Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!
Post by davielde
sketch wrote:I don't think I can think of any situation where a user might upgrade a road type without approval.
...where a knowledgeable, *trained* user... ;)
davielde
Posts: 1219
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 735 times
Send a message
https://www.waze.com/wiki/images/6/69/W ... 00k_5c.png
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan

Post by davielde
sketch wrote:I don't envision that champs/RCs will have too hard a time understanding why other champs/RCs have made these determinations. Perhaps oversight via posting all such determinations to a state's Wiki or forum will be sufficient.
That has worked well in the few cases that I have experienced. Documenting any exceptions is extremely important, particularly for CMs who do work outside of their region and would otherwise be unfamiliar with any local considerations. A number of exceptions such as jughandles or the Michigan Left would initially be local ones anyway, so it may be difficult to build a "complete" exception system from the start nationally. Instead, there is likely much quicker testing and potential adoption at the state level, and eventually documentation on the state's wiki page--certainly if a Champ initiates it.

It would be important, however, for Champs to reign in exceptions too (i.e. "Ramps should not be used as at-grade connectors, but please see this list of 75 exceptions...).
davielde
Posts: 1219
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 735 times
Send a message
https://www.waze.com/wiki/images/6/69/W ... 00k_5c.png
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan

Post by davielde
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.
davielde
Posts: 1219
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 735 times
Send a message
https://www.waze.com/wiki/images/6/69/W ... 00k_5c.png
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan

Post by davielde
Here's a recent thread on dirt roads originally for the southwest region that touches on how difficult it is to classify nationally. In largely urban areas, there is usually a paved road within a short distance--even if the dirt road is functionally a minor collector. Out west though, you may not have any other option for miles. With the present system where we cannot separate function from surface, this debate will likely go on without a good compromise at a national level.
davielde
Posts: 1219
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 735 times
Send a message
https://www.waze.com/wiki/images/6/69/W ... 00k_5c.png
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan

Post by davielde
sketch wrote:Perhaps a note should be added to "street" type to say that it should only be used for paved local roads.
I don't think that would sit well in certain areas based on daknife's comments in that other thread, where perhaps we can shift any discussion of dirt roads. This is a wiki page centered on the function of a road, where there is no good solution when we bring in the surface of a road. Freeway > MH > mH > PS > S > Dirt Road/4x4 Trail is not a good hierarchy. Instead, dirt road could fit into any number of the lower levels whether they be minor or major collector, or even arterial. As dbraughlr stated, not all dirt roads are created equal, but not all regions judge by the same criteria, and even seasonality comes into play in certain places. If we cannot reach a consensus nationally, could there perhaps be an effort to come up with a well-defined list of considerations by region for dirt roads or whatever else, and then national FC guidelines are applied after those regional rules?
dbraughlr wrote:Proposal:
Say something like we use the functional class with the exceptions that a road can be upgraded based on local knowledge of function to produce better routing (what happened to the idea that a city wants people to use certain roads and not cut through on residential streets even if they are faster?), or downgraded to dirt where local knowledge is that the road does not really serve its designated function because there is a paved alternative.
I think that this would need to be more explicit since the goal is to avoid as much subjective judgment as possible. "Local knowledge of function" needs to be well-defined as to when it is appropriate versus using FC, and who has the final say in a dispute--the AM? RC?
davielde
Posts: 1219
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 735 times
Send a message
https://www.waze.com/wiki/images/6/69/W ... 00k_5c.png
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan

Post by davielde
CBenson wrote: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."
Isn't your US-50 example covered by the at-grade exception for signed, numbered exits--meaning that it already is not truly considered "at-grade" from a wiki standpoint, and the freeway definition of "no at-grade intersections" still holds? Here is a similar configuration where there is no grade separation with I-75, but it is a signed, numbered exit.
davielde
Posts: 1219
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 735 times
Send a message
https://www.waze.com/wiki/images/6/69/W ... 00k_5c.png
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan

Post by davielde
nzahn1 wrote:It may come under exceptions to the rule, but I would never consider US-40 through Downtown Baltimore to be a Major Highway in any respect. With only 1-2 lanes getting by in some sections, and average speeds less that 20 mph, I would never expect to get routed via US-40 if I was crossing the city. I would consider it a waste of waze's routing engine's time if it considered US-40 as an option (all .05 seconds).
It wouldn't matter if it were a signed US highway or not in this case because Maryland considers it an urban principal arterial (page 208 and following). It would get the "MH" road type regardless. Number of lanes as well as speed (posted, not average) have little to do with function, particularly in an urban area.

Just curious, if you couldn't take a freeway, what option(s) would you choose to get through downtown Baltimore? It looks like US-40 is really the main east-west route through the heart of downtown.
davielde
Posts: 1219
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 735 times
Send a message
https://www.waze.com/wiki/images/6/69/W ... 00k_5c.png
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan

Post by davielde
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
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 735 times
Send a message
https://www.waze.com/wiki/images/6/69/W ... 00k_5c.png
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan

Post by davielde
Before we implement anything, can we make sure that the links to the functional classification maps for each state are available somewhere besides my Google spreadsheet? The proposed page says that we should check our state's Mapping Resources page, but not all states have one. Would it make more sense to have these links on a centralized page on the wiki rather than spread out on separate state pages--perhaps on the National Resources page? State wiki pages could have a functional classification section and then link to the central page, but it would seem to solve the problem of how to find the maps for the 20+ states without a resource page.
davielde
Posts: 1219
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 735 times
Send a message
https://www.waze.com/wiki/images/6/69/W ... 00k_5c.png
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan

Post by davielde
CBenson wrote:What's wrong with davielde's sheet?
Nothing, I suppose. If people are comfortable working off of the spreadsheet, that's fine. My only concern was the number of "anonymous users" appearing in the revision history versus the actual names for the wiki. I just changed it so that everyone can edit instead of just comment. I initially pieced together the links based on the first things that I came across through searching, so the better links for certain states or the interactive/non-interactive split mentioned in earlier posts can be updated by anyone now.
davielde
Posts: 1219
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 735 times
Send a message
https://www.waze.com/wiki/images/6/69/W ... 00k_5c.png
CM: USA
SM: Michigan, Vermont
AM: Ann Arbor, MI & Thunder Bay, ON
WME Michigan