Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!

Post Reply

Trans-Canada highway

Post by
To summarize the thread.
Make Trans-Canada Hwy 'Freeway' road type.
Primary name: Hwy 1
Alternate: Trans-Canada Hwy

Minor/Major Highways should be named:
Hwy # (H is capitalized followed by the 'w' and 'y' in lower case, followed by a number)
Not 'Highway #' or 'HWY # (all caps)'.

Very few roads should be named a freeway in Canada. Currently, only ring roads (perimeter roads around a city), Hwy 1 (including the highways Hwy 1 splits into*), Hwy 2 and any highways with limited access (e.g. highways with no street lights and access is exclusive to ramps entrances) .

*There are highways that travel through some National/Provincial parks with frequent stops, reduced speed and undivided portions. These segments should be reduced to a Major highway until the speed increases, stops are minimized and the highway is divided again.
_________________________________________________________________________
Hello everyone,
I'm finding that this highway is being handled differently in different regions of the country and was hoping on getting a global consensus on how we want the highway to be handled across the country. What I propose is naming it "HWY 1" and giving it the alternate name of 'Trans-Canada HWY". I've seen HWY1, Trans-Canada HWY and Trans-Canada HWY 1 being used across the country. Figure we should make it consistent.

Another thing I wanted to discuss, is what road type it should be. From what I've seen in the states (well, in North Dakota at least), state highways are of "freeway" road type. I'm not sure if I agree with using such a model for Canada as, aside from denser areas like Southern Ontario, which may be an exception, access to the highway is NOT limited access and there are many lights along the way, such as through small towns, etc. Its for this reason that I propose that we make it of Major Highway road type, unless the road travels though an area that only has limited access to the highway. Personally, 95% freeway type segments have been for ring roads exclusively, even though city planners fail to make them only limited access in a few areas. I feel that freeways are more so limited to urban settings. Again, this is only my opinion and I'm curious as to what others think. Just want to make everything consistent, to avoid editors switching things back and forth.
James

POSTER_ID:5877651

1

Send a message
Last edited by james_8970 on Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:03 am, edited 8 times in total.

Post by doctorkb
Hi James!

Thanks for the note. I think we need to be careful about applying the US rules too restrictively to Canadian roads. We simply do not have the same extensive Interstate system that they do.

That said, I do also think we need to look at what road types mean to Waze.

My understanding of the routing engine is that it will prefer the "higher" types, moving progressively lower until you get to the destination. Therefore, to discount the "Freeway" type simply because our beloved TCH doesn't fit the definition greatly reduces Waze's ability to route appropriately.

I would propose that we look at the Freeway definition as one that is a guideline for us -- does a road meet *most* of these rules? If so, then it's a freeway.

That could mean the road is divided, at a higher speed, has limited access (as in, not every road that comes to it actually intersects, at least not with both sides), but doesn't use ramps for every junction. I think I just described the TCH from about Kamloops to Brandon, MB.

As for "Major Highway" -- in the Prince George BC region, there are two major highways -- Hwy 16 (the "Northern Trans-Canada") and Hwy 97 (the primary north-south highway in BC). Both run right through town. I've upgraded their "official" route to "Major Highway" as this is important for travellers that are going through so as to not get routed off on a side street.

As for the naming, this too is important. That said, I *hate* all caps. "Hwy 1" is very much preferred over "HWY 1"... at least to me. I wonder which part is more important: the "Trans-Canada" or the "1". I think we lose the number when we get to Ontario -- it splits and becomes more than just one highway. Much like Hwy 16 is also dubbed the TCH through western Canada.

Perhaps we need to say:
Primary name: Hwy 1
Alternate: Trans-Canada Hwy 1

I would also propose we use the "Freeway" designation when the TCH meets most (though perhaps not all) of the US rules. It is a primary route and should be noted as such.

Also: when we come to agreement here, it should be documented in the Wiki page on Canada's roads. There just isn't much there yet, and this would be good to have for future editors.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Post by doctorkb
I'm on my phone right now, so will contribute more tomorrow, but also wanted to add that "Rg" is the official Canada Post abbreviation for Range (incidentally, don't the street signs say "Rg Rd XXX"?). There wasn't an entry for Township, however.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Post by doctorkb
erablian wrote:
hurley108 wrote:Should they, though, be Freeways through the national parks? The speed limit is lower, but more importantly, there's a lot of stopping all over the place, especially in the mountain parks.
Hwy 16 through Jasper National Park should not be freeway: It’s a two-lane road with a 90 km/h speed limit, and 70 km/h in several long sections.
You've pretty much just described Hwy 16 from Hinton through to at least Smithers, BC -- though I suspect all the way to Prince Rupert. While it is mostly a 100 km/h speed limit once you get to BC, it isn't the entire way.

That said, it is still the highest speed limit in the area, and access is limited (not by ramps, but by collector frontage roads). It may still make sense to call it a "Freeway" though it doesn't meet our usual interpretation of that word.

As an aside, Hwy 1 from Hope, BC to Kamloops, BC and Kamloops, BC to Lake Louise, AB is also undivided two-lane and the "standard" 100 km/h in BC.

Just to through one more wrench into this... what about the un-numbered roads that go between cities (e.g. Wye Rd, Manning Dr, or Ray Gibbons Dr around Edmonton)? Are those "minor highways" or "primary streets"?
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Post by doctorkb
One other thing... the "A" highways.

E.g. 93A through the Mountain Parks and 16A through Stoney Plain & Spruce Grove.

