bgodette wrote:

skbun wrote:Change from street to primary and primary to minor is done!

CA-44 has good highway speed traffic between CA-36 near Susanville and CA-89 (my other example), and the routing engine won't route through that one either to get to the far side - yet. That one we'll be able to see the effects of sooner, because it's been upgraded to a major highway.

I'll be curious how these two sets of upgrades help or don't help routing...

Since we're dealing with mountain roads here, I wonder if a general rule could be applied that anything paved that connects towns in the mountains should probably be Primary if not already a state/us highway or freeway. They are after all the "primary" route outside the highways. Inside the towns, normal urban rules apply.

True, because once in the town, regular rules should work for city parts.

...Though even Hyampom Rd (which already IS a primary street) doesn't work from Weaverville. But I think you may be on the right general track here. In my own experience, 'minor highways' are sufficient to not be subject to distance give-up limitations; CA-36 is a valid route of 100+ miles from Red Bluff to Fortuna, CA.

I wonder how Ecuador, which I know has a fairly comprehensive map, has dealt with this in their mountainous, remote areas...a quick look suggests to me that point to point, you see lots of minor highways, with occasional connecting primary streets. What do you think?

bgodette wrote:

skbun wrote:Change from street to primary and primary to minor is done!

CA-44 has good highway speed traffic between CA-36 near Susanville and CA-89 (my other example), and the routing engine won't route through that one either to get to the far side - yet. That one we'll be able to see the effects of sooner, because it's been upgraded to a major highway.

I'll be curious how these two sets of upgrades help or don't help routing...

Since we're dealing with mountain roads here, I wonder if a general rule could be applied that anything paved that connects towns in the mountains should probably be Primary if not already a state/us highway or freeway. They are after all the "primary" route outside the highways. Inside the towns, normal urban rules apply.

Well, FWIW, Livemap now has 12/28 edits (which include the CA-44 upgrade), and yep, it now routes through. (Was street now is major highway). http://www.waze.com/livemap/?zoom=9&lat ... eg=6501820

We'll see how the Hyampom edits do probably in a few days...

bgodette wrote:

bgodette wrote:

skbun wrote:The 'right route' especially at this time of year from Weaverville or Douglas City is CA-3 to Hyampom Rd, but even then you can see the routing engine fails to find it. That definitely shouldn't happen. How about for the sake of experimentation, because so few people drive this, I make Underwood and Corral bottom primaries, and Hyampom road a minor highway, and we see how it handles it on its next update? (This is a really good testbed.)

I predict that Burnt Ranch->Hyampom will work if you change Underwood and Corral Bottom to Primary. There is Type based pruning, but the rules aren't as simple as the NanoRep response seems. There's likely also different PtP/Driven ratios based on Type.

Well it gets farther but still doesn't make it. It has to be the PtP/Driven ratio that's killing it.

Can you explain what PtP/driven ratio is? I've never got an explanation for that one.

Also, it does seem Hyampom Rd being a minor highway is the right call for now/in the meantime. Now Weaverville to Hyampom works, and goes the full distance.

bgodette wrote:

skbun wrote:Can you explain what PtP/driven ratio is?

Point-to-Point distance vs Driven distance. There's pruning based on that ratio (the ratios are unknown), and it appears to be different based on Type.

Okay, this is really bizarre. Routing through both these roads DOES work if you're a sufficient distance away. Have a look at http://www.waze.com/livemap/?zoom=9&lat ... &to_seg=-1

...but DOES fail from McKinleyville, CA to Hyampom.

I almost want to phrase this as 'At close distances, it's like the routing engine is giving up a little too easily'. It doesn't find a close primary street route, _or_ a distant highway one.

bgodette wrote:

CBenson wrote:Why is this bizarre? This is exactly what the PtP/driven ratio pruning does. If the route is too circuitous the driven distance is too high compared to the point to point distance and waze doesn't find the route.

Pretty much that. The ratio probably needs to be adjusted again by Waze.

It also demonstrates what I mentioned earlier that paved mountain roads that connect significant locations (eg towns) should be typed as Primary at a minimum.

Course, in this case, even 'primary' isn't enough for Corral Bottom and Underwood mountain, or for the end-around using highways. Yeah, I mean, I know by demonstration that if I typed all paved rural roads as minor highways, I'd avoid this problem completely, but I don't think that's really ideal and is probably torture on the routing engine; some roads are gravel, and some are practically highways; and sometimes the fastest way from point A to B is way around the bend at C.

