Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Completed Highway Systems Threads => Topic started by: rickmastfan67 on January 19, 2016, 11:40:23 pm

Title: cansf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 19, 2016, 11:40:23 pm
I wish we could activate the 'Select Named Canadian Highways' system.  Ontario has a ton of thise that qualify and are already on GitHub.  This would also help fix the duplication of the Gardiner and DVP being in the wrong system and active on the site.

Edited after splitting thread to change subject from "Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways" to "cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways". -Eric/yakra
Edited after activation, subject changed from "cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways" to "cansf: Canada Select Named Freeways". michih
Title: Re: Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways
Post by: yakra on January 20, 2016, 12:36:59 am
I wish we could activate the 'Select Named Canadian Highways' system.  Ontario has a ton of thise that qualify and are already on GitHub.  This would also help fix the duplication of the Gardiner and DVP being in the wrong system and active on the site.
Not saying "I am for this", but...
I am not against this. :)

Edit: At the very least, I'm in favor of it being in the HB as an in-devel system. I may make a cannf_con.csv. Or maybe someone else will beat me to it. Gotta check whether there are Route/Root conflicts between cannf and canonf, mumble mumble...
Title: Re: Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways
Post by: yakra on January 20, 2016, 11:43:23 am
• I would want to delete a lot of the Alberta routes that aren't actual freeways.
• Queen Elizabeth Way isn't in cannf. What system should it be part of?
• SK CirDr is out-of-date; the road is now a complete loop.
Title: Re: Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways
Post by: Bickendan on January 20, 2016, 05:52:42 pm
Most of the AB routes that aren't actually freeways would ultimately fall into the main canab system, right?
Title: Re: Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways
Post by: yakra on January 21, 2016, 11:15:04 am
Most of the AB routes that aren't actually freeways would ultimately fall into the main canab system, right?
In cannf (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/selecthwys.php?sys=cannf&rg=can.ab&gr=p#r) in AB, there's only CroTrl (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?sys=cannf&rg=can.ab&gr=p&r=ab.crotrl&showint=0&dl=0), which partially overlaps with AB1ACoc (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.ab001acoc).
As the file stands now, there's a small and incomplete overlap between the two, which wouldn't be picked up by multiplex detection (waypoints at different streets). It looks like the Crowchild Trail designation extends as far northwest as AB AB1ACoc 12MileRd.
Title: Re: Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways
Post by: Jim on January 21, 2016, 07:04:36 pm
I wish we could activate the 'Select Named Canadian Highways' system.  Ontario has a ton of thise that qualify and are already on GitHub.  This would also help fix the duplication of the Gardiner and DVP being in the wrong system and active on the site.

Let's at least get that system up as a devel system.  If some basic fixes are made, I'm sure we can quickly take it to preview, and perhaps soon after, active.
Title: Re: Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways
Post by: yakra on January 21, 2016, 07:44:42 pm
I wish we could activate the 'Select Named Canadian Highways' system.  Ontario has a ton of thise that qualify and are already on GitHub.  This would also help fix the duplication of the Gardiner and DVP being in the wrong system and active on the site.

Let's at least get that system up as a devel system.  If some basic fixes are made, I'm sure we can quickly take it to preview, and perhaps soon after, active.
There are no Route/Root conflicts between cannf and canonf. Once this system goes live, the old canonf route names can become AltRouteNames, e.g. ONDVP for DonValPkwy.
How about I bang together a cannf_con.csv?
Title: Re: Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways
Post by: Jim on January 21, 2016, 07:58:56 pm
How about I bang together a cannf_con.csv?

Go for it!  I expect to be able to run a site update in a bit.
Title: Re: Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways
Post by: yakra on January 21, 2016, 08:10:51 pm
Pull request will be in in the next few minutes.
Edit: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/368
Title: Re: Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 22, 2016, 12:17:29 am
• Queen Elizabeth Way isn't in cannf. What system should it be part of?

I think it should stay where it is.  It is officially part of the 400 series in Ontario unlike the other 2 routes that are currently in that network.
Title: Re: Re: Finishing Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways
Post by: yakra on January 22, 2016, 01:00:50 am
• Queen Elizabeth Way isn't in cannf. What system should it be part of?
(Why did I ask the question if I think I have an answer? :P)

I think it should stay where it is.  It is officially part of the 400 series in Ontario unlike the other 2 routes that are currently in that network.
I got the opposite impression on reading your "this would be the best place" comment on GitHub. :) But anyway...
I'm not convinced. By this logic, CANNST should contain both the Bedford Bypass and Cabot Trail. It's a signed vs. unsigned thing -- It's not *signed as* an ON4xx route.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 22, 2016, 01:17:56 am
Well, for the QEW to stay where it is, it has this going for it unlike your other examples:
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on January 22, 2016, 10:55:32 am
Not as unlike my examples as you might think:
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: si404 on February 11, 2016, 10:20:38 am
Looking through the routes currently in cannf (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?sys=cannf)

AB BedTrl (Beddington Trail) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.bedtrl) - no reason to be in the system
AB CroTrl (Crowchild Trail) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.crotrl) - goes a lot further NW (12 Mile Coulee Rd) though this is the unnumbered bit, all but the middle bit (Kensington Rd - 24th Ave) is actually freeway
AB GroRd (Groat Road) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.grord) - no reason to be in the system
AB SheParkFwy (Sherwood Park Freeway) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.sheparkfwy) - a reasonable inclusion (though is also AB100), though bit east of AB216 doesn't have the name.
AB TerDr (Terwillinger Drive) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.terdr) - it would be worthy of inclusion if the mainline was build, but it isn't. Ditch it.
AB WayGreDr (Wayne Gretzky Drive) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.waygredr) - partially freeway (101Ave - 118Ave) but that's only two junctions at the river crossing. Maybe
BC GolEarsWay (Golden Ears Way) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=bc.golearsway) - middle section (192St to BC7) is freeway, but rest isn't. Maybe
BC KniSt (Knight Street) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=bc.knist) - section in browser is freeway, but Knight Street is surface streets for a good long while further north. Maybe
NS BedByp (Bedford Bypass) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ns.bedbyp) - Keep
ON AllRd (Allen Road) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=on.allrd) - Allen Rd goes a mile further north as surface street. Keep?
ON DonValPkwy (Don Valley Parkway) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=on.donvalpkwy) - Keep
ON ECRowExpy (EC Row Expressway) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=on.ecrowexpy) - Keep (needs a tweak or two?)
ON GarExpy (Gardiner Expressway) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=on.garexpy) - Keep
ON LinAlePkwy (Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=on.linalepkwy) - Keep
ON RedHillPkwy (Red Hill Valley Parkway) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=on.redhillpkwy) - Keep
ON RR174 (Queensway) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=on.rr174) - Queensway goes further into Carlington (as 417 Freeway), RR174 goes further east as surface. Needs sorting, but general idea is a keeper
SK CirDr (Circle Drive) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=sk.cirdr) - needs extending, but keep.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 11, 2016, 02:59:54 pm
ON ECRowExpy (EC Row Expressway) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=on.ecrowexpy) - Keep (needs a tweak or two?)

Nope, it's the full route in the HB already.  Maybe need to recenter the eastern end, but that's about it for it.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 11, 2016, 03:29:21 pm
AB BedTrl (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.bedtrl) - no reason to be in the system
AB GroRd (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.grord) - no reason to be in the system
Agreed.

AB TerDr (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.terdr) - it would be worthy of inclusion if the mainline was build, but it isn't. Ditch it.
Yes, ditch it.

AB WayGreDr (Wayne Gretzky Drive) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.waygredr) - partially freeway (101Ave - 118Ave) but that's only two junctions at the river crossing. Maybe
If BedTrl is out, then let's ditch this one too.

AB CroTrl (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.crotrl) - goes a lot further NW (12 Mile Coulee Rd) though this is the unnumbered bit, all but the middle bit (Kensington Rd - 24th Ave) is actually freeway
The only one I'm really iffy about at all. At this moment I'm leaning toward keeping it. Extend NW, concurrent with AB1ACoc to 12MileRd.

AB SheParkFwy (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.sheparkfwy) - a reasonable inclusion (though is also AB100), though bit east of AB216 doesn't have the name.
Definitely include. Truncate E end to AB216. W end needs sorting.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 11, 2016, 04:58:45 pm
SheParkFwy W end:

75 St:
The current end in the HB. I see no other evidence that Sherwood Park Freeway should end here. Truncate...

73 St & 82 Ave:
FWIW, this is where the shapefiles make the cutoff between L_STNAME_C = "Sherwood Park Freeway North-west" & L_STNAME_C = "82 Avenue North-west", just east of 73 St. The cutoff for the WB roadway is at the gore of the merge with 82 Ave.
GMSV at 73 St shows "82 (WHYTE) AV". (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5181103,-113.4395149,3a,39.8y,342.4h,83.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQMD-Ok8v1xNbvY7HYzmVug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I interpret that as meaning that Sherwood Park Freeway has just ended, merging into 82 Ave by that point.

71 St:
The last at-grade intersection before the freeway-freeway. GMSV reveals that between June (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5175722,-113.4364905,3a,37.5y,205.35h,90.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGic-50azrpUCWxwQddl0Zg!2e0!5s20140601T000000!7i13312!8i6656) and July (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5175554,-113.4365014,3a,37.5y,213.04h,89.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVJUSzEnEmjEfDyyXoEnTAg!2e0!5s20140701T000000!7i13312!8i6656) of 2014, signage was changed from a post-mounted "Sherwood Park Freeway" with an arrow pointing east to an overhead "Sherwood Park Freeway" with no arrows.

ArgRd:
The last interchange before the at-grade bits. Wiki[citation needed]pedia lists the end as here (their 0.9 km figure would put their end at where I'd put the waypoint (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/53.5160038,-113.4314655/53.5142558,-113.41843/@53.5151559,-113.4403848,15z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)); I don't really see any other sources to corroborate that. Though I did find this (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5146737,-113.4237022,3a,61.6y,296.7h,87.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2NJWieBVw8QQLIVi-qXpXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5160289,-113.4296012,3a,44.9y,283.47h,86.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6TqHPwDh7Rkv__qBuISeWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), it doesn't convince me of anything. I look at it as being control "cities" using road names; eventual destinations.

Right now I'm leaning toward the merge with 82 Ave.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: si404 on February 11, 2016, 08:13:32 pm
Nope, it's the full route in the HB already.  Maybe need to recenter the eastern end, but that's about it for it.
I hadn't zoomed in enough to see that the wierd eastern end is mapped correctly.
AB SheParkFwy (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=ab.sheparkfwy) - a reasonable inclusion (though is also AB100), though bit east of AB216 doesn't have the name.
Definitely include. Truncate E end to AB216. W end needs sorting.
My only doubt is that it is another route (AB100). If you consider this named freeway, then you ought to consider named freeways that are, likewise, also entirely covered by provincial highway networks. eg Anthony Henday Drive, which is AB216. I don't have a problem with that, but there is this can o'worms waiting to be opened.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 12, 2016, 02:35:16 pm
My only doubt is that it is another route (AB100).
I don't see any problems here. While this is, internally, AB100, it is not signed as such, and is thus left out of CANAB. So CANSF would be an appropriate place to keep it.

If you consider this named freeway, then you ought to consider named freeways that are, likewise, also entirely covered by provincial highway networks. eg Anthony Henday Drive, which is AB216. I don't have a problem with that, but there is this can o'worms waiting to be opened.
I don't draw that same line of causality. CANSF is for Canadian Select Named Freeways, and makes no pretense of trying to include all the named freeways. As Anthony Henday Drive is already covered on TM as AB216, there's no reason to include it in this Select set.
(Well... I guess I did just consider it, didn't I? :) )
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: si404 on February 12, 2016, 03:19:18 pm
I don't see any problems here.
Nor do I, other than the can of worms of having a route in two systems, but not others that would also be candidates. I didn't realise, however, that AB100 is unsigned.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 14, 2016, 12:58:00 pm
Updates to get AB & NS ready for Preview are now in the HB.

Breakdown of status by province:
AB   Ready
BC   Ping Oscar
NS   Ready
ON   Ping James
SK   Needs work

Ping Oscar:
• What's your take on BC GolEarsWay & KniSt? My inclination would be to ditch them; that's just my 2 cents.
• If you'd like, I could bash together an update for Circle Drive and submit it for your approval.

Ping James:
• I looked over the ON routes along with all the others when this thread got started, and everything looked good & mostly ready to go. Right?
• However, Si does bring up a good point (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=30.msg384#msg384) about RR174 (Queensway) needing sorting.
• From a stylistic perspective, I don't like the mismatch between Route/Root (RR174) and City (Queensway), used for these named systems to provide the full highway name. I'd prefer they be more consistent, with what's signed. However, there is the existing precedent of NV CR215. Thoughts? (My dislike is not a violent dislike, to be clear...)
• Despite me saying "Shield style ... convincing argument" upthread (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=30.msg139#msg139), I still think that CANNF is the best place for Queen Elizabeth Way. Going back to Tim's third bullet point from this post (http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?p=2223&mforum=clinched#2223) when the state/provincial systems' scope was first defined...
Quote
- In general, most states should have a well defined system of numbered state highways, with their own designation type and highway shield, which are often called something like "trunk" or "touring" or "traffic" routes. ... The scope of the system is not the same as "all state-maintained highways". Each state defines their highway system differently.....
(Italics as in original)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 14, 2016, 02:01:41 pm
Oscar, since I can't leave well enough alone, here's a working draft of SK CirDr I've put together:
Code: [Select]
SK11/16_A http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.089454&lon=-106.604635
TaySt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.104766&lon=-106.604462
8thSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.114623&lon=-106.604462
14thSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.121817&lon=-106.604075
SK5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.129352&lon=-106.607723
108thSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.136596&lon=-106.612058
AttDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.150133&lon=-106.613259
PreAve_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.152477&lon=-106.624031
+X01 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.154478&lon=-106.637936
+X02 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.157690&lon=-106.641111
WarRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.158032&lon=-106.646733
SK11/16_B http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.157901&lon=-106.670079
AirDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.154346&lon=-106.681795
33rdSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.143813&lon=-106.702223
SK7/14 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.129326&lon=-106.719818
11thSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.114685&lon=-106.715237
ValRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.104548&lon=-106.713370
SK219 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.092665&lon=-106.670423
SK11_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.092504&lon=-106.662473
ClaAve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.089896&lon=-106.646562
PreAve_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.089633&lon=-106.622615
SK11/16_C http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.089454&lon=-106.604635

A few caveats:
• SK TCHYel SK11_S & SK SK11 SK16_S have different coords. Recommend replacing the coords in the SK11 file with the coords from the TCHYel file. I've used the TCHYel coords above.
• I've left in +X01 & +X02 to avoid breaking the multiplex with (active) TCHYel, but I recommend deleting them from both files.
• On the new segment, I've broken the multiplex with (in-dev) SK11: I removed +x37, and recentered SK11_N (labeled ToSK219 in the SK11 file).
• Signage for SK11 and TCH16 are a bit... odd. I'm not 100% certain the routes still follow what's in the HB, but for now I've left the labels as if they do. This will take some investigation, GMSVing around and such. It looks at first glance like a case of spotty (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0849217,-106.6045005,3a,65.1y,0.05h,90.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smQYWvNd0QsngCecjZskNUw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0895334,-106.5972561,3a,52y,270.58h,90.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUWfIod8WcfwAhfZwuhPUZw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), missing TOs, and the like... Maybe.
Edit: TCH16 is confusingly signed along both the NE and SW legs of Circle Drive. Signage for SK11 seems to be a bit more indicative of following the western leg; thru travelers attempting to follow signage for the route are going to have a hell of a time. (Well -- NB is confusing but still doable. SB, traffic is directed to exit Idlewyld at the Circle Drive interchange, where there's no signage at the ramp terminus, so good luck.)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: julmac on February 15, 2016, 12:00:43 pm
Ever since the southwest leg of Circle Drive opened, the routing of SK11 and TC16 has been ambiguous. It appears that SK11 and TC16 are intended to be routed both ways around the circle, with SK11 removed from Idylwyld Drive. I suggest that to minimize changes in the HB, TC16 be kept along the east leg of Circle Drive and SK11 be route along the west leg. Idylwyld Drive (the freeway portion) should be added to CANSF.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 16, 2016, 12:00:39 am
Ever since the southwest leg of Circle Drive opened, the routing of SK11 and TC16 has been ambiguous. It appears that SK11 and TC16 are intended to be routed both ways around the circle, with SK11 removed from Idylwyld Drive. I suggest that to minimize changes in the HB, TC16 be kept along the east leg of Circle Drive and SK11 be route along the west leg. Idylwyld Drive (the freeway portion) should be added to CANSF.
This is also what I was thinking to do, TCH16 on the east and SK11 on the west.
Oscar, what's your opinion on adding Idylwyld Drive to CANSF?

