't perfect in my opinion because of the heavy penalties for going from a higher type to a lower type.

Having the routing system use its own internal type based off of traffic data would be better than any editor setting, is the point I'm really getting at.
Thortok2000
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 722
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 141 times
Last edited by Thortok2000 on Fri Mar 28, 2014 10:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

[img]https:///tdL1sG[/img][img]https:///ubk1Zx[/img]
Area Manager of Greenville, SC! ^_^

Post by Thortok2000
HavanaDay wrote:I also think that Thortk theory does not take into account at the very least Minor (not calling them Highways anymore) labeled roads. As I stated before I have noticed the hybrid system first hand helping when I FC the counties in SC along my route for my trip to Florida in December. It stop trying to snap me to the Major and Freeways after a certain amount of time. Eventually routing does learn that it is more conducive to keep me on the minor/primary road I am currently on and getting me down the road farther.
Key point is that Hybrid system is better than a non-FC system, point blank. The detail is whether 'pure' or 'hybrid' FC is better and my points relate to the 'pure' system being better.

I don't mention minors much because the issue is smaller with them. Major highways route onto minors sorta-fairly well (could be better but not the end of the world) and so do minors to primaries. It's jumping the gap from major to anything less than minor that you see the 'stick like glue' to the major happen instead, especially in cases where there's less data or there's not a traffic issue currently going on with the major.
Thortok2000
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 722
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 141 times

[img]https:///tdL1sG[/img][img]https:///ubk1Zx[/img]
Area Manager of Greenville, SC! ^_^

Post by Thortok2000
dbraughlr, the setting is 'fastest', not 'fastest unless we think there's a better way.' So 4 minutes makes the difference. =/ That's just kind of a limitation in the system.

I'm not that great with routing data but what I'd like to see is where fastest is ignored in favor of staying on major highways instead. Because I assume this happens from experience, but I don't know how to prove it.

And while one solution is to just make more major highways, that still only fixes it for the roads that get turned into major highways, not the other roads.
Thortok2000
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 722
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 141 times

[img]https:///tdL1sG[/img][img]https:///ubk1Zx[/img]
Area Manager of Greenville, SC! ^_^

Post by Thortok2000
bgodette wrote:
Because it's traffic dependent, you know like it's supposed to be? Additionally, that outside ring from I-25 to US-36 on the east side is all Toll. Without a LM option to disable tolls, you won't get a fastest route that doesn't use it because no one actually uses those toll roads except to go to the airport (iow they're empty about 80% of the time).
Yeah, it is kind of annoying to not have an option to disable tolls on the livemap. =/

But my point is made: 99% of the time, it's going to stick to the major highways like glue, and only if there is a SEVERE (subjective term) amount of traffic on the major highways will it consider other options.

Basically, if a non-major highway is the faster route with ZERO traffic on both that route or the major highway, it will STILL choose the major highway....because it's a major highway. It's only if the major highway is actually experiencing traffic that it doesn't use the major highway.

I mean, it's a long-distance issue (supposedly), but look at the 212 example given above and the I don't know what example given by the daknife guy. Their routes are actually faster, but they're ignored, because they aren't major highway. Can it be fixed by changing them to major highway? Sure. In fact based off FC in sketch's standard they probably are. But it just proves the point of how routes that aren't major highway get ignored or get harsh penalties for the routing system simply for not being major highway. And not EVERY route that is faster than taking major highways is going to be a primary arterial or a US route.

Can traffic cause you to go off a major highway? Yes. That's the whole point of Waze is that it uses that traffic data. But the AMOUNT of traffic it takes to get you off that major highway seems prohibitive, because that "better to stay on it in traffic rather than get off and take the back roads", not to mention detour prevention itself, gives a major penalty to not taking major highways.
bgodette wrote:
Thortok2000 wrote:It still isn't perfect in my opinion because of the heavy penalties for going from a higher type to a lower type.
No such thing exists except for transiting Priv/PLot/ToD Restriction to a different type.
Experience says otherwise. In fact, so does the wiki! The entire reason we set at-grade connectors to have the same type as the roads they're connecting is because of penalties in changing type. Same with the instructions on what type to use for roundabouts depending on what roads they connect. If there wasn't a routing penalty for changing types, we wouldn't have to do that, would we?

From what I understand the penalty is always for going to a lower type, and there's no penalty for going to a higher type. This is why once you get on a major highway, it'll 'stick like glue' all the way to your destination (or the closest major highway that runs to it) unless the amount of traffic is extremely severe enough to warrant getting off of it. (And even then it'll probably get right back on again in the shortest amount of space possible to avoid the traffic it's detected.)

~

I'm flabbergasted that this extraordinarily obvious amount of 'stick like glue' that happens with major highways isn't instantly visible to everyone. I mean, even sketch says "that route was never considered until I made it a major highway"....meaning that the major highways that already existed were controlling the routing so much that even though that route was a good route, it was never considered!!!

So again, adding more major highways makes more routes considered but it makes it much, much harder for other routes to be considered instead.

That's why, with the exception of 'to fill in the gaps' for the long distance bug, I really liked AndyPoms' pure-FC based standard, particularly with principal arterials being minor highways, rather than sketch's standard. Routing was SO much better then. -sigh-

So the ONLY reason I see to go with sketch's standard is to fill in bugs on long-distance trips that error or ignore valid routes. But I can hope/wish/dream that the routing system just fixes that bug and we could go with Andy's standard instead, as it works so much better in every other way than that one issue. =/
Thortok2000
Area Manager
Area Manager
Posts: 722
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 141 times

[img]https:///tdL1sG[/img][img]https:///ubk1Zx[/img]
Area Manager of Greenville, SC! ^_^