I think why I called this behavior 'bizarre' is not so much because it doesn't make logical sense. It's because intuitively, I as a user of the app would expect that Waze shouldn't lose the ability to route to a destination as I near it. As it is, I could start in Crescent City, CA, stop for lunch in Big Bar, and suddenly, I'm stuck there because Waze won't find a route through to Hyampom. I also called it bizarre on the notion that returning 'some route', any route, circuitous or not, is better than Waze returning 'I can't find a route'' from a user standpoint.

I know as far as rural areas go, this is the part where we go back to discussion about Waze being a commute and not a nav app, but if given the choice between Waze being able to route point to point more than 1000 miles (few can drive further than that in a single day anyway) or high ratio/short distance routes working, I'd pick this one.

Probably the ratio being as low as it is now saves a ton of CPU cycles in urban areas, where there really are eight different ways to get from point A to B, so I'm not sure it needs to be increased across the board for all queries. What I'm thinking is adding a pretty simple if/then to the engine that goes like this:

IF (engine returns 'no route found at all')
THEN (increase/double/whatever the ratio and try again)
(and if that fails)
NOW return 'No route found' to the user.

If I try routing from Big Bar or Burnt Ranch to Hyampom, after a tiles refresh (so I know it's not cached yet), the answer 'No route found' comes back VERY quickly, so I suspect it just hits the wall of 'Sure, I see routes, but the ratio is too high. Nope.' The loop above I bet would nail this.

bgodette wrote:So, time to open a new thread in that other forum with specific examples of works and fails for the same effective routes with the only different that PtP/Driven and ask for the ratio to be adjusted again.

All,

Did this ratio change ever get done? It would be really nice if it could be done in the next few weeks (more to the point, next few days so changes it makes can be understood) soon. I'm still seeing the same general limitaitons on routing, so I don't think any changes were made on this front?

mapcat wrote:Personally I'd make the one with a number a minor highway and the one without a primary street. I'm basing this on pure speculation that the routing server doesn't care anything about the road type in this case.

Is it not confirmed that the Avoid Highways flag will avoid Minor Highway type and not Primary Street, and also, that the routing server will not consider a Primary Street in the first or last, what, 10km of a route?

WeeeZer14 wrote:I guess I am just fighting the distinctions in my own head. I have no problem UP-grading a road based on physical structure. If there is a county route built to interstate quality, then sure, label it as freeway type.

But I fight with the idea of DOWN-grading a road. Like when US-23 goes through a downtown, it is still a US highway and is a "major" component of the transportation network, so I'd leave it as Major unless there was a "better" bypass which could be Major instead.

I used to think the same way, that a US highway should always be "Major". But US-90 meanders through New Orleans on a number of surface streets with seemingly little rhyme or reason. The bits of streets which are part of US-90 aren't any different than the rest of Broad, Canal, or Claiborne, and they aren't any different than the other roads in the area, as far as routing is concerned. And still, if the difference between Major and Minor had nothing to do with routing, it'd look a bit silly if some segments of some streets were wider than others for, as it seems to the average user, no reason.

It's a goal of mine to one day travel all of US-90 or, better yet, the Old Spanish Trail.

jasonh300 wrote:I've traveled all of US-90 from Lake Charles, LA to the middle of Florida. That's about 1/3 of it. I'd like to do US-11 and US-61. I also followed the saga of the guys driving the Jefferson Hwy from Minnesota to New Orleans a year or two ago. I'm not exactly sure what the exact route of the Old Spanish Trail is.

Hah, 11 and 61 are the other two I want to do! I want to drive 61 mostly because of my embarrassingly late realization that Airline Drive is the same Highway 61 that Bob Dylan talked of revisiting so long ago, even though I'm not that big of a Dylan. I've wanted to drive 11 ever since realizing a year or two ago that my route from here to Blacksburg, Virginia, which comprises no fewer than six interstates, is paralleled pretty much in its entirety by US-11.

bgodette wrote:

skbun wrote:Change from street to primary and primary to minor is done!

CA-44 has good highway speed traffic between CA-36 near Susanville and CA-89 (my other example), and the routing engine won't route through that one either to get to the far side - yet. That one we'll be able to see the effects of sooner, because it's been upgraded to a major highway.

I'll be curious how these two sets of upgrades help or don't help routing...

Since we're dealing with mountain roads here, I wonder if a general rule could be applied that anything paved that connects towns in the mountains should probably be Primary if not already a state/us highway or freeway. They are after all the "primary" route outside the highways. Inside the towns, normal urban rules apply.

That's how I would handle it intuitively. Any road that is used for getting from one place to another without "cutting through the neighborhood" should be at least a Primary Street.