Edit: Might be worthwhile to email SK MoT for clarity...
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on February 16, 2016, 08:37:24 am
Just a few cents from the road (julmac, does that cliche still exist up there, with the removal of the penny from circulation in Canada?). I'm going to be really busy the next few days, mainly helping my sister in southern California move.

On Circle Drive and Idylwild Drive:

I think the signage for the TCH around the northeast quadrant of Circle Drive is clear enough for TCH travelers to follow, and any TCH signage on other parts of Circle Drive is probably just missing "TO" banners.

As for SK 11, there is probably still a fair amount of remnant SK 11 (and even TCH) signage on Idylwild Dr. to really confuse things on GMSV. A look at the online official highway map (which I don't have time for right now) would be more definitive.

On the BC unnumbered routes:

I have zero familiarity with those routes, and never bothered to travel them on multiple visits to Vancouver, which should tell you something about their (un)importance.

On Queen Elizabeth Way in Ontario:

Leaving aside the metaphysics of which system it belongs in, the most important thing is that it remain in an active system. It's too important and well-traveled a route to move from an active to an inactive system. That means leaving it alone until CANNF is activated. I don't feel as strongly about the unnumbered Don Valley and Gardiner routes, which I have traveled and are in my list file.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 16, 2016, 11:08:49 am
I think the signage for the TCH around the northeast quadrant of Circle Drive is clear enough for TCH travelers to follow, and any TCH signage on other parts of Circle Drive is probably just missing "TO" banners.
Agreed.

As for SK 11, there is probably still a fair amount of remnant SK 11 (and even TCH) signage on Idylwild Dr. to really confuse things on GMSV.
I haven't seen any TCH without TO plates. SK11, yes, there's still plenty of that. (First random former-11 interchange I plopped Pegman down at.) (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1146367,-106.6700889,3a,75y,289.94h,90.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWFs5xswqC0F9XrsmGbx7dQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) Including at the northern Idlewyld/Circle interchange, and the aforementioned ramp terminus, which still signs the old route (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1579534,-106.6705733,3a,38.2y,268.28h,89.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suaCgANFEUPmZ49BdYbBodA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

A look at the online official highway map (which I don't have time for right now) would be more definitive.
All I found was this stuff (http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/sask-maps/). Nothing with any good "zoomed-in" detail, and nothing with enough info to find a definitive route.

On the BC unnumbered routes:

I have zero familiarity with those routes, and never bothered to travel them on multiple visits to Vancouver, which should tell you something about their (un)importance.
Si says "Maybe"; I'm leaning toward "Ditch'em" -- do you have a strong opinion?

On Queen Elizabeth Way in Ontario:

Leaving aside the metaphysics of which system it belongs in, the most important thing is that it remain in an active system. It's too important and well-traveled a route to move from an active to an inactive system. That means leaving it alone until CANNF is activated. I don't feel as strongly about the unnumbered Don Valley and Gardiner routes, which I have traveled and are in my list file.
Agree 100% -- let's leave this active in CANONF until CANNF is activated. Same for the others.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on February 17, 2016, 01:23:34 am
A look at the online official highway map (which I don't have time for right now) would be more definitive.
All I found was this stuff (http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/sask-maps/). Nothing with any good "zoomed-in" detail, and nothing with enough info to find a definitive route.

What I had in mind was from Tourism Saskatchewan. As it turns out, its online map (.pdf of only one side of a paper map) both predates the completion of Circle Drive, and has zero detail about anything within the Saskatoon city limits. But I recall that the most recent paper version has a Saskatoon insert on the back side. I'm three time zones away from my copy for a few weeks, but maybe julmac can help here since IIRC he's from Saskatchewan.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 17, 2016, 06:29:19 pm
Ping James:
• I looked over the ON routes along with all the others when this thread got started, and everything looked good & mostly ready to go. Right?
Pretty much.

• However, Si does bring up a good point (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=30.msg384#msg384) about RR174 (Queensway) needing sorting.
ON RR174 (Queensway) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=on.rr174) - Queensway goes further into Carlington (as 417 Freeway), RR174 goes further east as surface. Needs sorting, but general idea is a keeper
If Ontario wouldn't have gone on their download binge in 1997, this would have still been part of ON-17 (the RR-174 part at least) and this wouldn't have been a problem.  Anyways, I'd just keep it to the expressway part of RR-174.  Sure, a little bit to the east it changes to RR-17 because of a district change, but I'd just leave it as is.

ON AllRd (Allen Road) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=on.allrd) - Allen Rd goes a mile further north as surface street. Keep?
I'd have no problems even shortening the northern end down to the Transit Road point and leave just the expressway part.  Probably could even take out the 'WilHeiBlvd' point.  Plus, I would need to update the labels to the current standards by taking out the 'W'/'E' at the end of some of them.
Anyways, Allen Road (Spadina Expressway) was suppose to be part of a big Toronto Expressway system, however, only this part got constructed as well as the DVP and Gardiner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Road
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 18, 2016, 01:03:03 am
If Ontario wouldn't have gone on their download binge in 1997, this would have still been part of ON-17 (the RR-174 part at least) and this wouldn't have been a problem.  Anyways, I'd just keep it to the expressway part of RR-174.  Sure, a little bit to the east it changes to RR-17 because of a district change, but I'd just leave it as is.
Yes, just keep the expressway part of RR-174. Though how about this -- extend it west, concurrent with ON417, to include all of the highway that bears the "Queensway" name? Precedent: NJ NJTpk got extended to include all of the NJ Turnpike, even the I-95 bits, sometime before CHM went inactive. I recently did the same with AB CroTrl, extending it along the Crowchild Trail portion of AB1ACoc. Doing this could sort out the Queensway/RR174 City/Route/Root mismatch -- it wouldn't be all RR174, but it would be all Queensway, thus ON Que.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 19, 2016, 06:59:52 pm
If Ontario wouldn't have gone on their download binge in 1997, this would have still been part of ON-17 (the RR-174 part at least) and this wouldn't have been a problem.  Anyways, I'd just keep it to the expressway part of RR-174.  Sure, a little bit to the east it changes to RR-17 because of a district change, but I'd just leave it as is.
Yes, just keep the expressway part of RR-174. Though how about this -- extend it west, concurrent with ON417, to include all of the highway that bears the "Queensway" name? Precedent: NJ NJTpk got extended to include all of the NJ Turnpike, even the I-95 bits, sometime before CHM went inactive. I recently did the same with AB CroTrl, extending it along the Crowchild Trail portion of AB1ACoc. Doing this could sort out the Queensway/RR174 City/Route/Root mismatch -- it wouldn't be all RR174, but it would be all Queensway, thus ON Que.

If I could maybe figure out for sure what the Western end is, maybe.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on April 07, 2016, 03:48:25 pm
A look at the online official highway map (which I don't have time for right now) would be more definitive.
All I found was this stuff (http://www.highways.gov.sk.ca/sask-maps/). Nothing with any good "zoomed-in" detail, and nothing with enough info to find a definitive route.

What I had in mind was from Tourism Saskatchewan. As it turns out, its online map (.pdf of only one side of a paper map) both predates the completion of Circle Drive, and has zero detail about anything within the Saskatoon city limits. But I recall that the most recent paper version has a Saskatoon insert on the back side. I'm three time zones away from my copy for a few weeks, but maybe julmac can help here since IIRC he's from Saskatchewan.

Followup, now that I'm reunited with my latest (2014-15) Tourism Saskatchewan provincial road map. Its back side does indeed have a fairly detailed city inset for Saskatoon. However, it sheds no light at all on the routing of TCH 16 and SK 11 through the city, or the route designations (if any) for Circle Drive. It does show route markers for TCH 16, SK 11, and other highways, but only in the outskirts of the city. Grrrr.

I plan to drive through Saskatchewan again this summer. I'll probably steer far clear of Saskatoon, but will try to pick up the latest tourist map, and check on whether the new edition says anything meaningful about route designations through Saskatoon. You can also order your own free copy from Tourism Saskatchewan, as I've done ahead of previous visits.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on May 26, 2016, 06:58:25 pm
I did pick up the latest Tourism Saskatchewan map, earlier this month. As unhelpful, on Circle Drive or other route designations within Saskatoon, as previous editions.

But driving down SK 11 from Prince Albert, I noticed overhead signs directing SK 11 and TCH 16 traffic to Circle Drive. The overhead for the through lanes showed no route number for Idylwild Dr., which continues beyond the interchange. That indicates that SK 11 follows Circle Dr., and no longer follows Idylwild Dr. Whether clockwise or counter-clockwise on Circle Dr. was unclear, as I saw no signage at the end of that off-ramp saying which way to turn to stay on SK 11. But I saw no SK 11 (or TCH) signage on the northwest quadrant of Circle Dr., from the Idylwild Dr. interchange to the SK 7/14 interchange west of downtown, at which point I left Circle Dr. on SK 7 heading southwest.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on June 27, 2016, 01:38:50 pm
I forgot to mention that I took another pass at Saskatoon later that trip. Circle Dr., in both directions at the Idylwild Dr. interchange, has signs indicating SK 11 goes south on Idylwild Dr. The northeast quadrant of Circle Dr., heading clockwise, has some overhead signs indicating that it's either SK 11 south, and others with "To SK 11". Most perplexing, SK 11 northbound approaching the Circle Dr./TCH 16 junction has overhead signs directing northbound SK 11 traffic to either turn left onto Circle Dr. west, or go straight ahead on Circle Dr. north (take your pick). 

Whoever takes on SK provincial routes (which might be me, once I've finished usaak, considering how much driving I've been doing there lately) should call the transportation ministry, to find out where exactly SK 11 officially goes through Saskatoon, and what route numbers if any are officially assigned to each of Circle Dr.'s quadrants. Also, to urge that it fix the total clusterfork that is route signage in Saskatoon.

I also saw some of that in Regina on that trip, with conflicting signage on its Ring Rd. around, and SK 6 around or through, that city. I'll be back in Regina for a few days -- but this time not Saskatoon -- next month, so I can try to clarify the situation there. EDIT: No real issue with route signage in Regina. SK 11 continues on Ring Rd. down ro the southern junction of SK 6 and TCH 1, in a rather useless multiplex with SK 6, but the signage is reasonably clear. I'll later fix this in cansph.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: julmac on July 16, 2016, 12:23:53 pm
Whoever takes on SK provincial routes (which might be me, once I've finished usaak, considering how much driving I've been doing there lately) should call the transportation ministry, to find out where exactly SK 11 officially goes through Saskatoon, and what route numbers if any are officially assigned to each of Circle Dr.'s quadrants. Also, to urge that it fix the total clusterfork that is route signage in Saskatoon.

The Ministry of Highways doesn't own Circle Drive; it's controlled by the City (which no doubt is contributing to the issue).
I'm hoping that route signage is handled better when the Regina Bypass opens in a few years time, although no indications yet on what the highway routings will be (at least this time, the province has full control over the roadway).
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on December 01, 2016, 10:23:42 pm
Bumping...what's still up for debate? From what I can tell, AB, BC, NS, and ON (with the possible exception of the western end of Queensway) appear settled, leaving SK still in limbo. There aren't any potential additions in other provinces, are there? Think we can move this up to preview by the end of the year?

On a related note, since cansph will never be added as a system, what's the logic in displaying it as a "devel" system in the HB? Anything in the list is late-CHM-vintage at best, and therefore likely to be completely revamped when its provincial system is properly drafted.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on December 02, 2016, 07:56:08 pm
In AB, should the Glenmore Trail in Calgary be added (back)? The plan had been to include it in the AB 8 route file, but before canab was activated, AB 8 was truncated (at my suggestion) to remove a big freeway chunk of the Trail with no posted route numbers.

Are there other freeways that should be added, in other provinces? BC and ON have been kept up to date, nut I'm unsure of the others. SK probably has no candidates for additions, with Regina's Ring Rd. removed long ago since most of it is now part of SK 11. The Manitoba St. Expressway in Moose Jaw is a "probably not" as not long enough, but I want to noodle a little on that. In MB, does Winnipeg have freeway-level "city routes" worthy of addition (I don't recall any)? I'm drawing a blank right now on QC, I doubt NL has anything unnumbered.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: Bickendan on December 03, 2016, 12:47:01 am
There were a couple in metro Vancouver that Tim nixed... Knight St and Golden Ears Way.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on December 03, 2016, 03:47:33 am
Bumping...what's still up for debate? From what I can tell, AB, BC, NS, and ON (with the possible exception of the western end of Queensway) appear settled
I wanna say BC could still be sorted. I didn't take Oscar's response WRT GolEarsWay & KniSt upthread as very definitive -- even if he did suggest they were unimportant.

