Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable roads

Moderators: MapSir, USA Champs

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Postby sketch » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:15 am

dbraughlr wrote:
sketch wrote:Set it to Minor, and that route won't work.

That's the real real problem. It should work as minor. But like a freeway, MH should have a minimum standard.

What "minimum standard" do you propose? Here's one for you: to be a Major Highway, a road must be either a Principal Arterial or a US Highway.

Two types are used for routes over 200 mi: Freeway and Major Highway. So every non-Freeway road necessary for >200 mile routes must be set to Major Highway, or else routing won't work.

I have yet to find such a road that isn't classified as a Principal Arterial.

The functional classification of a road is based on a balance of the following factors: access vs. mobility, efficiency of travel, collectors, access points, speed limit, route spacing (i.e., how far or near other routes of the same class are), usage (traffic volume), number of travel lanes, and continuity. It's a flexible test; no one factor is determinative, and some factors will be more important than others depending on context. But above all, arterial routes are those which connect urban areas. This route connects urban areas, so it's a principal arterial, so it's a Major Highway.

"It should work as minor"? Why? Why should it be Minor at all? Because you don't like it? Tough. It's used for 350-mile routes, so it's Major. No reason for Waze to change the way types work just 'cause you don't like the name of the class it belongs in.

When selecting between routes, I like to see how many miles are interstate/freeway, how many MH, and how many mH. I should be able to choose an alternative either that avoids mH or accept a primary route knowing that it includes mH. Eureka Way might be shortest and fastest. But there are people who want to avoid it. I think I once counted that it changes direction 100 times in ~12 miles ... or something like that.

Except Waze doesn't tell you what's Freeway, Major, or Minor in the list of alternative routes. It tells you the names of the roads used. Sure, editors (~120,000 registered) can look at the map and check it out, but the vast majority of users (~90,000,000 registered – 750 times as many as there are editors) don't know or care that Minor and Major even exist, much less the difference between them or how each looks on the client map.

Eureka Way is shortest and fastest, so it should be the primary route given. Setting it to Minor would mean it's not given at all. Yes, there are people who want to avoid it. Those people are welcome to choose an alternative route using the alternative routes feature. But to suggest that it should be minor is to suggest that it should not be given at all, which is preposterous. Satisfy yourself by denying a route outright to everyone from Eureka who might want to take a long weekend in Reno.

Actually, don't.

As for the Lincoln Highway, it was the first interstate. It didn't become a highway through modern research. It acquired that designation circa 1925. It is truly a grandfather of highways.

Yes, but it has kept the designation all this time, and it became a principal arterial through modern research. If you're suggesting to me that the AASHTO/Congress/US DOT keeps routes around for their historical significance alone, you are sorely mistaken.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1479 times
Been thanked: 2024 times

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Postby dbraughlr » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:39 am

sketch wrote:Set it to Minor, and that route won't work.

That's the real real problem. It should work as minor. But like a freeway, MH should have a minimum standard.
When selecting between routes, I like to see how many miles are interstate/freeway, how many MH, and how many mH. I should be able to choose an alternative either that avoids mH or accept a primary route knowing that it includes mH. Eureka Way might be shortest and fastest. But there are people who want to avoid it. I think I once counted that it changes direction 100 times in ~12 miles ... or something like that.

As for the Lincoln Highway, it was the first interstate. It didn't become a highway through modern research. It acquired that designation circa 1925. It is truly a grandfather of highways.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Postby sketch » Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:39 am

dbraughlr wrote:For example: Eureka Way certainly should be offered as an alternative route. It is not horrible, but it's the first one I recalled. In my mind, it is a minor highway. It does not meet minimum standards for passing zones or straightness to be classified as MH for its entire length.

"Passing zones" and "straightness" do not a Major Highway make. "Eureka Way" serves all routes along the Reno - Redding - Eureka corridor. Reno to Eureka is a 346 mile trip along this, the shortest and fastest route. Set it to Minor, and that route won't work.

"User expectations"? The user expects to get the fastest route between two points, not the best-built highway. The user routing from Reno to Eureka and back expects to get a route along this road.

Lincoln Hwy / US-30 between Breezewood and McConnellsburg, PA, is another example - one which I am pleased to see is still mH in Waze and I think it should remain mH under any new system. If its US number forces it to MH, that is wrong imo.

It's a principal arterial, so you're out of luck here too.

Your "o" and everyone else's is precisely what we're trying to keep out of the road type system. One editor's opinion should not override the research and work done by the state and federal departments of transportation.
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6007
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1479 times
Been thanked: 2024 times

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Postby dbraughlr » Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:17 am

davielde wrote:From a functional standpoint, what benefit is there over the current road type system if we are willing to introduce more subjectivity and complexity for exceptions based on appearance?

