I'm not sure that "exit" is wrong there (from S Hamilton to I-94 E or W). There aren't exit numbers, but it still has all of the characteristics of an exit, including the Big Green Sign. S Huron to I-94 E might be questionable as it doesn't really feel as much like an exit and it only has just a small green sign saying to turn, but even then, I think exit is okay. They may seem odd to someone, but it's still valid, in my opinion. But like CBenson said, we could still avoid that by giving a larger angle to the ramp if that's what we want. Personally, I don't consider any of these to be turns. I'd think of all of them as exits just because of how they look. Sure, you don't have exits within the city itself, but that does seem like an exit to me at I-94.

One thing that does need fixed, though... On S Huron just south of I-94, there is a short segment that is set to Primary Street between the Major and Minor Highway segments. You may have left that because it's locked. If so, just request the fix in the unlock forum or here.

Also, the ramp names do not match the Wiki standards. S Hamilton to I-94 W should include I-94 W / US-12 / Ann Arbor. S Hamilton to I-94 E should include I-94 E / US-12 / Detroit. S Huron to I-94 E should probably include I-94 E / Detroit based on the small green sign. And S Huron to I-94 W should include I-94 W / Ann Arbor. Three of those are based on the BGS, which is how the ramps should be named.

And although I don't think we've really come up with a standard format in Michigan for unnumbered exits, I think "Exit" should be included in the ramp name. The question comes up as to how to name these. "to" is used in ramps to indicate that you're getting onto a road that will take you to another road. It isn't really used for saying that you are turning directly onto that road. But if you say "to XXX" or "Exit to XXX", you end up giving it a different meaning. At that point, how do you differentiate between a ramp that places you directly on I-94 E and an exit that is placing you onto another road that will take you to I-94 E if the ramp just says "Exit to I-94 E" or "to I-94 E"? With exit numbers, it's easy... "Exit 123: to I-94 E" vs. "Exit 123: I-94 E". But without an exit number, it becomes muddled. There is some minor discussion on this and some thought of using a format like "Exit: I-94 E" and "Exit: to I-94 E" depending on whether or not you're directly getting onto the highway or just heading towards it. The downside is you run into longer TTS... "Exit at Exit: I-94 E" or "Exit at Exit: to I-94 E" instead of just "Exit to I-94 E". But it does differentiate between what you're actually doing, so it could go either way. With a numbered exit, it would be "Exit at Exit 123: I-94 E" or "Exit at Exit 123: to I-94 E". So using "Exit:" would fit with numbered exits. It's just a little unusual. Anyhow, it's something I think we may want to discuss at some point. In the meantime, it really doesn't matter which format is used as long as the ramp name includes what's on the BGS.

Yeah, you'll find many locked ramps. That can vary, though. In most places I've looked, ramps are often left unlocked and only the interstates (or highways) are locked. There are good and bad to locking ramps or leaving them unlocked and you'll see the locks vary from place to place. Ramp names aren't really critical because what's often there is at least good enough for directions, but whenever you do have access to them, I'd go ahead and fix them to match the signs. I try to run down all of the ramps in my areas one after another on a highway or interstate and fix them every so often if needed, but my area in Michigan is currently just the northern part of the the state. It's up to you if you want to report locked ramps that need updated or just leave them.

binkowski wrote:Cool. I'll start using these new standards immediately. But as you probably realize, many editors just go off the Wiki, with little to no reference to these forums. There will be lots of knashing of teeth in the near future.

Unfortunately, this is true. As AMs and even just regular editors aware of these changes, I think the best option is to monitor our areas and if someone changes a classification, we can let them know about the changes. It's not perfect, but we'll likely catch the major editors and that will help.

Another option... My state isn't Michigan, so I can't see the Michigan top editor listing in the client, but maybe you or someone else can get a list of the main editors and PM them with either an explanation or a request to check this thread or something like that. Then we can try to notify the major editors in the state. It will at least help out. Any other ideas to help make people aware of the changes would be great. I think the major editors are the ones who are most likely to notice the changes.

It would be great to have a way to send a message to all Michigan editors, but I don't see that happening. Maybe we can at least send messages automatically to all AMs? I'd imagine the regional coordinators have access to the names of everyone who has AM rights in the state and can send a notification to at least the AMs. Then each AM can work to get the editors in their areas to read up on the changes. Anyhow, just throwing out ideas.

davielde wrote:At this point, most of Washtenaw county apart from the Saline area has been upgraded to match NFC. A lot of work west of Telegraph Rd in Wayne and southern Oakland counties has also been done, mostly between the I-94 and I-696 corridors.