There were a couple in metro Vancouver that Tim nixed... Knight St and Golden Ears Way.
Did Tim nix those? If so, they've remained in the HB to this day. Maybe you're thinking Si & me -- Si gave them both a "maybe", and I pooh-poohed them upthread. But looking back at the routes in the HB again, I don't see why I was thinking "ditch it" for KniSt. It's all freeway (the part plotted, at least). Connects to a numbered route too. Seems pretty cromulent. I'd still wanna ditch GolEars Way though...

In any case, I think some consistency with routes that are only partially freeway would be good. GolEarsWay is plotted in its entirety, even the non-freeway bits. KniSt has only the freeway bits plotted.

leaving SK still in limbo. There aren't any potential additions in other provinces, are there? Think we can move this up to preview by the end of the year?
SK is the sticking point, IMO. It looks like nothing but a headache. I'd hesitate to put that workload on Oscar unless he's ready & willing to assume it.

In AB, should the Glenmore Trail in Calgary be added (back)? The plan had been to include it in the AB 8 route file, but before canab was activated, AB 8 was truncated (at my suggestion) to remove a big freeway chunk of the Trail with no posted route numbers.
Well, it was actually julmac's info that really got me fully convinced. :) I'm definitely willing to entertain the idea of adding it. The question of "how much to include?" gets to be a rabbit hole pretty quickly, and is best saved for another post.

In MB, does Winnipeg have freeway-level "city routes" worthy of addition (I don't recall any)?
I haven't really looked into how freeway-level things get there, in detail. Probably not much. I've been thinking that the Winnipeg City Routes could be their own Tier 5 system.

I doubt NL has anything unnumbered.
I believe there's nothing unnumbered. Back in the day, Tim proposed NL3A, until I realized it had a number, so it went into cansph instead.

On a related note, since cansph will never be added as a system, what's the logic in displaying it as a "devel" system in the HB?
I think, just in order to have it as a reference and be able to look at it, really. It seems I ginned up the _con.csv file (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commits/master/hwy_data/_systems/cansph_con.csv) concurrent with the initial canab upload, before this forum existed. ISTR some discussion about this, but I'm not finding anything, either in GitHub issues or on AARoads...
A quick search led to nothing in the GitHub issues; seems then, there was discussion about that on AARoads...

Anything in the list is late-CHM-vintage at best, and therefore likely to be completely revamped when its provincial system is properly drafted.
I actually updated NL2 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/071c2ba360009a4d1a0ca05142d0e022e1a27ad9) when it was extended west last year, and have been passively keeping an eye on the NL3A extension under construction.
As far as revamping goes, I think keeping the data around still makes for a good starting point. So why not have it visible; the HB makes for a handy reference & viewer.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on December 03, 2016, 04:46:42 am
"How much of each route to include?"
can lead down a rabbit hole in some cases...

Two sub-questions to try to answer:
1.) How much do we include if a route bearing a given name is only partially freeway, especially with significant at-grade portions beyond the freeway's end? Development?
2.) How much do we include if the route is partially numbered?

It was mostly Glenmore Trail that got me thinking about this, but the answers to these questions could have wider ramifications for other routes in the system.
Of the 13 routes in the HB now (and GleTrl, which isn't), the only ones I'd be 100% confident to green-light without asking any questions would be ns.bedbyp & on.donvalpkwy.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on December 03, 2016, 07:37:29 am
leaving SK still in limbo. There aren't any potential additions in other provinces, are there? Think we can move this up to preview by the end of the year?
SK is the sticking point, IMO. It looks like nothing but a headache. I'd hesitate to put that workload on Oscar unless he's ready & willing to assume it.

SK's Circle Drive is a manageable headache, especially if we deep-six the idea of getting cannf ready for preview by the end of the month, given the holiday season already in full swing. With all the system-wide issues yakra flagged, that looks unrealistic anyway.

Circle Drive has a few issues of its own, none necessarily showstoppers, aside from the easy task of filling in the newly-completed southwest quadrant:

-- much of the eastern half is numbered, at least the part concurrent with active TCH 16, and perhaps also another part concurrent with in-dev SK 11 (as noted above, signage is really confusing on SK 11's routing within Saskatoon, including which parts of Circle Dr. are part of SK 11)

-- much of the northern half is non-freeway, including both part of the TCH segment  and another to the west
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on December 03, 2016, 08:03:48 pm
Anything in the list is late-CHM-vintage at best, and therefore likely to be completely revamped when its provincial system is properly drafted.
I actually updated NL2 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/071c2ba360009a4d1a0ca05142d0e022e1a27ad9) when it was extended west last year, and have been passively keeping an eye on the NL3A extension under construction.
As far as revamping goes, I think keeping the data around still makes for a good starting point. So why not have it visible; the HB makes for a handy reference & viewer.

Some of the cansph route files have been updated here and there. For example, I made some major changes to SK 2 and SK 11, based on what I found on one of my recent visits to that province.

While it isn't critical to keep cansph online, that helps make sure that whoever starts developing the remaining provincial systems (cansk, canqc, cannl) will know where to find the route files on hand to use as a starting point.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: Bickendan on December 04, 2016, 02:58:19 am
There were a couple in metro Vancouver that Tim nixed... Knight St and Golden Ears Way.
Did Tim nix those? If so, they've remained in the HB to this day. Maybe you're thinking Si & me -- Si gave them both a "maybe", and I pooh-poohed them upthread. But looking back at the routes in the HB again, I don't see why I was thinking "ditch it" for KniSt. It's all freeway (the part plotted, at least). Connects to a numbered route too. Seems pretty cromulent. I'd still wanna ditch GolEars Way though...

In any case, I think some consistency with routes that are only partially freeway would be good. GolEarsWay is plotted in its entirety, even the non-freeway bits. KniSt has only the freeway bits plotted.

It was a while back when I drafted Knight St and Golden Ears Way. I'd want Knight St to stay, but I'm not as beholden to Golden Ears. However, if it does stay, it'll provide an incentive for me to clinch it the next time I'm able to get up to Vancouver :)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on December 08, 2016, 02:17:33 pm
"How much of each route to include?"
can lead down a rabbit hole in some cases...

Two sub-questions to try to answer:
1.) How much do we include if a route bearing a given name is only partially freeway, especially with significant at-grade portions beyond the freeway's end? Development?
2.) How much do we include if the route is partially numbered?
on.donvalpkwy.
A Question 1A: Should the ends be at the final interchange of the freeway segments? The first at-grade intersection beyond that? Something else in special cases?
And for all these questions, should we try to make hard & fast rules out of the answers, or allow things to be more wibbly-wobbly and do what seems to Make Sense and look nice in individual cases?

Comments, route-by-route
...and thinking things thru and crap.

ab.crotrl (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ab.crotrl)
Q1 and Q2 apply. There is a short at-grade segment between two freeway segments.

ab.sheparkfwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ab.sheparkfwy)
The answer to Q1 could mean a minor adjustment to the western terminus (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=30.msg392#msg392).

bc.golearsway (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=bc.golearsway)
Q1 applies; significant at-grade portions at both ends.

bc.knist (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=bc.knist)
Q1 applies; Knight St continues north with residential development and tons of at-grades. I would not want to extend it; Q1A raises the idea of lopping off the short northernmost segment.

ns.bedbyp (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=ns.bedbyp)
Looks good.

on.allrd (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=on.allrd)
Q1/1A, a few at-grades at the north end. Extraneous directional suffixes on point labels. WilHeiBlvd should be removed per 1PPI.

on.donvalpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=on.donvalpkwy)
Looks good.

on.ecrowexpy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=on.ecrowexpy)
Looks good? (Why did I not flag it as looking good upthread?)

on.garexpy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=on.garexpy)
The easternmost segment, beyond DonValPkwy, looks a bit off to me. Are we sure the route ends here, and that this shouldn't be considered a ramp?

on.linalepkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=on.linalepkwy)
Point label RHillVPkwy mismatches route name RedHillPkwy. (I prefer RedHillPkwy.)

on.redhillpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=on.redhillpkwy)
Point label LinMAPkwy mismatches route name LinAlePkwy. (I prefer LinAlePkwy.)
Extraneous directional suffixes on point labels.

on.rr174 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=on.rr174)
Upthread, I was batting around these ideas about renaming it on.que / ON Que instead, which would create some Q2 problems about "DO we extend it west along ON417 Queensway, and if so haw far?" Rethinking that some more, I think it's fine as is. Having the route be RR174 sidesteps the "how far to extend it" issue. Sure, it "goes further east as surface" as Si noted, but I don't see a problem here. There's been plenty of precedent for including just the freeway segments of longer routes, such as in USANSF. Keeping this as is is nice & tidy.
Yes. Looks good.

sk.cirdr (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=sk.cirdr)
I'd be in favor of including the whole route, not just the unnumbered portions. This is on "It's Sensible and Looks Nice" grounds, but it also gets rid of the "what to include" Q2 problem if not including numbered portions. Not knowing for certain where exactly SK16 & SK11 go, this just leaves point labeling as the one remaining hiccup. Which, looking at it some more, isn't so bad. The points where SK16 (and SK11 with it) join & leave the whole mess are pretty clearly defined; labeling is simple enough here. The only sticking point left would be what to label the point where the Idlewyld Freeway leaves Circle Dr.
Related: If SK11 is deemed to not follow Idlewyld, then include Idlewyld Fwy in cannf?

ab.gletrl (Glenmore Trail: theoretical, not yet in HB)
Possibly the biggest PitA WRT Q2.
The west end overlaps with AB8, which has a wibbly-wobbly end, due to this city "connector route" monkey business, and its poor/incomplete signage. My inclination is to include everything that is "Glenmore Trail", out to the City boundary at 101 St. As it was in the original CHM draft (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?r=ab.ab008glt).
Mercifully, at least including everything from Sarcee Trail to AB2 is pretty cut & dry.
AB560 picks up east of AB2 -- unsigned AB560, that is. So Q2 would be wibble-wobbled by another "indeterminus" over on this end. Again, it'd make sense to toss out Q2 and just go with what's "Glenmore Trail". The freeway continues east a bit to Ogden Rd / 24 St, as CHM originally had it. Looking at Google Satellite and OSM reveals construction underway to extend the freeway east inna Texas frontage road stylee to Barlow Trail.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on December 08, 2016, 03:08:55 pm
Right. After thinking all that through, I'm starting to arrive at some answers to my questions above.

Q1: Include just the freeway portion & leave out surface road beyond, with a bit of wiggle room for short sensible exceptions. Short segments with at-grades can be allowable between two freeway segments. Controlled access & development at a minimum, ideally.
Q1A: Let it be wibbly-wobbly on a case-by-case basis, based on what Looks Nice & Makes Sense. Allow some reasonable special cases.

CroTrl can squeak by as-is here, with a short at-grade segment in the middle. It arguably may not meet my "ideal" case above, with a few parking lot & business entrances, but hey. So it's not ideal.

SheParkFwy is the "special case" I have in mind, with one very short segment west of the at-grade 71 St intersection.

GolEarsWay: If keeping it, cut off the N end at BC7. The interchange itself has an at-grade intersection anyway. If wibbly, cut off the S end @ 200St. If wobbly, cut off the S end @ 192St.

KniSt is perhaps the best argument for only including the freeway bits. I like the idea of ending it at MarDr, in the name of cleanliness. Has a bit of a 1PPI ring to it too.

AllRd:
I'd have no problems even shortening the northern end down to the Transit Road point and leave just the expressway part.  Probably could even take out the 'WilHeiBlvd' point.  Plus, I would need to update the labels to the current standards by taking out the 'W'/'E' at the end of some of them.
Concur.

RR174: Keep as-is...

CirDr: A short non-freeway segment on the north side. Sensible Exception?

GleTrl: E end would be at Ogden Rd. Extend to Barlow Trail when construction is complete in late 2017.

Q2: Include the whole thing, whether numbered or not.
It seems the most sensible thing to do for CirDr.
Ending CroTrl at AB1A would be, well... just kinda ugly. :)
RR174 neatly sidesteps Q2, if we just consider the freeway (slash Queensway) segment of numbered route RR174. Yeah man. I'm really starting to like the "leave it as RR174" solution now.
GleTrl would be an ugly rabbit hole if leaving off numbered bits, with a poorly-signed or unsigned "indeterminus" on each end. Yeah, no. Whole thing, please!
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on December 08, 2016, 09:19:53 pm
The Manitoba St. Expressway in Moose Jaw is a "probably not" as not long enough, but I want to noodle a little on that.

Uh, never mind. Less than 2.5 miles long, only one interchange besides the one at the TCH 1 junction, more at-grade intersections.,
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 12, 2016, 12:32:01 am
on.garexpy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=on.garexpy)
The easternmost segment, beyond DonValPkwy, looks a bit off to me. Are we sure the route ends here, and that this shouldn't be considered a ramp?

As far as I understand, it's still considered as part of the Gardiner, especially since the route used to go all the way Leslie Street prior to 2001.

However, with the recent addition of exit numbers along the route (continuing the QEW numbering), this 'ramp' got #157, not the DVP side.  However, I haven't seen pictures yet to confirm that's exactly what happened with the numbering right there.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: julmac on February 10, 2017, 01:32:04 am
Would not changing the name of the system to "Canada Select Named Freeways and Connectors" remove these tricky conundrums? This system would be most useful if it (in addition to covering all remaining freeways) filled in some key gaps between other systems. (Gaps that in many cases would be part of the state or equivalent highway systems in other regions).

Assuming it stays as a freeway system....

CroTrl - Is a planned future freeway - good as drafted, could be truncated to AB201 or AB1A_E (Banff Trail) to avoid duplication.

SheParkFrwy - Good as drafted although WB signage for "Sherwood Park Freeway" stops at Argyll road.

Glenmore Trail - Include the entire roadway within Calgary from 101 Street W (formal begin of AB8) to 84 Street E (formal begin of AB560). Is a future freeway from end to end. Should be truncated to Sarcee Trail upon opening of AB 201 SW in 2021

Macleod Trail - Include from AB201/22X to past Canyon Meadows Drive (5km). Interchange under construction at 162 Ave S.

Idyllwild Drive - Include if we are satisfied that SK11 is no longer routed along there (I am). Extend all the way to Circle Drive north if you like my "and Connectors" suggestion. This route will likely act as a de facto SK11 business route for many years due to remnant and implied "TO" signage.

CirDr - Not needed if SK11 is rerouted and activated. Otherwise, including only the SK11 portion would eliminate the north side non-freeway irritant.

GolEarsWay - south end is good with connection to BC15. North end should be truncated to BC7 (not an important connector/not a freeway north of there).

KniSt- agreed would be cleaner if truncated to BC91 and Marine Drive.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: 7/8 on June 08, 2017, 05:08:36 pm
What's the status on this system?

