t0cableguy wrote:Something else worth noting... I was under the impression that Detour prevention can be triggered by alt names being identical, and that you have to have at least two segments between, or a rather lengthy one, between the two identically named segments (whether primary or alt name). I know I've used that method to help some BDP issues on a particular freeway that ends with a few too many valid options for getting around traffic. It may be worth the "issue" and be considered a non issue because these would be end destinations for a roadway. It also may be needed for BDP to be turned on for allowing the slip roads to be routed better when you have situations like my two examples. It could also cause other problems such as the "two segment" issue for uturns explained better in the detour prevention wiki.

the particular example.
https://www.waze.com/editor/?env=usa&lo ... 696720&b=0

I believe you are misunderstanding the concept. I have never heard of a requirement for a "lengthy" segment. There is a requirement that a detour be more than one segment long to qualify as mentioned in the wiki.

BDP Wiki wrote:Minimum Length - The possible detour must be more than one segment long.

However a detour that is 3 segments long but has a matching name in the middle is still 3 segments long, and will still trigger BDP. This means that BDP will prevent drivers on the main road from being routed off & on via the service, as BDO is intended to do. If the guidance is followed properly there will always be a segment without any matching name separating the service rd from the main road at either end. This can be the intersecting rd median segment, or a slip road segment etc. These segments serve as the buffer needed to trigger BDP, and in every scenario the detour length will be a minimum of 3 segments long with the final segment not being a match.
As explained in the wiki as long as the detour is >1 segment and the final segment is not a match (and other criteria are met), BDP will be applied.

BDP Wiki wrote:Road Name Discontinuity - The freeway/highway segments immediately before and immediately after the possible detour must share at least one street name (either segment may have the shared name as either a primary or an alternate name). The possible detour must include at least one segment (including the last segment of the possible detour) that is missing this shared street name (as both a primary name and alternate names).

Local guidance should supercede all, and should include in it the proper use of resources, etc. I think we should list it as,

1. Local guidance
2. FC maps in conjunction with the minimum criteria in the road types page, (link to the reference chart)
3. Frontage road guidance on road types page as PS, if the frontage road serves a Fwy / Expwy (limited access road)
4. If none of the above apply use editor discretion to determine between PS or Street type based on usage density.

subs5 wrote:

sketch wrote:In the case of limited access roads, something should be noted regarding continuity for frontage roads that are used in the Texas (and Detroit) style, as "feeder roads" which must be used to travel between the limited access road and the road served by the entrance/exit ramps. Technically this situation is covered by the "Exceptions" section of the road types page.

I have long intended to expand on "continuity principles" in this section or on a new page, including the use of "routing road type" to achieve this, but have yet to find the time. Regardless, this might be a good place to start.

In some cases, it may be better to set the frontage road type at mH, so that continuity is never lost. As an example, if properly edited for continuity, these segments of Katy Fwy in Houston would have to operate as MH, as they are the only link between I-10 and the Bingle/Voss MH. The best way to effect this would be to set the frontage road as mH and use routing road type to set necessary segments to "Preferred".

Ok, I consider this to be local guidance so added it as a subparagraph (1.a) under the local guidance information. I also added a header to the section for "Functional classification for service/frontage roads"

Let me know if this resolution satisfies your comment.

Continuity as a concept is not local although implementation can be. I also would like to move away from referring to road type selection by the term FC. FC is a specific classification by the federal government, it didn't change by our needs. Road type selection in waze is based on large part on FC, with other factors ie numbered highways, and continuity playing important role as well.

In summary I think a better title would be Choosing a road type for frontage or service roads

t0cableguy wrote:By lengthy, i meant beyond the limits of BDP for that particular segment type. IE Freeway 5km Major Highway 5km Minor Highway 500m, however extreme and will probably never exist.

It makes much more sense now, because of the "3" segments.

By that logic for lengthy, it makes no difference how many segments it is. If the distance of the non-matching grout path is more than the threshold bdp penalty will never be applied

it's been almost a week since the last issue was corrected. If no other objections or critiques, this page should be ready to publish tomorrow. Speak now, or forever hold your peace

This page has now been published with special thanks to Subs5 for the perseverance and dedication to getting it perfect and live. Thank you.
The page is at House Numbers on Service Roads
There are redirect pages as well at Service Roads, and Frontage Roads.
I also add a link to this page on the House numbers page, as a bullet in the Things to remember section. (and in my NY state wiki page )

Great idea for a page. I didn't know of that HN trick before.

The link to "functional classification" should be instead to the article currently entitled "Road types/USA", which should be renamed "Road type" at some time in the future. FC is only a component of the full road type guidance. You may wish to link it to the "Primary Street" subsection of the road type article, as that is where the frontage road guidance currently resides.

To be honest, the guidance on road type of frontage roads should be fleshed out better in the road type article, with its own subsection somewhere.

I think that is the right order/hierarchy. FC map where possible, though many don't have the required resolution to separately classify frontage roads.

Although, with some FC maps being different than others, it's possible there are states where their FC maps might give the wrong idea (maybe service roads being given the same class as the main road?). Not sure if that's the case, or if the first should be, "FC maps, unless local guidance says otherwise".

In the case of limited access roads, something should be noted regarding continuity for frontage roads that are used in the Texas (and Detroit) style, as "feeder roads" which must be used to travel between the limited access road and the road served by the entrance/exit ramps. Technically this situation is covered by the "Exceptions" section of the road types page.

I have long intended to expand on "continuity principles" in this section or on a new page, including the use of "routing road type" to achieve this, but have yet to find the time. Regardless, this might be a good place to start.

In some cases, it may be better to set the frontage road type at mH, so that continuity is never lost. As an example, if properly edited for continuity, these segments of Katy Fwy in Houston would have to operate as MH, as they are the only link between I-10 and the Bingle/Voss MH. The best way to effect this would be to set the frontage road as mH and use routing road type to set necessary segments to "Preferred".