Sounds good. And just in case you may have missed it (or anyone else missed it), if a road is already classified higher than the NFC, you shouldn't downgrade the road regardless what the NFC states. At least not until some consideration and perhaps discussion goes into deciding if the road really should be downgraded. There may be valid reasons why it is set higher than what the NFC says and that's fine. We just want to use the NFC as a minimum.

Oops. Hit the solved button instead of the thanks button. It doesn't appear that I can undo that. Anyhow, thanks to everyone helping out.

Unfortunately, some themes just really don't look good in certain situations. Major highways have a width almost as wide as interstates and if a divided highway has the lanes really close together, they can easily appear as one. That being said, you can edit your themes so they are the way you like. I did some edits yesterday myself... making dirt roads brown and a little wider and changing Primary Streets to gray and landmarks to dark gray while still using the default for everything else in the Editor Colors theme. I just hated orange roads or having dirt roads almost impossible to see and I didn't like landmarks looking like water. I didn't bother changing the night theme that I use because I'm okay with that one.

Anyhow, you can reduce the width of major highways if you want and that would probably help. Also, avoiding auto-zoom so that it doesn't zoom out so far that they merge together can help, though I personally like auto-zoom. I'm not really sure any other way to handle it. You could slightly shift each side away from the other so there's a bit more gap between them if you think it's needed. But personally, I don't mind if a road looks wide because it's a divided highway and appears merged together at the current zoom level. After all, the entire road includes both sides, so it just makes it more visible as being a road that covers a wider area. But I do understand what you mean.

Just a couple of thoughts on dirt roads... In northern Michigan, around half of the roads in some counties are unpaved. Look at Emmet County as one example. If an unpaved road is a collector, then it may make sense to have it marked as such regardless of being unpaved. That being said, it really becomes a judgement call on whether or not it's still a valid route. Consider, for example, a state highway in NC that is actually on the beach. You can't normally drive it without a four wheel drive vehicle, but it's still a state highway and is classified as a Minor Highway in Waze. If the route is a valid route, it makes sense to classify it as such. If it is not, then it doesn't have to be. As sketch said, we want a separate option for unpaved so that we can have higher classifications on dirt/gravel roads while still offering users the option to avoid them.

While all of you are doing the NFC classifications, can you also see if there are any roads in the County Highway System and do those as well? For details on those, do a Google search for Michigan County Highway System and you'll find some good resources. Any of these should be minor highway as a minimum and have an alt name formatted like CR-F21.

Correct. The County Highway System does not include roads in the form of County Road XXX or County Highway XXX. It only includes roads that start with a letter between A and H followed by 1-2 digits and is shielded. Be aware that there are roads that used to be county highways, but have since been taken out of the County Highway System and should not be included in this. They can still have a higher classification if the NFC shows them with it, but they won't automatically get Minor Highway status and you wouldn't include the county highway number that is no longer in effect.

Thanks for giving the examples.

As far as the county roads that are not part of the County Highway System, most that I've seen are currently in the format of Co Rd XXX or Co Hwy XXX. I don't think we've decided on how to format those. Maybe we'll end up marking them as CR-XXX, but I'm not sure. For now, I'm just leaving those as they are. If anyone wants to discuss how to label those, feel free.

davielde wrote:Unfortunately, there is no standardization across Michigan counties. In one county, you may see Co Rd XXX on a sign, and in another you'll see CR XXX, etc. In many counties, they may be designated a number by the road commission, but it is never posted on a sign, so locals would only ever know the colloquial name. As far as possible, it would be best to have spoken navigation instructions match what someone sees on their local street signs. In these counties, having the CR / Co Rd designation as an alternate name would be fairly low priority.

I'm actually only talking about roads that are actually called something like County Rd/Hwy XXX on the signs. For example, E Co Rd 612 a little north of Grayling. These are the roads that typically do not have any other name. I would support CR-XXX as the format, but we want to make sure everyone is aware that CR-XXX don't automatically get Minor Highway status even though CR-F97 or CR-A2 or similar do. With a different format, it's easy to see what should or shouldn't automatically have that status. Of course, in the end, we can just make sure editors know that if there is a letter after the CR-, then it's a minor highway as a minimum. *shrug*