Also, should the freeway portion of Highbury Avenue in London, ON, and Nikola Tesla Blvd in Hamilton, ON be added to this?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on June 10, 2017, 12:32:19 pm
Also, should the freeway portion of Highbury Avenue in London, ON, and Nikola Tesla Blvd in Hamilton, ON be added to this?

Hit me up with some links and I'll take a look at them since I maintain ON (and yes, I know I have some other stuff to fix still on the main routes in the future).
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: 7/8 on June 10, 2017, 05:08:15 pm
Here's the Wikipedia page for Highbury Avenue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highbury_Avenue). The freeway portion heads north from the 401, then has interchanges with Bradley Avenue and Commissioners Road before ending at Hamilton Road.

Here's a screenshot from Google Maps:
(http://i.imgur.com/8ayyWBX.png)

And here's the Wikipedia page for Burlington Street/Nikola Tesla Boulevard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Street_(Hamilton,_Ontario)). The freeway portion of Burlington Street was recently renamed as Nikola Tesla Blvd, and it heads west from the QEW, with interchanges at Woodward Avenue, Parkdale Avenue, and Strathearne Avenue before ending at Ottawa Street.

Here's another screenshot from Google Maps:
(http://i.imgur.com/S4wbqdr.png)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: JJBers on June 11, 2017, 12:10:28 am
Here's the Wikipedia page for Highbury Avenue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highbury_Avenue). The freeway portion heads north from the 401, then has interchanges with Bradley Avenue and Commissioners Road before ending at Hamilton Road.

Here's a screenshot from Google Maps:
(http://i.imgur.com/8ayyWBX.png)

And here's the Wikipedia page for Burlington Street/Nikola Tesla Boulevard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Street_(Hamilton,_Ontario)). The freeway portion of Burlington Street was recently renamed as Nikola Tesla Blvd, and it heads west from the QEW, with interchanges at Woodward Avenue, Parkdale Avenue, and Strathearne Avenue before ending at Ottawa Street.

Here's another screenshot from Google Maps:
(http://i.imgur.com/S4wbqdr.png)
I think it should be added
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on August 17, 2018, 09:41:13 pm
After recently driving Golden Ears Way, Knight St, and Glenmore Tr, I agree with julmac's suggestion for keeping these in/adding these to the system.

I also drove Whoop-Up Dr in Lethbridge, which needs to be added to the system, obviously. It's not especially long, nor does it connect to anything, but it's a freeway, and the name.



Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on August 18, 2018, 12:20:46 am
I also drove Whoop-Up Dr in Lethbridge, which needs to be added to the system, obviously. It's not especially long, nor does it connect to anything, but it's a freeway, and the name.

Darn, I was in Lethbridge this Thursday evening. If you'd mentioned this sooner, I could've checked this out on my way out of town this morning (Friday).

I did notice the signs for Fort Whoop-Up, but didn't notice the associated road.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on August 18, 2018, 05:49:51 pm
I also drove Whoop-Up Dr in Lethbridge, which needs to be added to the system, obviously. It's not especially long, nor does it connect to anything, but it's a freeway, and the name.

Darn, I was in Lethbridge this Thursday evening. If you'd mentioned this sooner, I could've checked this out on my way out of town this morning (Friday).

I did notice the signs for Fort Whoop-Up, but didn't notice the associated road.

Did you notice the sign for Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump? What the hell is that all about?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on August 19, 2018, 12:43:09 am
Did you notice the sign for Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump? What the hell is that all about?

I went there a few years ago. That was one of many "buffalo jumps", naturally configured so that buffalo could be herded and driven off the side of a cliff, and the buffalo wouldn't realize it until it was too late. That was a good way for the local native tribes to stock up on meat for the winter.

"Head-Smashed-In" refers to what happened to a stupid young brave who wanted to see the buffalo herd landing at the bottom of the cliff, only he got too close to the action.

I was going to send out postcards from there, but at the visitor centre noticed ads for Vulcan, "Star Trek Capital of Canada", north of Lethbridge. So I went there next. Postcards from HSI would've required some explanation; no such issue with the cards from Vulcan, especially the ones showing the giant replica Vulcan starship along highway 23. My guess, looking at your travels on that highway and AB 534, is that you missed that attraction.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on August 19, 2018, 09:13:51 am

I went there a few years ago. That was one of many "buffalo jumps", naturally configured so that buffalo could be herded and driven off the side of a cliff, and the buffalo wouldn't realize it until it was too late. That was a good way for the local native tribes to stock up on meat for the winter.

"Head-Smashed-In" refers to what happened to a stupid young brave who wanted to see the buffalo herd landing at the bottom of the cliff, only he got too close to the action.
Your descriptive explanation of this far exceeds anything I could have imagined. Thank you. Now I must return.

Quote
My guess, looking at your travels on that highway and AB 534, is that you missed that attraction.
Nah, I’m not into science fiction. When I’m traveling alone, I rarely stop for most attractions. If one of my kids is with me, we have a weakness for outsider art, but alone I’m satisfied with racking up miles. And donuts (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6369049,-98.3025813,1z/data=!4m3!11m2!2s165bAaygA4R5sztFXw7treQVTCFI!3e3?hl=en-us).

Obligatory on-topic comment: might we take a moment to re-examine this system and move at least some of the proposed routes to Preview?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on August 20, 2018, 08:21:39 pm
Obligatory on-topic comment: might we take a moment to re-examine this system and move at least some of the proposed routes to Preview?

I don't see much point in a partial switch. Nudge people into getting all the routes in their jurisdictions preview-ready, then put it all in preview.

I can't speak for BC, not being familiar with its draft routes. But the one route in SK is preview-ready, and indeed got helpful comments from julmac in connection with his ongoing peer review of cansk. Other candidates are short (Ring Rd. and the incomplete Regina Bypass, which might get one or more route numbers when it's done next year).
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on August 20, 2018, 09:26:20 pm
I don't see much point in a partial switch. Nudge people into getting all the routes in their jurisdictions preview-ready, then put it all in preview.
I meant let's move the system to preview soon, even if it means deleting some of the iffy ones.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: julmac on August 24, 2018, 11:43:53 pm
Anyone else in favour of renaming the system to "Canada Select Freeways and Connectors"?

Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: vdeane on August 25, 2018, 03:33:47 pm
Seems like a bunch more routes would have to be included if it is renamed.  I don't see the need; most of the routes are all freeways anyways (at least the included portions).
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on August 25, 2018, 08:04:37 pm
Anyone else in favour of renaming the system to "Canada Select Freeways and Connectors"?

I can't really answer without knowing what sorts of roads "connectors" would include that "freeways" would not.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: julmac on August 27, 2018, 11:03:31 pm
Anyone else in favour of renaming the system to "Canada Select Freeways and Connectors"?

I can't really answer without knowing what sorts of roads "connectors" would include that "freeways" would not.

Routes that provide continuity to numbered systems (routes that might otherwise be included in the numbered systems of other jurisdictions). Could be
- Freeways with non-freeway gaps such as Crowchild Trail, Glenmore Trail, or extensions to freeways such as Whitemud Drive (west side), Idylwyld Drive
- Unofficial numbered routes such as Albert Street and Victoria Avenue in Regina (implied business routes for SK6 and TC1) or Manitoba Expressway in Moose Jaw ("TO SK2")
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on August 28, 2018, 12:55:42 pm
Routes that provide continuity to numbered systems (routes that might otherwise be included in the numbered systems of other jurisdictions). Could be
- Freeways with non-freeway gaps such as Crowchild Trail, Glenmore Trail, or extensions to freeways such as Whitemud Drive (west side), Idylwyld Drive
- Unofficial numbered routes such as Albert Street and Victoria Avenue in Regina (implied business routes for SK6 and TC1) or Manitoba Expressway in Moose Jaw ("TO SK2")
I'm ok with the former but not ok with the latter.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on August 28, 2018, 10:41:23 pm
Routes that provide continuity to numbered systems (routes that might otherwise be included in the numbered systems of other jurisdictions). Could be
- Freeways with non-freeway gaps such as Crowchild Trail, Glenmore Trail, or extensions to freeways such as Whitemud Drive (west side), Idylwyld Drive
- Unofficial numbered routes such as Albert Street and Victoria Avenue in Regina (implied business routes for SK6 and TC1) or Manitoba Expressway in Moose Jaw ("TO SK2")
I'm ok with the former but not ok with the latter.

I basically agree with mapcat. In the first category, Idylwild Drive is currently in the HB as part of SK 11. That will need to be revisited before we activate cansk. As I've oft-complained, numbered routes in Saskatoon and their signage are a total clusterfork.

On the second category, if the Ministry of Infrastructure thought the former Regina routes should be treated as business routes, they could've been assigned 1A and 6A, like the Ministry did in Estevan when SK 39 was moved to a new bypass and the old route became 39A. The Manitoba St. Expy. I'm meh about, but it is pretty short.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on September 03, 2018, 03:38:24 pm
I'm with Mapcat & Oscar. I'd like to keep the criteria for inclusion as tight as we can. A loose/vague definition such as "Unofficial numbered routes" could open the floodgates to "Why is X included, but not Y?", and routes of questionable relevance.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on February 11, 2019, 11:54:24 pm
I'd like to dust this off, to pose the question of whether cannf should be promoted to preview, from its current devel status where the routes are in the HB but aren't displayed on user maps.

I think the parts of the system in the jurisdictions I manage are reasonably complete. I took a look at the two BC routes, and just cleaned them up and synched them with numbered canbc routes. I think both are borderline for inclusion (each route has about four miles of freeway, and Golden Ears Way includes a fair amount of non-freeway mileage), but I'd leave them in for now, subject to peer review.

For SK, the Regina Bypass under construction is a candidate for addition when it's completed this year or next, if its western leg ends up unnumbered (the rest, including a short already-opened segment, seems likely to become a new TCH 1 alignment). Saskatoon's Idylwild Freeway is currently in the HB as part of SK 11, but if we end up removing that from SK 11 before cansk activation, it would be a logical candidate for cannf. In any case, I would omit the Manitoba St. Expressway in Moose Jaw as too short, with less than a mile of freeway.

EDIT: Forgot the ~1 mi. unnumbered stub of Ring Rd. on the north side of Regina, west of SK 6/11. I would omit that as too short. It will not tie in, as a freeway, to the western Regina Bypass leg, which will have its own interchange with SK 11 north of Ring Rd.

I don't think anything in QC is cannf-worthy -- mapcat, your thoughts?

For AB, mapcat suggested addition of Whoop-Up Dr. in Lethbridge -- yakra, your thoughts? It's about two miles long. Also, anything we've missed in Calgary or Edmonton?

ON has quite a few cannf routes. Are they ready for preview, and is there anything else worth adding?

NS has one cannf route. Anything to add from that province, or in NL, NB, PE, MB (I don't think so)? The Arctic territories don't have any freeways.

Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on February 12, 2019, 12:04:16 am
I don't recall seeing anything in Quebec that seemed worthy of discussion; if I had I likely would have brought it up to you at the time I was drafting canqc.

Let's put this in preview and let users weigh in after they've noticed the routes.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: froggie on February 12, 2019, 08:35:06 am
^^ PEI lacks freeways period at the present, although plans are in the works for a freeway bypass of Cornwall for TCH 1.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 12, 2019, 03:37:33 pm
I took a look at the two BC routes, and just cleaned them up and synched them with numbered canbc routes. I think both are borderline for inclusion (each route has about four miles of freeway, and Golden Ears Way includes a fair amount of non-freeway mileage), but I'd leave them in for now, subject to peer review.
Personally, I'm not so hot on these.

For AB, mapcat suggested addition of Whoop-Up Dr. in Lethbridge -- yakra, your thoughts? It's about two miles long.
Not so hot on this either. It's short and doesn't connect to anything else in the system. A glorified bridge that happens to have an interchange at each end.
For comparison purposes, there's the Veterans Memorial Bridge in Lewiston-Auburn, Maine. It's shorter, but does connect to a mapped route at each end. This is not included in usasf.

Also, anything we've missed in Calgary or Edmonton?
NS has one cannf route.
The Bedford Bypass. The shaping point is a bit ugly & could use a rework, but that's nothing to hold us back from promotion to preview. :)

Anything to add from that province,
The MacKay Bridge is comparable to...
on the one hand, the Betsy Ross Bridge,
and OTOH, the aforementioned Veterans Memorial Bridge.
Thoughts?

or in NL, NB, PE, MB (I don't think so)?
Nothing to add.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: michih on February 12, 2019, 03:46:34 pm
What's about Memorial Drive NE in Calgary?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 12, 2019, 04:00:26 pm
What's about Memorial Drive NE in Calgary?
Not so wild about it. Short, doesn't go much of anywhere, strikes me as a bit of a glorified boulevard. The interchange with AB2 has traffic signals.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: Duke87 on February 12, 2019, 07:49:14 pm
What's about Memorial Drive NE in Calgary?
Not so wild about it. Short, doesn't go much of anywhere, strikes me as a bit of a glorified boulevard. The interchange with AB2 has traffic signals.

I would not want to arbitrarily map some of Memorial Drive without mapping the entire length of the roadway that carries that name.

I also lean towards not wanting to include it on the ground of subjective appearance of significance... but the way I see this, if someone is willing to put in the effort to map it, whatever, throw it in.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: julmac on March 24, 2019, 12:52:12 am
May need to throw in the existing portions of TC 1 and SK 11 that will be bypassed with the Regina Bypass. According to the guide sign plan (available here: https://tinyurl.com/y47dwnbn (https://tinyurl.com/y47dwnbn) ) the west leg of the bypass will be SK11 and the south leg will be TC 1, leaving the existing "bypassed" sections unnumbered, at least in the "inbound" directions. Presumably, no changes will be made to the "outbound" directions (existing signs for TC 1 and SK 11 will remain), which will be odd... two Highway 11s ?.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: neroute2 on March 24, 2019, 10:52:21 am
May need to throw in the existing portions of TC 1 and SK 11 that will be bypassed with the Regina Bypass. According to the guide sign plan (available here: https://tinyurl.com/y47dwnbn (https://tinyurl.com/y47dwnbn) ) the west leg of the bypass will be SK11 and the south leg will be TC 1, leaving the existing "bypassed" sections unnumbered, at least in the "inbound" directions.
Agreed. Old 1 west of downtown will be signed as Ring Road, and (non-freeway) old 1 east of downtown is Victoria Avenue. But old 11 has no name on these plans.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on March 24, 2019, 12:47:12 pm
May need to throw in the existing portions of TC 1 and SK 11 that will be bypassed with the Regina Bypass. According to the guide sign plan (available here: https://tinyurl.com/y47dwnbn (https://tinyurl.com/y47dwnbn) ) the west leg of the bypass will be SK11 and the south leg will be TC 1, leaving the existing "bypassed" sections unnumbered, at least in the "inbound" directions.
Agreed. Old 1 west of downtown will be signed as Ring Road, and (non-freeway) old 1 east of downtown is Victoria Avenue. But old 11 has no name on these plans.

