True. there are 3 things mashed into that paragraph, not just 2.

How about

* Parking Lot Roads can be used to avoid "missing road" automated Map Problem reports.
* Parking Lot Roads can be used to prevent Waze from assuming drivers driving slowly or parked in the parking lot are in a traffic jam in the main road -- draw in the drivable portions fo the parking lot that are near outside roadways.
* Waze will not highlight slow speeds (automatically detected traffic jams) on parking lot roads

As there were no objections, I have made the changes referenced above:
viewtopic.php?f=276&t=85397&start=400#p1134424
viewtopic.php?f=276&t=85397&start=390#p1134388

Re: bus-only, etc, lanes.
I think this advice to use private roads may have gone out of date.

I suggest, following the advice from Sketch (see below)

When it is necessary to map a road or lane designated for bus or cab use only, use the appropriate road type, and use [[Partial_restrictions#Vehicle_type|vehicle type restrictions]] to specify which vehicle types should NOT be routed on this roadway. For more information, see [Partial_restrictions#Vehicle_type|vehicle type restrictions]].

Sketch shared this:

the whole reason they're in the map already is so the information can be added
even if it's not in the client yet, someday it will be , knock on wood, and once it works, you want it to *work*, you don't want to wait 2 years for everyone to figure out where all the no trucks and no trailers and buses only lanes are
plus using private road is a mistake if your destination is on it
private roads form networks. once you're on it you can stay on it.
restricted segments do not. if your destination is on a restricted segment, waze will not route you down an adjacent restricted segment to get to it.

I just removed all the old images (showing the old road colors) from section headers.
Where appropriate, I added the new road graphics to the headers. Where this made the headers look bad in the TOC, I made sure the graphics are in the section body.

I also made a change in the section about service roads. Instead of the warning not to use the deprecated roade type, the page now says that the road type does not exist and will not be found on the map.

Next up -- non-drivable and especially Walking Trail.
The big non-drivable example with walking trail -- what is true now?

Most of the section on "Walking Trail" needs to be removed because of the change in how Walking Trail behaves.

Here are things that I think need to be removed:
* The longish section on applications
* The example image showing exactly how routing is affected -- it doesn't work exactly that way any more.

It seems to me that unattached and otherwise inaccessible (red arrow or TBSR) segments of all kinds cause bizarre routing problems (see the routing mess at Secaucus Junction). Do detached walking trail bits cause different effects than other routable and non-routable road types?

If that illustration still reflects the current weird behavior of Walking Trails, then I guess it should stay.

The rest of what I've heard about the changes to WT routing makes me think they are not currently suitable for pedestrianised urban shopping districts, train stations with 2 parking lots, or rest areas in freeway medians with parking lots on both sides

I agree that it should still be emphsized that WT have weird effects on routin, that we need to stress that we should not encourage wazers to walk while wazing.

I'm not sure if pedestrian boardwalk is currently better than WT for capturing walking-wazer traffic data next to roads.

I'm willing to give it a shot.

If there is inside information, I don't have it.
I know what I've heard about weird test results, and seen WT weirdness "in the wild". I know we'd all like some clarification on whether the "halfway point" behavior of WT is working as designed, whether there will be further changes, etc.

The PB section needs some work, too. As you said -- it seems the most logical choice for collecting walking wazer traffic data. Of course, Since PB is not routable, we can't directly test what kind of speed data it is collecting....

Indeed. Can you propose some replacement text?

Jdyoung and t0cableguy -- yes.

That does kind of summarize things, as far as functional classification goes, and is a good start toward creating an easy-to-read summary, with links to further information.
Of course, functional classification is not the only consideration for road type selection in WME.
The collective experience of the editing community tells us that sometimes literal translation of FC maps to WME maps gives very strange routing, and that it is sometimes necessary to choose a different road type than what is specified on state FC maps. Often, this means choosing a higher type in order to "create a connection", especially for those longer routes.

So that needs to be summarized as well, with links to the routing penalties page and a more thorough discussion of when to "violate FC"