Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable roads

[PesachZ]

FYI as a side note I added a bunch of anchors to the page for common spelling (upper and lower case), and abbreviation of the road type names. For example https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/Road_types/USA#MH will now work to jump to that section. I also added the {{@}} template to all the sections to give the section link icon at the end of the title. The motivation for this was the unwieldy section links due to the road graphics/templates being used in the section titles.

[PesachZ]

YouTube00crashtest made these changes to the freeway section of the road types page without posting in the forum. This represents a change in guidance without consensus, I have therefore reverted these edits pending discussion here.
Do we agree with these changes?

[PesachZ]

I have made a draft with some of the changes discussed here, including an explanation for why some highways don't look like highways, a paragraph on bumping up the type of signed connecting roads, a new image for the runway type (my own work, different from what I posted on this thread) and a small change in wording in the driveways section. Only sections where a change is proposed are included in the draft, and I didn't include anything about railroads, although I know that was discussed recently too. Any corrections to content or format are appreciated

If anyone would like to take a look and give feedback, my draft is at https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/User:Kartografer/Road_types/USA

Sent from my LG-H811 using Tapatalk

I think this drafts represents an improvement, and have put together a comparison delta for others conveniance. Please lets all provide some feedback +/-.

[PesachZ]

Another benefit to including rationale, is that it helps others to find and recommend improvements to the status quo. By knowing the official rationale, you can decide if you think there is a better way to it, and share that with the community.

I used a variant of this hybrid method when making the speed limits page which employs collapsed sections for rationale.

[PesachZ]

From your PL in a post above, that segment has a list of AM's who can edit that in the box at the left - the screenshot below hows the link to click:

[ img ]

Just FYI that list and PM link buttons you see are added by scripts and not all editors can see them.

[PesachZ]

Thanks - my thought was that a R3 AM probably had toolbox.

I wrote that since we will not be the only ones reading this thread, and others later might be confused.

[PhantomSoul]

Thanks for the efforts, sketch. I have to say the FC idea is growing on me, at least in the less urban parts of New Jersey. But in the more urban parts of especially northern New Jersey, the FC maps do not really coincide with the objectives Waze claims for the road types to meet.

From what I understand, the higher road types in Waze are meant to narrow the network of possible routes to consider for really long trips - I would imagine we're talking 50+ miles in the scope of MH and Fwy, if I'm not mistaken. Many of the urban routes that New Jersey calls principal arterials are not meant to be principal arterials across the entire state or even across the multiple counties, like Waze is looking for with the higher road types, but rather just the principal arterial through that specific urban area. Many of these roads are simply surface city streets with traffic lights, no concretely defined turn lanes/signals, parked cars, and even very frequent residential/commercial driveways, and are simply not appropriate for even being considered for routing in the middle of a 50+ mile trip. Fact of the matter is that in such highly-urbanized areas, controlled-access freeways are really the only roads appropriate for through travel. If there's an accident, you can try another freeway - there's usually many of them in very urbanized areas. If you're past the point of detour to another freeway, unless the freeway is actually closed, the ugly reality of these heavily urbanized areas is that your fastest option is probably to just wait out the congestion on the that freeway.

Ironically, Bing seems to have the best metaphor for road types that I've seen so far. I'm not saying that we should rush and adopt their standard; I don't even know exactly what it is or whether it would suit Waze's objectives, but if you look at New York City on Bing Maps, there isn't a single major non-freeway highway anywhere inside the outermost I-287 loop, except for a few short connector sections of roads where a controlled access freeway was never built. Even multi-lane divided roads in this area are mere minor highways, because they've been replaced with nearby controlled-access freeways far more appropriate for longer-distance travel.

I'm not trying to single out New Jersey, but it's where I've done and continue to do the vast majority of my editing. Though I know our roads are rather quirky, I'm pretty sure there are other states, at least here on the east coast, that have similar issues with a strict FC interpretation.

Maybe I have the objective of the road types totally wrong, but if they are for trying to single out roads appropriate for use in the middle of trips of certain distances, then urban arterials are a bad metaphor for Waze highways.

[PhantomSoul]

Since Waze does not appear to have a distinct "authorized emergency access only" level of penalty, even if such a segment is close to the end of your trip, I can't imagine why would we want to map and connect these, even if the turn is disabled.

If we map and disconnect, it won't be used for any navigation. Risk: Waze may mistake "close" disconnect for an error and produce a stream of MPs.

If we map and connect it, we solve the phantom MPs, but create a significant chance someone will be navigated into that turn no matter how we configure it. Especially if such a u-turn would save a sick amount of time: think missed exit on a rural freeway.

Not mapping it at all may produce s visual disconnect on the map, and MPs when such a connector actually is used with Waze, but honestly, how often does that happen compared to the risks in the other 2 scenarios above?

[PhantomSoul]

As far no posted sign for emergency authorized access only, doesn't the Interstate standard prohibit any kind of at-grade crossing of traffic, and maximum angles of exit and entrance turns?

For non Interstate roads, it might be due to re-evaluate whether such a road is actually a freeway. I've seen many cases where a road classified by FC as an Expressway definitely does not meet the minimum Waze characteristics for a Freeway, as defined in the Road Types wiki.

Major Highways, on the other hand, can have all kinds of questionable turns, especially in older urban areas, and I've seen URs for many of them.

However, I do feel it is not the role of the map editor to determine which ones are appropriate and which ones aren't, short of reflecting and traffic laws or posted signage.

[PhantomSoul]

There's like 3 blocks of at-grade intersections approaching the Holland Tunnel, but we have them set to MH, and they are no longer part of I-78 nor its plans.

Some old maps show the I-78 shield when grade-separated express lanes were proposed and the Interstate was supposed to continue on across lower Manhattan and into Brooklyn. But those plans got scrapped when NY decided to scrap it's part of that road, and more recently, I-78 was re-designated to simply end where the Turnpike ends near the Holland Tunnel.