If by "old 11" you mean the freeway between the west leg of the Regina Bypass and the interchange with SK 6, yes that's unaccounted for in the guide sign plan. But that plan doesn't indicate what signage will be on southbound SK 11 approaching the west leg, since that's not part of the Bypass project.

The bypassed part of old TCH 1, between the west leg interchange and SK 6, will be at least part of Ring Rd. Ring Rd. could include not only that segment, but also the part of Ring Rd. concurrent with SK 6, and the short stub of Ring Rd. north of downtown Regina and west of SK 6 (which I've left out of cannf for being too short, but would definitely be long enough if combined with the rest of Ring Rd. that is currently numbered).

Note, however, that the guide plans are from 2015. More recent drone footage (https://youtu.be/6poCn_4Evvc) (around 7:05) indicates that a guide sign already erected seems to show the bypassed part of old TCH 1 as part of a numbered provincial route, probably SK 11. So the plans might've changed since then. We'll know more later this year when the Bypass is completed, or when the project team sends out another drone (hope this time they send it counter-clockwise around Regina, to catch as-built signage on the western bypass leg approaching the TCH 1 junction), or maybe sooner if julmac can do some field-checking next time he's in Regina.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: julmac on March 26, 2019, 01:22:50 am
Note, however, that the guide plans are from 2015. More recent drone footage (https://youtu.be/6poCn_4Evvc) (around 7:05) indicates that a guide sign already erected seems to show the bypassed part of old TCH 1 as part of a numbered provincial route, probably SK 11. So the plans might've changed since then. We'll know more later this year when the Bypass is completed, or when the project team sends out another drone (hope this time they send it counter-clockwise around Regina, to catch as-built signage on the western bypass leg approaching the TCH 1 junction), or maybe sooner if julmac can do some field-checking next time he's in Regina.

The sign at 7:05 is on the west leg. Rotary Ave is the Transportation Hub access south of Dewdney Ave (SK730).
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on September 19, 2019, 03:10:19 am
ON RedHillPkwy: LinMAPkwy -> LinAlePkwy
ON LinAlePkwy: RHillVPkwy -> RedHillPkwy
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on September 23, 2019, 05:25:50 am
ON RedHillPkwy: LinMAPkwy -> LinAlePkwy
ON LinAlePkwy: RHillVPkwy -> RedHillPkwy

Fixed. https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3178

Also seems the Don Valley Parkway has gained exit numbers too.  Noticed them on OSM, and confirmed them 1-by-1 in StreetView.  However, one exit (that has an off-ramp) didn't gain a number, which was the ON-401/404 interchange (404 counterpart does have a #, but only from the HOV lanes).  So, 'both' copies of the DVP will get an update.

I've also finally pushed a cleaned up Allen Road file for the site based on previous discussion.

on.garexpy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=&r=on.garexpy)
The easternmost segment, beyond DonValPkwy, looks a bit off to me. Are we sure the route ends here, and that this shouldn't be considered a ramp?

As far as I understand, it's still considered as part of the Gardiner, especially since the route used to go all the way Leslie Street prior to 2001.

However, with the recent addition of exit numbers along the route (continuing the QEW numbering), this 'ramp' got #157, not the DVP side.  However, I haven't seen pictures yet to confirm that's exactly what happened with the numbering right there.

Getting back to this thing about the Gardiner, there is this "End Expressway (https://goo.gl/maps/5m2qCbrrtjgPjAQV9)" sign beyond they Don Valley Parkway, which kinda backs me up on keeping it, but the signage at the gore point does indicate it's Exit #157 (https://goo.gl/maps/b4SFTvR9T4oQz9jv7) (fun that it mentions ON-2, which doesn't exist there anymore).

So, I honestly could go either way at this point.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: michih on July 30, 2020, 08:01:03 am
One other approach we can take is to solicit comments on whether the two "select" systems in devel status should be promoted to preview, and what changes should be made before promotion. That would focus discussion on actual systems, rather than in the abstract.

cannf, which has been in devel status for ages, would be a good candidate for such discussion. It's something I've long thought should be promoted to preview, after discussion of what should and should not go in the system. I manage two jurisdictions with cannf routes (BC and SK -- I don't see anything in QC, or the Arctic jurisdictions, that should be added to cannf). yakra manages many of the other Canadian jurisdictions, including two (AB and NS) with routes in the system and other routes he's pooh-poohed as possible cannf additions. rickmastfan67 manages ON, with several routes.

One of the users who's expressed interest in promoting cannf to at least preview is julmac, who lives in AB and has family in SK, and has provided valuable help in peer-reviewing new systems in both provinces. Discussion of what to do with cannf, at least, should not be on a "collaborators only" board.

I'm also in favor of promoting cannf to preview. Since it is a Select system, it can be incomplete per se.

The manual says: https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/sysdef.php#selectsys

Quote
What are Select highway systems?
There are routes with high importance to travelers which do not belong to any highway system. These are routes which are maintained by local authorities, are privately owned, or belong to systems which are extensive and not yet included to the project. Travelmapping categorizes these routes to an own Travelmapping highway system if possible. These systems are called Select because they cannot be considered being complete. We only include routes which the highway data manager of the region considers being relevant.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on August 03, 2020, 12:47:48 pm
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4079 and https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4082 will promote cannf to preview status. This is for discussion about the general criteria to choose routes for "select" systems in the "Select Freeway System definition" thread on the collaborators-only part of the site, as well as specifically any changes that should be made to cannf (in this thread, open to all users).
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on August 03, 2020, 03:33:06 pm
rickmastfan67: thoughts on promoting to preview?

oscar: looks link there's no longer a circle drive file. Was the idea to just have TCH 1 & SK 11 take care of this?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on August 03, 2020, 04:32:39 pm
oscar: looks link there's no longer a circle drive file. Was the idea to just have TCH 1 & SK 11 take care of this?

Circle Drive, in Saskatoon SK, is now completely covered by TCH 16, SK 11, and SK11Cir. I deleted Circle Drive from cannf when we finally worked out how to deal with the Saskatoon route clusterfork.

Ring Road, in Regina SK, once included part of TCH 1 before the TCH was rerouted onto the new Regina Bypass. Now that so much of Ring Rd. is no longer included in a numbered route system (part of it is concurrent with SK 6), I added it to cannf along with all the other changes from the Regina Bypass project.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 03, 2020, 10:28:33 pm
rickmastfan67: thoughts on promoting to preview?

No problems here.

When we're ready to send it to active, we'll have to deal with the '2' Gardiner Expressway & DVP files.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: andrepoiy on January 23, 2021, 05:32:16 pm
Any plans to add the following freeways in Ontario?

1. Highway 2A, maintained by the City of Toronto, a short stub freeway (2 km) off the 401 which was supposed to connect to the Scarborough Expressway.

2. Airport Parkway, in Ottawa, which is a 2-lane freeway with full interchanges.

3. Nikola Tesla Blvd, in Hamilton, Ontario, also a short 3 km freeway that connects the steel industrial areas of Hamilton to the QEW.

4. Conestoga Parkway in Kitchener-Waterloo area. Although it's part of Hwy 7, Hwy 8 and Hwy 85, perhaps it might be easier just to just input exits on one parkway instead of having to input on 3 different routes.

5. Dougall Parkway, in Windsor, Ontario, also a short 1.6 km stub freeway that comes off the 401.


Some roads that could be freeways? These are more open to interpretation on whether they are freeways or not.

1. Highbury Avenue, in London, Ontario, seems to be a freeway. However, there are traffic lights at the 401 interchange.

2. Highway 27 (maintained by City of Toronto) from Highway 401/427 to Belfield Road, it's undivided but the speed limit is 80 km/h and there is an interchange with Dixon Road.





Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 26, 2021, 09:11:51 pm
Any plans to add the following freeways in Ontario?

1. Highway 2A, maintained by the City of Toronto, a short stub freeway (2 km) off the 401 which was supposed to connect to the Scarborough Expressway.

2. Airport Parkway, in Ottawa, which is a 2-lane freeway with full interchanges.

3. Nikola Tesla Blvd, in Hamilton, Ontario, also a short 3 km freeway that connects the steel industrial areas of Hamilton to the QEW.

4. Conestoga Parkway in Kitchener-Waterloo area. Although it's part of Hwy 7, Hwy 8 and Hwy 85, perhaps it might be easier just to just input exits on one parkway instead of having to input on 3 different routes.

5. Dougall Parkway, in Windsor, Ontario, also a short 1.6 km stub freeway that comes off the 401.


Some roads that could be freeways? These are more open to interpretation on whether they are freeways or not.

1. Highbury Avenue, in London, Ontario, seems to be a freeway. However, there are traffic lights at the 401 interchange.

2. Highway 27 (maintained by City of Toronto) from Highway 401/427 to Belfield Road, it's undivided but the speed limit is 80 km/h and there is an interchange with Dixon Road.

1) I know about that one, but it's too short for the site.  Plus, due to the Scarborough Expressway cancellation, it's pretty much now a glorified offramp now without being ON-2A.
2) Are we sure it's completely 'control access'? Normally we tend to avoid Super-2's unless it's 100% controlled access.  Right here screams to me that it isn't considered to be controlled access: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.364084,-75.6649226,229m/data=!3m1!1e3  Plus Google, OSM, both don't mark it as a 'motorway/freeway' (unlike most of your other suggestions).  Do you know of anything official from Ottawa MOT that says without a doubt that it's considered controlled access?
3) While being a tic longer than 2A, it's still too short for the site. Needs to break 3mi/~4.8km or come insanely close.
4) Sadly, it would be a lot harder to do it that way (more files to maintain when not necessary).  I could see doing it IF it had it's own exit numbers & had a separate segment that wasn't part of any of those routes, but since it doesn't, this would be a no-go.
5) Too short.

B1) This is controlled access (sans @ ON-401 of course, but used to be a cloverleaf there).  It's JUST shy of 3mi (coming in @ 2.83mi).  However, it was former ON-126.  I think this would logical addition to the site, since it's just barely shy of the 3mi recommendation for these types of routes.
B2) No, not a true freeway.  Plus it comes in under 2mi, even less if you go from where OSM marks the end of the freeway (which is still part of ON-427's C/D lanes officially https://goo.gl/maps/sLhk9ZMNFy33kjmt8 ).
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 21, 2021, 05:44:55 am
Highbury Avenue now submitted.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4568
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on March 22, 2021, 11:01:28 am
With ON402 cut back to Exit 1, thoughts on adding the Blue Water Bridge, as Ontario's answer to the Betsy Ross?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: froggie on March 22, 2021, 11:05:25 pm
Quote
With ON402 cut back to Exit 1, thoughts on adding the Blue Water Bridge, as Ontario's answer to the Betsy Ross?

What's the story behind this one?  My first inkling would be to leave it as-is.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: vdeane on March 22, 2021, 11:15:38 pm
If we're going by MTO's "the 400 series highway (and the freeway) ends before customs" definition, shouldn't ON 405 be cut back to *PorRd too?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: dave1693 on March 23, 2021, 12:40:30 am
If we're going to truncate the Ontario highways to a point past Canada customs (per MTO) then we need to add all the international crossings separately. JMO.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: andrepoiy on March 23, 2021, 09:55:31 pm
Adding international crossings would mean adding stuff less than 3 miles long, which apparently isn't allowed
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 23, 2021, 11:10:32 pm
If we're going by MTO's "the 400 series highway (and the freeway) ends before customs" definition, shouldn't ON 405 be cut back to *PorRd too?

This one might be maintained by the MTO.

I was told that the 402 one wasn't maintained my the MTO, hence the shortening.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: vdeane on March 24, 2021, 05:40:24 pm
The Lewiston-Queenston Bridge is owned/maintained by the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission.  The lengths for ON 405 in the AADT log (https://www.library.mto.gov.on.ca/SydneyPLUS/TechPubs/Portal/tp/tvSplash.aspx) also correspond to an end at *PorRd; ending at the border would be about a kilometre longer than what's listed.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: Duke87 on March 24, 2021, 08:07:59 pm
Personally I'd be fine with cutting the 400-highways back to their official endpoints and just letting there be a gap with no graph connection to the route on the US side. There is precedent elsewhere for this in cases where the legal definition of a route ends short of the border (e.g. ON 3, CA 7).
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: michih on March 25, 2021, 01:56:12 am
Personally I'd be fine with cutting the 400-highways back to their official endpoints and just letting there be a gap with no graph connection to the route on the US side.

I only agree when there is an exit or junction where you can legally turn or leave the road. If not, the graphs should stay connected.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 25, 2021, 08:45:08 pm
Personally I'd be fine with cutting the 400-highways back to their official endpoints and just letting there be a gap with no graph connection to the route on the US side.

I only agree when there is an exit or junction where you can legally turn or leave the road. If not, the graphs should stay connected.

Well, there was a former exit there for the Niagara Parkway that completely bypassed the customs on 405.  My family used it back in the day several times.  Was closed off on 12/04/06 (https://web.archive.org/web/20160410064342/https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23011892.html).  The WB on-ramp is sorta still there, but there are gates now blocking it.  The EB off-ramp down to the Niagara Parkway has been completely removed.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: vdeane on March 25, 2021, 10:59:08 pm
Looking at the AADT log some more, it looks like ON 402 ends 0.7 km west of exit 1 at the customs plaza.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 25, 2021, 11:01:52 pm
Looking at the AADT log some more, it looks like ON 402 ends 0.7 km west of exit 1 at the customs plaza.

I was told it ends here (https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.9894253,-82.407252,196m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en).  And this came directly from somebody that works in the MTO.  Since that location is still within the Exit 1 ramps, I kept it at that center point.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: vdeane on March 25, 2021, 11:20:55 pm
Did they specifically say exit 1, rather than the last ramp?  The AADT log has it end 0.1 km west of Marina Road/Bridge Street, and it took a Google Maps search to discover that "Bridge Street" is the NEXUS bypass ramp (https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.9918326,-82.4083741,3a,43.8y,251.79h,87.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sv1vfVF4PJL-rVyQrnlruJQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dv1vfVF4PJL-rVyQrnlruJQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D54.21039%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en).  Front Street is listed separately, so they really do have 2 count segments west of there.  Did they truncate it since the AADT log was made?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 25, 2021, 11:35:25 pm
Did they specifically say exit 1, rather than the last ramp?  The AADT log has it end 0.1 km west of Marina Road/Bridge Street, and it took a Google Maps search to discover that "Bridge Street" is the NEXUS bypass ramp (https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.9918326,-82.4083741,3a,43.8y,251.79h,87.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sv1vfVF4PJL-rVyQrnlruJQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dv1vfVF4PJL-rVyQrnlruJQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D54.21039%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en).  Front Street is listed separately, so they really do have 2 count segments west of there.  Did they truncate it since the AADT log was made?

