Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable roads

Moderator: Unholy

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Postby nhanway » Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:26 pm

AndyPoms wrote:I can't find the legend/key for the WSDOT FC Map, do they different types between Urban and Rural areas? In 2009 US DOT removed the urban/rural split and simplified things. The only thing that didn't line up was there was only one type of "Urban Collector" and there were "Rural Major Collector" & "Rural Minor Collector". "Urban Collector" & "Rural Major Collector" became "Major Collector".

In Connecticut, the most likely change at an Urban/Rural border was a "Principal Arterial - Other" changing to a "Minor Arterial". In our first version of the translation, we actually traced the route back to urban areas on both ends & if it changed back we kept it the same. The version that was proposed last year, changed the default type of "Minor Arterial", but we haven't implemented it yet because we are waiting for feedback from Ehud.


I was able to find this in the WSDOT FC guildlines PDF

While the original 1989 guidance document recommended “changing the functional classification when rural routes cross an urban boundary”, a follow-up addendum in 1991 said, “Instead of automatically upgrading the functional classification of a rural route that crosses an urban boundary, the rural classification may be continued inside the urban boundary until there is a more logical and acceptable place for a change at a point inside the urban boundary.” This 2012 guidance document reinforces the assertion of the 2008 memorandum which states that, “the practice of automatically upgrading the functional classification of a rural route that crosses an urban boundary should be phased out and eliminated. Upgrading the functional classification due to an actual change in function should be the operative criteria, rather than the location of the urban/rural boundary.”


So maybe these roads will slowly update in WSDOTS FC map. Some of the roads might have been mapped based on outdated guidelines.
Washington State Manager
Image

Image
nhanway
State Manager
State Manager
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:03 am
Location: Seattle, WA (Washington SM)
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 100 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Postby sketch » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:01 pm

Changes made:
To do:
  • Include criteria for state/US business/alt/etc. routes
  • Include provision on what to do if FC maps are outdated
  • Incorporate changes below, including link to state pages

CBenson wrote:I believe that this is a worthwhile effort.

I would revise

The following roads are to be classified, at minimum, as Minor Highway:
Roads classified in FHWA's functional classification as Other Arterials.
Roads in state, D.C., and territorial highway systems.


to read

The following roads are to be classified, at minimum, as Minor Highway:
Roads classified in FHWA's functional classification as Other Arterials or Minor Arterials.
Roads signed according to a state, D.C., or territorial highway system.


My concern with "Other Arterial" is that some functional lists use the terms "other principal arterial" and "minor arterial." In those lists the word "other" only appears with "principal" which could be confusing when determining what "other arterials" are.

With regard to state numbering systems, one issue that hasn't been addressed is the difference between official designation and how the road is actually signed. In my experience, the signage deviates from "official designation" for clarity and to better reflect reality on the ground. So where signage conflicts with "official designation," I suggest following the signage. In Maryland every road that is the responsibility of the state highway administration to maintain has a Maryland route number. But typically if the road is not a significant route from point A to point B, the road is not signed with the route number (and can be classed a local road by the MD SHA). Similarly my recollection in Pennsylvania is that many roads are given 4 digit numbers, but these 4 digit route numbers are not used in the keystone route number signs and thus should not be considered minor highways. So to me what really matters is the sign on the road.

Thanks, I think this is helpful. Some of this is to be determined on a state-by-state basis — for example, some states have "primary" and "secondary" state routes and may not wish to up-type the latter. But a note explaining this generally and pointing to the state lists is wise.
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
new orleans based • detroit enthusiast • usa country manager
2013 ford focus titanium hatchback 5mt • performance blue
Image Image
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5635
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1199 times
Been thanked: 1654 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Postby banished » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:43 am

1. I remain in the minority on FC, not because I wouldn't like to see a national standard, but assuming Waze says OK to FC, this thread shows we continue to struggle with exceptions. Where there are exceptions, we will continue to have back & forth conflicts between editors.

Out-of-area editor: "It's a primary street according to FC."
Local editor: "No, it's a minor highway. I know, because I drive it frequently."

Local editors will constantly have to go back and 'fix' what an outside-the-area editor changed. Reading the previous posts, there's other subjective areas, too.

2. So while I am looking for ways to support FC (it sounds like I'll have to), FC seems to be a baseline at best, with each state having it's own exception list. It is not the holy grail of routing (see point 4, below), nor is the simple method I encourage Southeast editors to use, which is US = major, State Hwy/Rte/Rd (or SR) = minor highway, and Co Rte/Rd (or CR) = primary. It's just simpler and eliminates the local vs. out-of-area editor disagreements.

3. Florida doesn't even have a web-based FC map. Referring to earlier posts that some states do not have county roads, agreed there can't be a carte blanche rule that county roads are Primary Streets, but those states have equivalent road types no matter what they are called. It's just a matter of categorizing them into Primary or Minor and that is what FC is supposed to help with as I understand it.

