Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable roads

Moderators: MapSir, USA Champs

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

Postby bgodette » Thu Aug 25, 2016 9:29 pm

sketch wrote:4x4 would make most sense as a vehicle type (a la Taxi or HOV-3).

Brian, the issue at hand is essentially what we can/should tell editors to do. In a perfect world, during this transition, app & routing would honor both the road type and the check box, so we editors could start using the "unpaved" box alongside PS/mH types where appropriate for hybrid-FC reasons. But we can't do that until we can trust the box.
Exactly. As I said, they can't remove the type until the checkbox works. Guidance is currently unchanged from pre-checkbox because it currently doesn't do anything, but that can change at any time and go back and forth multiple times (eg JBs).
bgodette
Waze Global Champs
Waze Global Champs
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 538 times

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

Postby Bigbear3764 » Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:41 pm

CBenson wrote:What's wrong with davielde's sheet?


Can a second link for Illinois be added to that list? This one here is for the whole state and can be easier to pan around on: http://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/gai.htm?mt=fc

I haven't crossed checked all the counties, but one urban area in Chicago, the class is different between the PDF version and the whole state version.
Bigbear3764
Country Manager
Country Manager
 
Posts: 5204
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:02 pm
Location: Island Lake, IL USA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 954 times

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

Postby bretmcvey » Tue Aug 23, 2016 2:47 am

The checkbox isn't functional in the app from what I've seen. Original plans were to deprecate the type, but I'm not entirely sure that's still the plans.

We do have an ask out for more information from staff to better understand how things will ultimately work so we can revise guidance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bretmcvey
US Waze Champs
US Waze Champs
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:08 am
Location: Omaha, NE
Has thanked: 344 times
Been thanked: 163 times

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

Postby bz2012 » Sat Feb 14, 2015 12:00 pm

Paragraph needing possible revision:
Emergency Vehicle and DOT Service Roads Service road.png[edit]
Emergency.jpg "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.

I believe the word I have shown in red above should be removed, or the rest of the sentence revised to remove the inherent contradiction (why bother to have it at all, if it is not connected to a drivable road and why bother to set it to private type?)
bz2012
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 3026
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:32 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, La
Has thanked: 1375 times
Been thanked: 283 times

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

Postby bz2012 » Sat Feb 14, 2015 7:18 pm

If we leave em out, sure as heck, some EMT or cop running Waze will use the turn around, and Waze will spawn a MR saying connect points A and B. :)
bz2012
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 3026
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:32 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, La
Has thanked: 1375 times
Been thanked: 283 times

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

Postby bz2012 » Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:12 am

What about turn-arounds that allow non-emergency traffic but prohibit parking (except in an emergency)?

There are a couple on the causeway across Lake Pontchartrain that have signs that make that point.
bz2012
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 3026
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:32 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, La
Has thanked: 1375 times
Been thanked: 283 times

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

Postby bz2012 » Mon Feb 23, 2015 3:24 pm

Have had some UR's complaining that they should not be mapped at all (even though legal) because it is hazardous to make a u-turn there, with the high speed traffic. :(
[Darwin Awards candidates fail to take traffic into account.]
bz2012
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 3026
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:32 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, La
Has thanked: 1375 times
Been thanked: 283 times

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

Postby bz2012 » Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:30 pm

banished wrote:...
A general observation -- maybe more a perception -- it seems the Waze wiki has become as much about why decisions were made as about conveying the how-to instructions, themselves. I'd call this "wiki bloat," but one man's bloat may be another man's treasure.


Knowing why something is being done helps me remember what to do.
bz2012
Map Raider
Map Raider
 
Posts: 3026
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:32 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, La
Has thanked: 1375 times
Been thanked: 283 times

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

Postby CBenson » Tue Mar 18, 2014 3:44 pm

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.
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

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

Postby CBenson » Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:19 pm

Do we need to define at-grade connector? Specifically are roads at different grades required to meet the definition of "freeway" and "ramp." This comes up for roads like this. In this case there are no intersections that permit traffic to cross US-50. US-50 has an unbroken median. This combined with the fact that there are only limited access points to US-50 - that is the businesses do not have driveways that are directly served by US-50, makes me think this is a freeway. However, Duke St, Thomson Creek Rd, Castle Marina Rd, Cox Neck Rd, Dominion Rd, Chester Station Ln, Piney Creek Rd, S Piney Rd, Dundee Ave, Main St, Piney Narrows Rd etc all provide access to US-50 at junctions where there is no grade separation, because there is simply no access provided from one side of US-50 to other on these roads. There are BGSs at these exits on US-50 just like at the grade-separated interchanges.

So in the freeway definition it is stated that there should be "no at-grade intersections." I think that US-50 in this stretch meets the requirement for no at-grade intersections and the exit and entrance roads are not at-grade connectors and are thus properly ramps. However, given the current guidance and the proposed guidance if you interpret these access points "at-grade" then the US-50 would be a major highway and the exits and entrances should not be ramps.

I would state that if you can't cross the highway without either passing over or under the highway then all exits and entrances with acceleration and deceleration lanes along that highway should be considered "grade-separated."
CBenson
 
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 9:13 pm
Location: Crownsville, MD, US
Has thanked: 1069 times
Been thanked: 2356 times

PreviousNext

Return to US Wiki Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: b0b2