Here's the exact wording from the message I got from him:
Quote
- Hwy 402's western terminus is at this pavement transition you can see in the westbound lanes, just west of Front Street between the off and on ramps https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.9894253,-82.407252,196m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Thus, the 1PPI rule comes into play, and thus, centered @ exit 1's overpass.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on March 26, 2021, 02:48:45 pm
My apologies, everybody, for kicking the hornet's nest upthread. :(

Adding international crossings would mean adding stuff less than 3 miles long, which apparently isn't allowed
I don't know where people keep getting this idea, but there is zero truth to it.
Without even taking a look at routes outside North America, we see that cannf has two routes < 3 miles, and usasf has 27.

I only agree when there is an exit or junction where you can legally turn or leave the road. If not, the graphs should stay connected.
Strongly disagree. There are numerous instances of roads ending at non-intersections; it's common enough that there's a manual section (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#highwayends) on how to label them.
We shouldn't be falsely adding extra length onto the end of a route just for a graph connection.
If the routes end at the ports of entry plaza whaddayacalls, the ends of ON3Win, CA7, and NY384 are appropriate.
(Although there's no corresponding route across the border to beg for a graph connection, so these may not be the best examples of the principle...)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: michih on March 26, 2021, 03:07:11 pm
I only agree when there is an exit or junction where you can legally turn or leave the road. If not, the graphs should stay connected.
Strongly disagree. There are numerous instances of roads ending at non-intersections; it's common enough that there's a manual section (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#highwayends) on how to label them.
We shouldn't be falsely adding extra length onto the end of a route just for a graph connection.

I was always told in peer-reviews to extend those routes and avoiding small gap. I would never apply the mentioned rule to freeways. I mostly apply the 'End' rule in case of secondary highways etc. ending in the middle of nowhere.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: andrepoiy on March 26, 2021, 07:38:45 pm
My apologies, everybody, for kicking the hornet's nest upthread. :(

Adding international crossings would mean adding stuff less than 3 miles long, which apparently isn't allowed
I don't know where people keep getting this idea, but there is zero truth to it.
Without even taking a look at routes outside North America, we see that cannf has two routes < 3 miles, and usasf has 27.


It was just that earlier in this thread when I suggested certain additions, rickmastfan said that a number of them were too short to be added, and cited 3 miles as the threshold. (And also stated that the recently added Highbury Avenue was close enough to 3 miles that it was added)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: vdeane on March 26, 2021, 11:35:38 pm
Did they specifically say exit 1, rather than the last ramp?  The AADT log has it end 0.1 km west of Marina Road/Bridge Street, and it took a Google Maps search to discover that "Bridge Street" is the NEXUS bypass ramp (https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.9918326,-82.4083741,3a,43.8y,251.79h,87.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sv1vfVF4PJL-rVyQrnlruJQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dv1vfVF4PJL-rVyQrnlruJQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D54.21039%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en).  Front Street is listed separately, so they really do have 2 count segments west of there.  Did they truncate it since the AADT log was made?

Here's the exact wording from the message I got from him:
Quote
- Hwy 402's western terminus is at this pavement transition you can see in the westbound lanes, just west of Front Street between the off and on ramps https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.9894253,-82.407252,196m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Thus, the 1PPI rule comes into play, and thus, centered @ exit 1's overpass.
That's... interesting.  It's a very odd place to end the road, it doesn't match the AADT log, and there isn't even a pavement transition eastbound across all lanes (and the westbound one only dates to a project to expand the queuing space before customs in the last decade or so).

Of course, DOT employees don't necessarily have perfect knowledge.  Ask any design engineer in NYSDOT Region 1 about our interstate system, and in addition to the Northway, free 90, I-88, I-890, and I-787, they'll also tell you about alternate route 7, which is not and has never been an interstate in its entire existence (in addition to being actual NY 7 and not an alternate), though it was once planned as part of I-88.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: andrepoiy on April 03, 2021, 11:26:55 am
Yesterday I took a drive on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway and Red Hill Valley Parkway and I noticed that the starting/ending points of both appear to be incorrect in the system here on Travel Mapping.

They appear to start/end west of the Darnall Road interchange, at least that's where it's signed.

Here is a Streetview going towards RHVP
(https://i.imgur.com/ljbeNgI.png)
Link: https://goo.gl/maps/3o6NpYJWj9Uf7M4t6

Here is a Streetview going towards Linc:
(https://i.imgur.com/puqqcoC.png)
Link: https://goo.gl/maps/9ZNuxzKTSqvxskg49
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: vdeane on April 17, 2021, 04:18:24 pm
Thinking about ON route ends and "one point per interchange" as per the previous discussion here, shouldn't that mean the QEW gets truncated back to RR124, given the configuration of the ramps in the area?
Title: cannf: why are there two instances of the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner?
Post by: IMGoph on July 16, 2022, 05:38:12 pm
Question is basically in the subject line. I see two versions of the Gardiner and the DVP in the data (one in cannf, another in canonf).

I'm sure there's a reason for this, but I don't see it. If someone would point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

Thanks!
Title: Re: cannf: why are there two instances of the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner?
Post by: vdeane on July 16, 2022, 06:41:43 pm
Those routes were added way back when canonf was.  Then when cannf entered development, it was decided to include them there.  They basically remain in canonf because to remove them would make them exist only in preview status, not active.  That said, it's a bit odd - the way systems in the US tend to handle such things is to move the route on activation, rather than duplicate it.  Might be because cannf is a "grab-bag" system and was in devel for a really, really long time.
Title: Re: cannf: why are there two instances of the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner?
Post by: yakra on July 16, 2022, 09:50:02 pm
ISTR there was some duplication in usanp, for the same reason, that some active routes would have reverted to preview
Title: Re: cannf: why are there two instances of the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner?
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 16, 2022, 09:52:29 pm
Because we couldn't remove it from an active system to a dev system (at that time) mainly.

I convinced Tim to allow them to be added to the site back in the day, well before 'cannf' was even thought of.  Mainly because of also needing to add the QEW to the site at that time too.

The QEW however, will not be moving officially to cannf when we ever activate it, as it is officially a 400-series highway, so, it's proper place is to stay in the canonf system.  Unlike the Gardiner & DVP, which are controlled by Toronto, and really should only be in the cannf section.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 16, 2022, 10:00:32 pm
Yesterday I took a drive on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway and Red Hill Valley Parkway and I noticed that the starting/ending points of both appear to be incorrect in the system here on Travel Mapping.

They appear to start/end west of the Darnall Road interchange, at least that's where it's signed.

Here is a Streetview going towards RHVP
(https://i.imgur.com/ljbeNgI.png)
Link: https://goo.gl/maps/3o6NpYJWj9Uf7M4t6

Here is a Streetview going towards Linc:
(https://i.imgur.com/puqqcoC.png)
Link: https://goo.gl/maps/9ZNuxzKTSqvxskg49

This is very interesting.  I see the signage was installed sometime between 2007 & 2009.

I'll work on a fix in the next few days.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2022, 05:16:22 pm
ISTR there was some duplication in usanp, for the same reason, that some active routes would have reverted to preview
Oh yeah, I remember the George Washington Parkway did that.  Granted, in that case, there wasn't 1:1 correspondence... the usasf version pretended the whole thing was in VA and ignored the dip into DC, and IIRC it only included the portion north of Alexandria.  They also had different shaping points.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 21, 2022, 10:50:15 pm
Yesterday I took a drive on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway and Red Hill Valley Parkway and I noticed that the starting/ending points of both appear to be incorrect in the system here on Travel Mapping.

They appear to start/end west of the Darnall Road interchange, at least that's where it's signed.

Here is a Streetview going towards RHVP
(https://i.imgur.com/ljbeNgI.png)
Link: https://goo.gl/maps/3o6NpYJWj9Uf7M4t6

Here is a Streetview going towards Linc:
(https://i.imgur.com/puqqcoC.png)
Link: https://goo.gl/maps/9ZNuxzKTSqvxskg49

This is very interesting.  I see the signage was installed sometime between 2007 & 2009.

I'll work on a fix in the next few days.

Fixes have been submitted for this.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5932
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on January 10, 2023, 03:17:14 pm
cannf has been in preview since August 2020. There are currently 98 users with travels on the system. How would a peer-review of a system managed by 3 contributors (rickmastfan67, oscar, & yakra) work? I'm willing to do it/coordinate it.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on January 10, 2023, 03:27:34 pm
One of these three contributors says go for it!
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on January 10, 2023, 04:33:24 pm
One of these three contributors says go for it!

Me too, WRT cannf routes in BC and SK (none in QC or the Arctic territories).
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 10, 2023, 09:09:33 pm
Let's rumble! 8)

NOTE: When we're ready to activate, the Gardiner & DVP in Ontario will need to be alt-named in CANNF and removed from the Ontario Provincial 400 series set at the same time to prevent issues, since they're live on the site already under different list names.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on January 11, 2023, 08:09:57 pm
Before I start the review, here are the general guidelines I'll use to determine what merits inclusion, based on usasf (since there is no rule on what consitutes "select" in the manual besides "high importance to travelers", which is rather subjective) and on what yakra said here:

Q1: Include just the freeway portion & leave out surface road beyond, with a bit of wiggle room for short sensible exceptions. Short segments with at-grades can be allowable between two freeway segments. Controlled access & development at a minimum, ideally.

Q1A: Let it be wibbly-wobbly on a case-by-case basis, based on what Looks Nice & Makes Sense. Allow some reasonable special cases.

Q2: Include the whole thing, whether numbered or not.

There was some discussion about routes or proposed routes being too short for inclusion, but I found nothing in the manual regarding minimum length for a select route. Given that there are several routes less than 2 miles long in usasf (and one less than 1 mile long), I don't think it's necessary to eliminate routes from the set based only on length. Nevertheless, I don't think that the system needs routes that consist entirely of one segment (bridges or otherwise) unless they (a) perform important connections between routes in other systems and (b) have widely-known, accepted names.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on January 11, 2023, 10:11:32 pm
Agreed. Seems to me that length as a criterion for inclusion is a CHM-era holdover, one that's gotten less consideration over time and has largely gone by the wayside.
When it does get discussed, seems it's often in a "Hey, we don't really pay attention to this anymore, right?" context.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on January 11, 2023, 10:31:37 pm
Agreed. Seems to me that length as a criterion for inclusion is a CHM-era holdover, one that's gotten less consideration over time and has largely gone by the wayside.
When it does get discussed, seems it's often in a "Hey, we don't really pay attention to this anymore, right?" context.

That said, length should be a consideration, especially for the shortest routes (like  <1-2 miles long) that aren't otherwise significant for travelers. Not a hard minimum, just a reason for a judgment call to leave out some of the least important routes. A short route that should (and did) make the cut would be the 1.6 mile long Milford Parkway in Connecticut, connecting US 1 and I-95 to CT 15.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on January 11, 2023, 10:36:08 pm
I think mapcat's criterion (a) is key.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: michih on January 12, 2023, 12:41:00 pm
I also don't like the route length rule.

A quick glance of length using Google Maps shows that it is only 0.7 miles and acts more like a short connector road between PA 28 and PA 8.

We usually add routes to eursf system when the route has minimum one more grade-separated junction between the start and end point except when the potential eursf route connects two freeways and it's not just "one giant interchange".
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: Markkos1992 on January 12, 2023, 01:11:13 pm
I also don't like the route length rule.

A quick glance of length using Google Maps shows that it is only 0.7 miles and acts more like a short connector road between PA 28 and PA 8.

We usually add routes to eursf system when the route has minimum one more grade-separated junction between the start and end point except when the potential eursf route connects two freeways and it's not just "one giant interchange".

My reasoning for not adding PA HigParkBri versus PA CenScrExpy (now PreBidExpy) is that the latter has a well-known name.  I am still unsure of a good reason to add PA HigParkBri at this time.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 12, 2023, 01:16:48 pm
I also don't like the route length rule.

A quick glance of length using Google Maps shows that it is only 0.7 miles and acts more like a short connector road between PA 28 and PA 8.

We usually add routes to eursf system when the route has minimum one more grade-separated junction between the start and end point except when the potential eursf route connects two freeways and it's not just "one giant interchange".

My reasoning for not adding PA HigParkBri versus PA CenScrExpy (now PreBidExpy) is that the latter has a well-known name.  I am still unsure of a good reason to add PA HigParkBri at this time.

Just make all the Belt Routes in Pgh, and that fixes the problem. :P
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: Duke87 on January 13, 2023, 06:56:58 pm
It's inevitably going to be a judgment call as to what meets a significance threshold but yeah I'd argue the Central Scranton President Biden Expressway is an actual freeway while the Highland Park Bridge is just a bridge that happens to have a couple distinct interchanges to its approaches.
Needing to clinch the former to "finish" PA makes some sense, the latter... no.

I'd apply the same general thinking for Canada or anywhere else. There shouldn't be a numerical minimum length, but we're not mapping every long exit ramp, the road needs to have sufficient significance. Length can be a factor in determining significance.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on January 14, 2023, 03:00:45 pm
Peer review complete. I don't recommend eliminating any routes currently included in the system, although a few need some adjustments.

General comments

The QEW should stay in canonf IMO.

Would there be any problems with changing the system name to cansf (to correspond to usasf and eursf)?

I recommend doing what Oscar did when usaca was activated, and activate the system as-is, and then add any new routes after activation so they can be announced in updates.


Allen Rd
Bedford Bypass
Crowchild Trail
Don Valley Pkwy
EC Row Pkwy
Gardiner Expy
Golden Ears Way
Highbury Ave
Knight St
Lincoln M Alexander Pkwy
Red Hill Valley Pkwy
Ring Rd
RR174
Sherwood Park Fwy
---

Several additions were suggested upthread. Apologies if I missed any.