It is no different from the subjectivity applied to freeways or downgrading other roads solely for not being paved, an act which applies a minimum construction standard to every type of road.

I am saying that the advantage is in the user expectations for such a route when evaluating alternative routes.

For example: Eureka Way certainly should be offered as an alternative route. It is not horrible, but it's the first one I recalled. In my mind, it is a minor highway. It does not meet minimum standards for passing zones or straightness to be classified as MH for its entire length.

Lincoln Hwy / US-30 between Breezewood and McConnellsburg, PA, is another example - one which I am pleased to see is still mH in Waze and I think it should remain mH under any new system. If its US number forces it to MH, that is wrong imo.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Postby davielde » Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:07 pm

dbraughlr wrote:I don't see how your statement "It's not a freeway" is somehow more valid than my statement "It is not a major highway either".

In a discussion weighing functional classification, thankfully Arizona DOT's application of the FHWA guidelines solves the problem for you. That section of US-89 is not a freeway because of access considerations, and it is a principal arterial. No distinction is made at the split where it currently transitions from MH to mH in Waze based on appearance. From a functional standpoint, what benefit is there over the current road type system if we are willing to introduce more subjectivity and complexity for exceptions based on appearance?
davielde
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 469 times
Been thanked: 756 times

Re: minimum construction standards for road types

Postby dbraughlr » Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:53 am

sketch wrote:
dbraughlr wrote:What is the downside of making it a freeway? After all, it is doing the job of the closed freeway.

It's not a freeway.


If the problem is that Waze excludes even short minor highways when solving "long" routes, that should be fixed.

I don't see how your statement "It's not a freeway" is somehow more valid than my statement "It is not a major highway either".
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Eureka Way

Postby dbraughlr » Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:28 am

nzahn1 wrote:Looks like a fun road to drive. 8-)

Looking at the length of the section, I think that must be 7 miles to get 100 changes in direction accompanied by multiple changes in grade.
This is quite different from US-212 across Wyoming which is mostly straight and flat.

Some people might consider it "fun". I doubt that many drivers are sending text messages. If you feel a sneeze coming on, you better hit the brakes.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Emergency and Authorized Vehicles Only

Postby dbraughlr » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:15 am

irowiki wrote:Strange that on street view there's a stop sign pointing roughly north but no road that I can see.

There are yield signs in both directions.

Street View
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Emergency and Authorized Vehicles Only

Postby dbraughlr » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:54 am

bz2012 wrote:Paragraph needing possible revision:
"Emergency and Authorized Vehicles Only" and DOT Service Roads are to be treated as Non-drivable roads. These are found primarily through the median of divided highways to connect opposite direction lanes. If mapped, they should not be connected to any drivable road, with properties set to road type Private Road, and lock the segment at as high a rank as possible, up to rank 5.



Here is a trackback to the likely source of this text:
"Emergency and Authorized Vehicles Only" and PennDOT Service Roads are to be treated as non-drivable roads as well. You primarily see these between interstate roads and on the Turnpike. If mapped, they should not be connected to any drivable road, the road type should be set as Private Road and locked at the highest rank of the editor.
-- Pennsylvania wiki
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: dirt roads

Postby dbraughlr » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:40 am

bart99gt wrote:You have to think beyond the functional class in this instance and take into consideration the physical characteristic of the road. There is no point in having an avoid dirt road feature if we go about calling them primary streets or highways because that is how the local transportation department classified them. It is an invitation to URs because someone got routed down a gravel road that was classified as a primary street or highway, and wanted to avoid even a well graded gravel road because they don't want to chip the paint on their brand new $40,000 car. I live and edit in an area where there are quite a few dirt/gravel roads that are non-state maintained signed highways and collector routes.

I'm sure that I have said more than once that Waze needs to provide a separate "unpaved" checkbox. This is the only viable solution. So in anticipation of that, FC is the best where there is no paved alternative. But I am repeating myself.

You have to consider that when Waze is generating a route to/from a place where there are no paved roads, Waze needs to be able to distinguish between unpaved roads and dirt trails. The two are not equal. That is why in areas with no paved alternatives, roads must be typed according to FC.

I understand if we need a workaround like adding in a short dirt connector between an unpaved minor highway that offers a shorter/faster route than a paved highway to preclude the drivers who totally want to avoid dirt roads. But such cases are pretty rare. Dirt roads tends to be slower than their paved counterparts, so Waze will usually avoid them anyway. I haven't seen a UR complaining about a dirt road where all roads are unpaved.
dbraughlr
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:24 am
Has thanked: 164 times
Been thanked: 98 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Wiki Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bz2012, RichardPyne