4. I experimented with changing a road type in Alabama on a route I frequent -- a 4-lane, 65mph rural state highway from minor to major to see if would help routing -- and it did. The problem is the change was not supported by adherence to Alabama's functional classification system (which varies by county...argh!), but by my personal knowledge. That's not good. I would say Alabama's FC maps are wrong, but another editor would come along and "fix" those roads so that they align with Alabama's FC maps and we'd be right back where we started.

5. FC will require more attention be paid newer editors to help them be successful.


Best,
banished
Hoping for Waze clarification why road type even matters given https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=212&t=48543.
Fish don't know they're in water.
banished
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:03 am
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 185 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Postby kentsmith9 » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:05 am

sketch wrote:I think the MUTI page is ready for inclusion into the Wiki — along with a redirect from "Michigan left".

I am sorry, but I did not pay enough attention to this statement earlier.

Yes, let's get this into the forum as its own proposal. I started a separate thread to have the page reviewed and to get the general page created from that one.
kentsmith9
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 4949
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: SF/SJ Bay Area of Northern California
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 1447 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Postby qwaletee » Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:15 pm

Banished, I'm very much with you.

I believe this system is not workable unless there is a way to add notes to a segment. That would also stop a lot of the edit wars in general.
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 982 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Postby sketch » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:28 pm

banished wrote:1. I remain in the minority on FC, not because I wouldn't like to see a national standard, but assuming Waze says OK to FC, this thread shows we continue to struggle with exceptions. Where there are exceptions, we will continue to have back & forth conflicts between editors.

Out-of-area editor: "It's a primary street according to FC."
Local editor: "No, it's a minor highway. I know, because I drive it frequently."

Local editors will constantly have to go back and 'fix' what an outside-the-area editor changed. Reading the previous posts, there's other subjective areas, too.

I simply don't think this is going to be as big a problem as people think it is.

Upgrades past the prescribed type should generally only be done by those with intimate knowledge of the routing server. They should be locked at high ranks. Editors at high enough ranks to edit them will (1) understand that there's probably a reason for the type upgrade, (2) understand that type upgrades, and (3) know to contact the last editor/RC if they have questions.

Likewise, even if a handful of such disputes do occur, the idea that there will be more disputes about a handful of exceptions to a definite set of rules than there are about the current nebulous set of rules is absurd. This problem exists with the current system, except it exists in the current system with every road that isn't an Interstate. (The simple US/SR/CR system simply does not work on its own.)

I've implemented this system in two major metropolitan areas and to my knowledge I've yet to come across any road that needs to be upgraded past what the rules prescribe, by the way.
ALL US EDITORS READ: New USA road type guidance
new orleans based • detroit enthusiast • usa country manager
2013 ford focus titanium hatchback 5mt • performance blue
Image Image
sketch
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 5635
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:13 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA
Has thanked: 1199 times
Been thanked: 1654 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Postby qwaletee » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:30 pm

Never a downgrade?
US Champ / Country Manager | State Manager NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME, NH | Northeast ARC | Mentor | Responding to Map Issues
qwaletee
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:42 am
Location: NYC Metro - Active throughout NE^2 (Northeast & New England)
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 982 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Postby davielde » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:59 pm

qwaletee wrote:Never a downgrade?

"Never" was not a good word because it suggests time. I suppose "never" could be implied in the sense that Waze uses "soon". It could happen someday as population shifts, DOTs change their maps, etc.

The intent, however, is related to any potential decision that an editor has upon finding a road typed higher than the functional classification. If the editor sees a road typed too high versus a FC map, "do not" immediately downgrade the road just to meet the FC map. There could be another rule or exception at work, or it could be local editor judgment from prior to FC being implemented. It's related to the original "at minimum" discussion. To be more clear, this style of language should change if the wiki ends up discussing downgrades.
Image
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan
davielde
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:01 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Has thanked: 469 times
Been thanked: 752 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Postby bgodette » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:09 pm

banished wrote:Out-of-area editor: "It's a primary street according to FC."
Local editor: "No, it's a minor highway. I know, because I drive it frequently."
Sorry, but in this case the state's DOT wins.

banished wrote:3. Florida doesn't even have a web-based FC map.
Yes it does. It's here and it's been in the Wiki for a while. However that site does not appear to work from IP addresses that GeoIP from out of state. Last time it worked for me was when I was there last December. F.I.T. may also have GIS resources usable with ArcGIS.

banished wrote:Hoping for Waze clarification why road type even matters given https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=212&t=48543.
Because road type is the fall-back for long distance routing. Rates only provides potentially better/more routes over Type based but only IF there's a statistically significant amount of rate information. That amount seems to closely correlate to the road rank that we currently see in the beta editor.
ImageImage
bgodette
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 3343
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 459 times

Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro

Postby miked_64 » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:10 pm

qwaletee wrote:Never a downgrade?

I routinely downgrade Minor Collector from Primary to 4x4 / Dirt Roads if they are not paved. This is the only way for the Avoid Dirt Roads option to work.

Otherwise, using NFC guidelines in SW Michigan has been very helpful.
ImageImage
AM for SW Michigan
miked_64
Area Manager
Area Manager
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:01 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 13 times

PreviousNext

Return to Wiki Updates and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users