Airport Pkwy (Ottawa) (aka RR79)
Blue Water Br (Sarnia)
Circle Drive (Saskatoon)
Conestoga Pkwy (Kitchener-Waterloo)
Dougall Pkwy (Windsor)
Glenmore Trail (Calgary)
Hwy 2A (Toronto)
Hwy 27 (Toronto)
Idylwyld Drive/Fwy (Saskatoon)
MacKay Br (Halifax)
MacLeod Trail (Calgary)
Manitoba St Expy (Moose Jaw)
Memorial Drive (Calgary)
Nikola Tesla Blvd (Hamilton)
Wayne Gretzky Drive (Edmonton)
Whoop-Up Drive (Lethbridge)
---

One more I discovered while doing this that might deserve inclusion, now or once it's completed:


Airport Trail (Calgary)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on January 14, 2023, 03:44:00 pm
[/list]Ring Rd
  • WOW signage is bad/misleading here

WOW is a completely new abbreviation to me. Meaning?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on January 14, 2023, 04:03:12 pm
WOW is a completely new abbreviation to me. Meaning?
HOLY COW (it was just commentary)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: vdeane on January 14, 2023, 07:47:20 pm
[/list]Ring Rd
  • WOW signage is bad/misleading here

WOW is a completely new abbreviation to me. Meaning?
The only one that comes to mind is World of Warcraft.  Since putting WOW signage on the ring road would indeed be bad/misleading, that may well be it.

Or perhaps it was just capitalized for emphasis.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 15, 2023, 01:26:12 pm
RR174
  • Move RR57 to relocated intersection
  • RR34 -> MonRd since exit signage no longer mentions a route number
  • Not sure what TraWay is supposed to represent; GMSV doesn't show anything there

1) Actually, I'll keep that point as-is (since there's a ramp there and it's signed for RR57, maybe even shift it a tad closer to the gore point) and add a new point @ the new intersection with the label of RR55/57 (https://goo.gl/maps/2tYMVvQd5SLrkFYs8).
2) Was signed at least till Oct '20 on the offramps (via temporary signage, as it did have original signage there). https://goo.gl/maps/yjWCifSisNrrxjQG8  Signage might be replaced once construction is done in that area, as all signage currently in StreetView is temporary stuff.
3) TraWay was the old Transit Way offramps there (in case somebody was using transit along there and used said ramps).  https://goo.gl/maps/4A9KqcoCDuwHzHob7  Was there till around Jul '19 at least.  After that, they've converted the area to light-rail in the middle of RR-174, and eliminated the exit ramps on both sides.  So, I guess I could remove it, or just mark it as closed.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on January 15, 2023, 06:00:51 pm
In my regions:

Bedford Bypass
   
  • The northern endpoint deserves another look. NS101's exit 1F is not the same as exit 1K and should be a separate point for the Bypass endpoint IMO.
Exit 1F in one direction; exit 1K in the other. 1PPI makes them at the same coords (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/points.php#two_way). Sharing a graph connection with NS1 here is appropriate due to the EB direct connection.

The Bypass could use the CobRd point on NS1 if you think a graph connection would be useful there.
Wait, what? Are you saying run the bypass along the NS1 roadway? There's not even a WB direct connection. It should be pretty clear that the bypass feeds into the main freeway system on NS101, just as OSM has it labeled.

Don't know if maybe you were misled by the 1K label on NS101 and corresponding label on NS1. That one's been around since the CHM days. IIRC Tim originally drafted cannsf; maybe he called it that in order to keep a tidy alphanumerically ascending series of exit labels in the HB. Or it's also possibe that I labeled it that when I took over NS maintenance when draftng cannst.

Crowchild Trail
  • Recommend adding a point at Crowfoot Rise off-ramp between NoseHillDr & AB201 (affects AB1ACoc)
Y'mean on-ramp? Yeah, this is its own distinct entrance from NoseHillDr. Added locally.

  • Recommend adding a point at Brentwood Rd off-ramp between 32Ave & 40Ave (affects AB1ACoc)
Debated whether to call this BreRd or BrePl. BreRd added. Comments?

  • Recommend adding a point at 10 Ave on-ramp (N of BowTrl)
(Y'mean off-ramp? :D) Hm. Wibbly-wobbly. Within the footprint of BowTrl, but still its own separate thing. Added.

  • Recommend adding a point at 54 Ave RIRO (S of 50Ave)
Added.

  • It's not clear from GMSV that AB1ACoc follows Banff Trl between AB1_E and CroTrl_S
Right. Never has been, really. TM's original 1/1A junction was at Crowchild. Then I moved it to Banff because at the time there was no direct right-turn connection @ Crowchild. I justified the resulting route trace on "cutting across the diagonal of the couplet" grounds, a bit like ME ME22 I-295 StJohnSt (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=me.me022&lat=43.655865&lon=-70.282813&zoom=16). Always gave me a little indigestion though.
But what's this?!
OSM now shows a new ramp from AB1 west to AB1A. ESRI WorldImagery & especially Google (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0672669,-114.1177846,338m/data=!3m1!1e3) show fresh construction here. Don't know what will be on this gantry (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0670692,-114.116774,3a,75y,291.87h,92.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxz7wD390CFR4BpZwLkB9gw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), but good enough! Combined with what shapefiles show as the route of AB1A, this justifies a newsworthy relocation from Banff to Crowchild. ToDo. Done locally. Affects CroTrl, AB1ACoc, AB1 & TCHMai.

Oh boy. Now I have The Alberta Anthem (Parts 1-4) by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie (https://citizenfreak.com/titles/304036-three-dead-trolls-in-a-baggie-the-geek-album-2-0) (Incorrect tune @ the part 4 link. Oh well.) stuck in my head. Not that there's anything wrong with that! This happened a lot when I was drafting canab & canabs.

Sherwood Park Fwy
  • Recommend using 71St as the west end
More indigestion here. This was based on "include the whole so-named route" grounds. Shapefiles have the last bit as Sherwood Park Freeway, OSM & Google calling it "82 Avenue" notwithstanding. Plus signage went from this (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5174686,-113.4366373,3a,15y,223.04h,87.64t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-wyU4cRYZLJNpHrSbWqatA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5176037,-113.4364504,3a,15y,215.42h,97.9t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sVJUSzEnEmjEfDyyXoEnTAg!2e0!5s20140701T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) in July 2014 FWIW.
That said, this endpoint was on my mind as peer review got underway, and I can be convinced to cut it back to 71St on "include just the freeway bit" grounds if that's what the consensus is. Thoughts, everyone?

  • East end does not connect to AB 630 (which ends at AB 21, not AB 216)
ToDo. I'll have to look into this. Maybe julmac mentioned this in his canabs peer review, which I've been letting sit far too long. Thankfully though, this wouln't require any changes to cannf, only to canabs.

Glenmore Trail (Calgary)
  • This definitely belongs. It's a 14-km full freeway between AB 201 (on the west side of Calgary) and Barlow Trail, with plans for upgrades to AB 201 on the east side.
Yes, this belongs. Probably only left out because cannf has received little attention since CHM, at which time ab.ab008glt (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/65cbc9b/chm_final/cansph/ab.ab008glt.wpt)/AB8Gle (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/65cbc9b/chm_final/_systems/cansph.csv#L6) existed in cansph.
I've dusted off the old file, recentered & renamed some points, extended to BarTrl, and added it to my local branch.
I never liked having to choose between either not including all the so-named route or including a long non-freeway stretch, but if we're going with the "Q1" answer quoted above, it gets the freeway section as mapcat recommends. The short gap before "AB201_E" I can live with, especially if it'll eventually be upgraded, which appears to be the case (the semi-recent jughandle at 68th St (https://www.calgary.ca/realestate/blog/68th-and-glenmore-trail-intersection-upgrade.html) appears to be a temporary interim solution). When that happens (even if it's a long way out yet), all of Glenmore Trail will be included, in either cannf (cansf?) or canabs.

Potential additions (just focusing on my regions here):

MacKay Br (Halifax)
  • This wasn't so much suggested as offered as a reason not to include "freeways" that were just bridges, but if there's a strong interest in including it, the NS 111 shield on Connaught Ave could be used as an excuse for extending that route per signage.
Recommend against. It was originally included as part of NS111 on CHM, but removed. The signage intown is best considered as trailblazers with a missing TO; same goes for NS102.

MacLeod Trail (Calgary)
  • From AB 201 to the traffic light at Lake Fraser Gate, it's a 5.4-km freeway. Recommend adding.
Thought about this one at times, but am more lukewarm on it. It only connects to routes in other systems @ the S end; the N end of the freeway just kinda peters out as it approaches central Calgary. Thoughts?

Memorial Drive (Calgary)
  • It has some freeway segments, but there are a lot of traffic lights interrupting them. Recommend against.
Agree; skip this one.
Personally my thinking is, I'm taking the "(a) perform important connections between routes in other systems" criterion a bit beyond the "routes that consist entirely of one segment" context (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=30.msg30248#msg30248) it was mentioned in.

Wayne Gretzky Drive (Edmonton)
  • Currently it's just two short freeway segments approaching a bridge from both sides, and doesn't connect any existing routes. Maybe if it ends up connected to AB 16, but for now I don't think so.
Whoop-Up Drive (Lethbridge)
  • Similar to Wayne Gretzky Drive. It was my idea initially, but now I recommend against inclusion.
Agree; skip these.
Some have proposed (I'm thinking of usasf here too) otherwise non-freeway routes with just a couple interchanges in the middle, sometimes not even connecting to the rest of the network. Not a fan. Glorified expressways or boulevards IMO.

One more I discovered while doing this that might deserve inclusion, now or once it's completed:


Airport Trail (Calgary)
  • It connects the airport to Hwy 2 and has 2 intermediate interchanges. Long term plans to extend the freeway to AB 201.
Meh. Lots of non-freeway in the east, and signalized ramps @ the west end.

A few items in other regions:

Ring Rd:
I don't get why the province went to the expense of building all this new-alignment road for the outer Regina Bypass, when it seems they could have upgraded the W end of Ring Rd to full freeway, put in a 2-way Y interchange just E of SK6, and made a shorter new alignment straight on east toward the new Wascana Creek crossing. But anyway.

Golden Ears Way:
199A/201St -> one or the other per this rule (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#dropnamed). Maybe 199ASt as it's the exiting one; what would be signed if they didn't sign control cities instead?

RR174:
1) Actually, I'll keep that point as-is (since there's a ramp there and it's signed for RR57, maybe even shift it a tad closer to the gore point) and add a new point @ the new intersection with the label of RR55/57 (https://goo.gl/maps/2tYMVvQd5SLrkFYs8).
Looks like they're building an interchange? (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4951015,-75.4815846,3a,75y,41.65h,97.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl9aPXU362Bycds2fVoHFJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

3) TraWay was the old Transit Way offramps there (in case somebody was using transit along there and used said ramps).  https://goo.gl/maps/4A9KqcoCDuwHzHob7  Was there till around Jul '19 at least.  After that, they've converted the area to light-rail in the middle of RR-174, and eliminated the exit ramps on both sides.  So, I guess I could remove it, or just mark it as closed.
Mark as closed, and capitalize that W, lest it be flagged as LABEL_LONG_WORD some day ;)

Holding off on a pull request pending any comments on BreRd vs BrePl.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 15, 2023, 06:34:00 pm
RR174:
1) Actually, I'll keep that point as-is (since there's a ramp there and it's signed for RR57, maybe even shift it a tad closer to the gore point) and add a new point @ the new intersection with the label of RR55/57 (https://goo.gl/maps/2tYMVvQd5SLrkFYs8).
Looks like they're building an interchange? (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4951015,-75.4815846,3a,75y,41.65h,97.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl9aPXU362Bycds2fVoHFJw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

I think that might be for a pedestrian crossover, since the tram station will supposedly be in-between the carriageways of RR-174.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 15, 2023, 08:27:18 pm
General comments

The QEW should stay in canonf IMO.

Which was my plan from the start.  Especially since Ontario considers it as a 400-series route, and it uses a standard 'Ontario' shield, that's just in different colors like the MTO owned 407 segment & ON-412 (though it's supposedly going to be changed to the normal white shields since tolls were removed), & formerly ON-418 (was a toll route like MTO ON-407 & ON-412).


Don Valley Pkwy
  • The road connecting via DonRd is technically "Don Roadway" but the exit from the Parkway is called "Lake Shore Blvd", so I recommend renaming the point LakeShoBlvd
  • Recommend moving DanAve to the overpass to match what was done at QueSt and DunSt
  • In shieldgen.php, shield_on.ondvp.svg -> shield_on.donvalpkwy.svg

1) Guess I could do it that way.  Changed locally.
2) Looking like that shouldn't truly be changed.  Seems that while it's access to the DVP from Danforth Ave (or should it be Bloor Street? Not sure where the name swap officially happens.), it seems to have it's own road name of 'Royal Drive (https://goo.gl/maps/CFcYyzr4MZhg4Cdu8)'.  So, maybe leave location as-is and relabel as 'RoyDr'?
3) Will be done when we take this system live, due to needing to make the currently active route an alt name for the one in this system.

EC Row Pkwy
  • BanRd needs recentering

Fixed locally. (FYI, OSM is slightly off-centered at the end of the route).

Gardiner Expy
  • In shieldgen.php, shield_on.ongar.svg -> shield_on.garexpy.svg

Will be done when we take this system live, due to needing to make the currently active route an alt name for the one in this system.

Lincoln M Alexander Pkwy
  • Needs a shield

This would have to be made, as the shield available on Wikipedia is only available as a PNG.

Red Hill Valley Pkwy
  • Needs a shield
  • URedHVPkwy -> UppRHVPkwy or MudSt

1) This would have to be made, as the shield available on Wikipedia is only available as a PNG.
2) UppRHVPkwy if it has to be changed.  Would rather stick with the '3-letter' word that was already in the name.

Several additions were suggested upthread. Apologies if I missed any.

Airport Pkwy (Ottawa) (aka RR79)
  • Maybe. It's a super-2, and all access points between the approach to the airport and Riverside Pkwy are ramps (except for a couple of gravel drives that may just be construction-related). It doesn't connect to anything in any system we currently map or are likely to in the future.
Blue Water Br (Sarnia)
  • I'd recommend against this. If the mileage really needs to be included, I'd prefer fudging the end of 402.
Conestoga Pkwy (Kitchener-Waterloo)
  • Not needed, since it's mapped as ON 7, ON 8, and ON 85.
Dougall Pkwy (Windsor)
  • I lean slightly toward including this. It's short (2.5 km), but there is one interchange between the logical endpoints (Howard Ave & ON 401). Travelers who take the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel probably use it.
Hwy 2A (Toronto)
  • Not too excited about this one. It's essentially just a ramp from 401 to Kingston Rd. Recommend against.
Hwy 27 (Toronto)
  • It's not a freeway, so no.
Nikola Tesla Blvd (Hamilton)
  • This 3.5-km freeway is fully access-controlled from where it rises above Burlington St all the way to the QEW. Recommend adding.

Airport Pkwy: Still against it, as it doesn't connect to anything we map (unless we continued it all the way up to ON-416).  Plus I honestly haven't found any documentation that says it's considered as control-accessed.  Especially since they allow bikes on it. https://goo.gl/maps/8gdCLpuB4xss3oHA8

Blue Water Bridge:
Against.

Conestoga Pkwy:
Agreed with you mapcat, due to it already being fully mapped as Ontario routes.