I'd suggest downgrading these from their non-A counterpart, unless they meet the same standard. Even though they fit in the "Major" routes (i.e. 1-100 number), they are certainly not as major as their counterpart.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Post by doctorkb
erablian wrote:
doctorkb wrote:That said, it is still the highest speed limit in the area, and access is limited (not by ramps, but by collector frontage roads). It may still make sense to call it a "Freeway" though it doesn't meet our usual interpretation of that word.
I think making it a freeway would be going to far. A two-lane undivided road should at maximum be major highway.
Ok, to play Devil's Advocate: why?

If there's no true "Freeway" within 400km, does it not meet the intent of the Freeway designation?
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Post by doctorkb
hurley108 wrote:I agree with the recent upgrade of 50 St. to Minor Highway down to Beaumont.
I did that as I was editing Beaumont and realised that 50 St turns into Hwy 814, then is called 50 St through Beaumont, and exits the town as Hwy 814.
Because it's not in the same class as the 1, 2, 16 outside the parks in several ways:

20-40 km/h lower speed.
1 lane in each direction, undivided vs. 2+ in each direction, divided.
Exclusively level crossings vs mostly / exclusively ramp access.
Much wildlife and stopping on the road.
As soon as you exit the parks on the West (on Hwy 16), you're only 100 km/h (with many reduced speed areas); and for the most part 1 lane in each direction, with almost exclusively level crossings, with plenty of wildlife.

You've essentially just described Hwy 16 through BC.

And, you've also described almost all of Hwy 1 from Hope, BC to Alberta.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Post by doctorkb
hurley108 wrote:
doctorkb wrote:
Because it's not in the same class as the 1, 2, 16 outside the parks in several ways:

20-40 km/h lower speed.
1 lane in each direction, undivided vs. 2+ in each direction, divided.
Exclusively level crossings vs mostly / exclusively ramp access.
Much wildlife and stopping on the road.
As soon as you exit the parks on the West (on Hwy 16), you're only 100 km/h (with many reduced speed areas); and for the most part 1 lane in each direction, with almost exclusively level crossings, with plenty of wildlife.

You've essentially just described Hwy 16 through BC.

And, you've also described almost all of Hwy 1 from Hope, BC to Alberta.
Then those probably shouldn't be Freeways. We just don't have the same kind of freeway system in Canada as exists in the US, or other countries with much denser populations. I know that's the point you've been making, but we can only play loose with the guidelines so much. There's a lot of Hwy 16 from Edmonton to Edson and then Edson to Hinton that has level crossings with other roads, but there's no stopping, rest stops are separated from the main roadway, no traffic lights, dual carriageway, and high speeds. So there's one exception there - level crossings. We discussed these points in PM about the Whitemud, and the Whitemud has all those except the speed. That's one exception. We'd have to make three or four exceptions for the highways in Jasper NP. That's too many. There is no road in Jasper NP that warrants Freeway designation. And if some roads outside it don't either, then they don't either.
Fair enough... I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page that the highway's number (i.e. 1 or 16 or 2) didn't automatically qualify it for Freeway status, even though it is a part of the most major highway system in the country. :)
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Post by doctorkb
Ok, so let's expand this conversation to be about the other road types.

I've been working on the Range / Township roads south of Edmonton. As someone who "accidentally" got stuck on ~50km of gravel roads by following Google Maps to a friend's farm a couple years ago (when I only truly needed about 2km), it's VERY important to get the gravel roads marked as such. But what about Primary Street / Street?

Here's the criteria I've developed:
1. if it's paved, it's either Street or Primary Street
2. if it's not paved, it's "Dirt Road / 4x4 Trail" -- this lets wazers avoid it by saying "avoid long dirt roads" or avoid them altogether
3. if there's no painted lines, it's NOT Primary Street

Another other thoughts? I'm still working on ironing out details in my practice, so I'd appreciate some feedback.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Post by doctorkb
Dirt/gravel roads will still show up on the map, and they can still be used for navigation... but the user can control how much they get used for the routing.

Marking them as "primary streets" or even "streets" could lead to a similar situation as Apple Maps has been causing in Australia: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story ... litch.html

Some Range Roads are paved. Some are not. Would it not make sense for the map / routing engine to give some indication of which are more traversable for the general population?

The fact of the matter is that, for the majority of the population, gravel and dirt are the same thing when it comes to roads: unpleasant for long stretches. Yes, we can split hairs and say they're different, but then we should also be distinguishing between seal-coated and paved surfaces, asphalt from concrete, etc.

As for turn restrictions -- they should also have no bearing. Turn restrictions are supposed to be "can" indicators for the routing engine, not "should". I.e. "can a person legally and physically turn left here?" not "should a person turn left here?". If you're setting them based on "should", I'd like to politely ask you to stop editing the map, as you're fouling it up for everybody else. If you don't believe me, here are two references:
https://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php/Cre ... ections.29
https://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php/Tur ... d_turns.29

-- it's about "allowed" and "legal" turns, not recommended ones.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message

Post by doctorkb
Since someone decided to go and undo my work on changing dirt roads to the correct classification, here's what a dirt road is, from the wiki page here http://www.waze.com/wiki/index.php/Road ... SA%29#Dirt :
A road that is not paved.
Marking a road as "Dirt Road" will have the following consequences:
- Road name will not display in client.
- Routing will be restricted to avoid this road if user has disabled the use of dirt roads in client settings.
If the road isn't paved, it deserves no higher classification than "Dirt Road" -- it doesn't matter if it's gravel or true dirt. Either way, it's unpaved and needs to be marked as such.
doctorkb
Posts: 4385
Answers: 4
Has thanked: 433 times
Been thanked: 1464 times
Send a message