Dougall Pkwy:
It was at one time considered part of ON-3B/ON-401A.  Guess we could add it.

Hwy 2A:
Was formerly part of the provincial system as ON-2A before downloading.  This is some of the last signage mentioning this fact. (https://goo.gl/maps/CdbgUJRK3DfbDAhJ9)  Is also still called 'Highway 2A' (https://goo.gl/maps/z4zerU9uQZbHoNB4A) along the EB Collector Lanes of ON-401, but doesn't get a mention going WB.  Honestly could go either way with me here.

Hwy 27:
Agree as 'Hwy-27'.  However........  This could be possibly added as a spur of ON-427, at least partially.

Why you may ask?  Well, it has 427's km markers (https://goo.gl/maps/JKvkuoeE69D2qAKw5) along it.  Plus it has an 'END ON-427' shield (https://goo.gl/maps/cs18b28gK17PqXks8) just north of the ON-401 overpass.  And directly on the other side, there's the first SB ON-427 shield too (https://goo.gl/maps/25DteLuWdnvU7q2M7).

Nikola Tesla Blvd (Hamilton):
Meh, I guess we could add it.  Not too thrilled about this one.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on January 16, 2023, 03:34:53 pm
Bedford Bypass
  • The northern endpoint deserves another look. NS101's exit 1F is not the same as exit 1K and should be a separate point for the Bypass endpoint IMO.
Exit 1F in one direction; exit 1K in the other. 1PPI makes them at the same coords (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/points.php#two_way). Sharing a graph connection with NS1 here is appropriate due to the EB direct connection.

The Bypass could use the CobRd point on NS1 if you think a graph connection would be useful there.
Wait, what? Are you saying run the bypass along the NS1 roadway? There's not even a WB direct connection. It should be pretty clear that the bypass feeds into the main freeway system on NS101, just as OSM has it labeled.

Don't know if maybe you were misled by the 1K label on NS101 and corresponding label on NS1. That one's been around since the CHM days. IIRC Tim originally drafted cannsf; maybe he called it that in order to keep a tidy alphanumerically ascending series of exit labels in the HB. Or it's also possibe that I labeled it that when I took over NS maintenance when draftng cannst.

What I was picturing was NS 1 remaining as-is, NS 101 getting a new point at Exit 1F, and the Bypass connecting to NS 1 at the CobRd point and then continuing northward to join NS 101 at 1F. This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7488715,-63.6558553,3a,50.5y,319.76h,87.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD9QjgraXgVaGox0-v1ReWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) makes it pretty clear that Cobequid Rd acts as the NS 1 exit from the Bypass.

  • Recommend adding a point at Brentwood Rd off-ramp between 32Ave & 40Ave (affects AB1ACoc)
Debated whether to call this BreRd or BrePl. BreRd added. Comments?

Signage doesn't help there (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0826132,-114.1248872,3a,29.9y,327.82h,90.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgxdXvR_c6XSIb64xs96lkg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgxdXvR_c6XSIb64xs96lkg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.69848%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192), does it. I don't have a preference.

Sherwood Park Fwy
  • Recommend using 71St as the west end
More indigestion here. This was based on "include the whole so-named route" grounds. Shapefiles have the last bit as Sherwood Park Freeway, OSM & Google calling it "82 Avenue" notwithstanding. Plus signage went from this (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5174686,-113.4366373,3a,15y,223.04h,87.64t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-wyU4cRYZLJNpHrSbWqatA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5176037,-113.4364504,3a,15y,215.42h,97.9t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sVJUSzEnEmjEfDyyXoEnTAg!2e0!5s20140701T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) in July 2014 FWIW.
That said, this endpoint was on my mind as peer review got underway, and I can be convinced to cut it back to 71St on "include just the freeway bit" grounds if that's what the consensus is. Thoughts, everyone?

The light at 71 St marking the end of the freeway was my justification.

MacLeod Trail (Calgary)
  • From AB 201 to the traffic light at Lake Fraser Gate, it's a 5.4-km freeway. Recommend adding.
Thought about this one at times, but am more lukewarm on it. It only connects to routes in other systems @ the S end; the N end of the freeway just kinda peters out as it approaches central Calgary. Thoughts?

You mean, like Sherwood Park Fwy, and the non-AB1A part of Crowchild Trail (as currently drafted)? ;)

Airport Trail (Calgary)
  • It connects the airport to Hwy 2 and has 2 intermediate interchanges. Long term plans to extend the freeway to AB 201.
Meh. Lots of non-freeway in the east, and signalized ramps @ the west end.

To be clear, I only meant the part that's currently a freeway. The interchange at the west end does allow for free-flowing traffic in two directions already and plans exist (https://www.deerfootimprovements.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/20-0006231-Deerfoot-Trail-Phase-4-Final-Recommendation-Report-P11-DEC28.pdf) to eliminate the signals.

Hwy 27:
Agree as 'Hwy-27'.  However........  This could be possibly added as a spur of ON-427, at least partially.

Why you may ask?  Well, it has 427's km markers (https://goo.gl/maps/JKvkuoeE69D2qAKw5) along it.  Plus it has an 'END ON-427' shield (https://goo.gl/maps/cs18b28gK17PqXks8) just north of the ON-401 overpass.  And directly on the other side, there's the first SB ON-427 shield too (https://goo.gl/maps/25DteLuWdnvU7q2M7).

Interesting. I completely misunderstood the OP's suggestion and thought that the proposal related to the route south of the QEW. As for that one, it would be really short if you're limiting it to the segment south of the END sign.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on January 18, 2023, 10:12:17 am
What I was picturing was NS 1 remaining as-is,
Good thus far...

NS 101 getting a new point at Exit 1F,
Here's where I start to disagree:
Exit 1F in one direction; exit 1K in the other. 1PPI makes them at the same coords (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/points.php#two_way). Sharing a graph connection with NS1 here is appropriate due to the EB direct connection.
To clarify, what I was referring to in the link was "Where the centerlines would cross if it were an at-grade intersection with the same shape. Not where the ramps of one road connect to the other."
My usual M.O. with semi-directional ramps like these is to trace out an imaginary center line between both carrigeways, and put the point where that intersects the main freeway. Thus 1F & 1K work out to just about exactly the same coords, and 1PPI applies.

and the Bypass connecting to NS 1 at the CobRd point
Not sure what you mean by "connecting to" here. Based on your having mentioned a graph connection, I interpreted that as using the same coords as existing NS NS1 CobRd. That, I can't get behind; I won't put a waypoint off of the road itself just to get a graph connection.

and then continuing northward to join NS 101 at 1F. This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7488715,-63.6558553,3a,50.5y,319.76h,87.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD9QjgraXgVaGox0-v1ReWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) makes it pretty clear that Cobequid Rd acts as the NS 1 exit from the Bypass.
I wanna leave this pretty much as-is, with one point for 1F/1K that 1PPI's all three routes together.
WRT a CobRd point on the bypass, I can see some merit to that. I may have just considered it 1PPI when first drafting the route, but OTOH, adding a point at the offramp could pull the bypass away from the 101/102 interchange in mapview.

On another note, should I reverse point order and make BedByp E-W? It functions as kind of an extension/bypass of the ends of two E-W corridors,  NS101/1 & NS7.

Debated whether to call this BreRd or BrePl. BreRd added. Comments?
Signage doesn't help there (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0826132,-114.1248872,3a,29.9y,327.82h,90.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgxdXvR_c6XSIb64xs96lkg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DgxdXvR_c6XSIb64xs96lkg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.69848%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192), does it. I don't have a preference.
Signage here (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0857083,-114.1282006,3a,15y,20.34h,110.3t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s_9Ekgc9jzS5zD-MFT3zI2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40), OTOH... Nothing for Brentwood Pl. That's what made me go with Rd.

The light at 71 St marking the end of the freeway was my justification.
In keeping with the "only include the freeway bits & end at the first at-grade interchange" M.O.

Thought about this one at times, but am more lukewarm on it. It only connects to routes in other systems @ the S end; the N end of the freeway just kinda peters out as it approaches central Calgary. Thoughts?
You mean, like Sherwood Park Fwy, and the non-AB1A part of Crowchild Trail (as currently drafted)? ;)
HA! Well played, sir! Crowchild will of course be fixed by the inclusion of Glenmore. That would be included in my next pull request, except that
I recommend doing what Oscar did when usaca was activated, and activate the system as-is, and then add any new routes after activation so they can be announced in updates.
So maybe I'll hold off.

I did think about SheParkFwy potentially undermining my point, but feel a bit different about that one, as the whole facility is included (give or take a wibbly-wobbly W terminus). So it's less petering out in that case. :)

Meh. Lots of non-freeway in the east, and signalized ramps @ the west end.
To be clear, I only meant the part that's currently a freeway. The interchange at the west end does allow for free-flowing traffic in two directions already and plans exist (https://www.deerfootimprovements.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/20-0006231-Deerfoot-Trail-Phase-4-Final-Recommendation-Report-P11-DEC28.pdf) to eliminate the signals.
Yeah. I guess I'm just generally less enthusiastic about including the freeway portion of an otherwise longer facilty.
Good to hear about the interchange upgrade plans. remaining That E->N left-turn movement did give me pause for a second, but it doesn't conflict with any WB movements. It keeps left while the SB->EB traffic entering Airport trail is keeping right. Interesting...
Heck, if Highbury Avenue (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=on.higave) is included...



I mentioned years ago upthread that I thought the QEW should be moved to cannf. I withdraw that objection. There's plenty of precedent for different-colored shields (right there in canonf, or in the original cannb before it was split in 3) or even different style shields entirely (usapa & usafl, even if these were only reflected in CHM, not TM's shieldgen), and for alphanumerically designated routes that are all alpha and no numeric (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0858263,-95.958682,3a,18.6y,30.21h,94.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH7OcLxeTqvsdU9cdXBA1ww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
(On that note, should it maybe be ON ONQEW for consistency?)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on January 20, 2023, 05:41:10 pm
Not sure what you mean by "connecting to" here. Based on your having mentioned a graph connection, I interpreted that as using the same coords as existing NS NS1 CobRd. That, I can't get behind; I won't put a waypoint off of the road itself just to get a graph connection.

That makes sense. It is pretty far away from the bypass. Certainly far enough away that it doesn't demand a graph connection (see below).

and then continuing northward to join NS 101 at 1F. This sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.7488715,-63.6558553,3a,50.5y,319.76h,87.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD9QjgraXgVaGox0-v1ReWg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) makes it pretty clear that Cobequid Rd acts as the NS 1 exit from the Bypass.
I wanna leave this pretty much as-is, with one point for 1F/1K that 1PPI's all three routes together.
WRT a CobRd point on the bypass, I can see some merit to that. I may have just considered it 1PPI when first drafting the route, but OTOH, adding a point at the offramp could pull the bypass away from the 101/102 interchange in mapview.

The 1PPI seems adequate for travels in a NW-to-SE direction, but I mostly paid attention to the SE-to-NW movements, which still seem too complicated for one point IMO. If there's a CobRd (or NS 1) point on the bypass, adding it at the gore point would be appropriate.

On another note, should I reverse point order and make BedByp E-W? It functions as kind of an extension/bypass of the ends of two E-W corridors,  NS101/1 & NS7.

That would be more consistent, but I don't have a strong opinion.

(On that note, should it maybe be ON ONQEW for consistency?)

 ???  https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=mapcat&r=on.onqew (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=mapcat&r=on.onqew)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on January 20, 2023, 05:42:06 pm
Oscar, did you have any comments re the BC and SK routes?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 20, 2023, 09:37:14 pm

Don Valley Pkwy
  • Recommend moving DanAve to the overpass to match what was done at QueSt and DunSt

2) Looking like that shouldn't truly be changed.  Seems that while it's access to the DVP from Danforth Ave (or should it be Bloor Street? Not sure where the name swap officially happens.), it seems to have it's own road name of 'Royal Drive (https://goo.gl/maps/CFcYyzr4MZhg4Cdu8)'.  So, maybe leave location as-is and relabel as 'RoyDr'?

So, yeah, it does indeed look like the ramp really does have the name of Royal Drive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askTO/comments/lw33y5/does_anyone_know_why_theres_a_sign_for_royal/

Quote
More recently, this stretch of road was renamed Royal Drive for the October 1951 visit of Princess Elizabeth to Toronto.

It's a very interesting read.

So, yeah....
DanAve -> RoyDr (& no location change)
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 20, 2023, 10:17:59 pm
Anyways, just submitted all the Ontario tweaks to the routes that are currently on the site.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6308
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on January 26, 2023, 09:50:56 pm
Oscar, did you have any comments re the BC and SK routes?

Changes to SK (Ring Road, and corresponding changes to SK 6) are in my local copy. I agree with keeping the part between SK1/11 and LewDr, as a divided highway connector to SK1/11.

Changes recommended in BC (Golden Ears, and Knight St), to remove the non-freeway portions, also in my local copy.

UPDATE: Above changes, as well as a Datacheck error fix in QC, in https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6353

Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on February 03, 2023, 06:29:59 pm
Thanks for making the updates.

Any more comments? If we're ready to move forward, who makes the change to systems.csv, etc?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 04, 2023, 05:50:25 pm
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6363
AB SheParkFwy truncated to 71St.

The 1PPI seems adequate for travels in a NW-to-SE direction, but I mostly paid attention to the SE-to-NW movements, which still seem too complicated for one point IMO. If there's a CobRd (or NS 1) point on the bypass, adding it at the gore point would be appropriate.
CobRd (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.748732&lon=-63.657701) added.

On another note, should I reverse point order and make BedByp E-W? It functions as kind of an extension/bypass of the ends of two E-W corridors,  NS101/1 & NS7.
That would be more consistent, but I don't have a strong opinion.
Reversed.

(On that note, should it maybe be ON ONQEW for consistency?)
???  https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=mapcat&r=on.onqew (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=mapcat&r=on.onqew)
Derp. Coffee must not have kicked in yet.

I've let cannf slide for a bit between real life and being knees deep in the siteupdate code.
Is there anything else outstanding in my regions?



Any more comments?
Golden Ears Way:
199A/201St -> one or the other per this rule (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#dropnamed). Maybe 199ASt as it's the exiting one; what would be signed if they didn't sign control cities instead?

If we're ready to move forward, who makes the change to systems.csv, etc?
Any one of us, I suppose. I think it'd be cool to let you do the honors in exchange for having done the peer review, as long as each of us sign off.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on February 04, 2023, 07:19:22 pm
Golden Ears Way:
199A/201St -> one or the other per this rule (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#dropnamed). Maybe 199ASt as it's the exiting one; what would be signed if they didn't sign control cities instead?

I'd go with 199ASt, based on its being the lower number.

GMSV indicates the exit is signed for neither 199ASt nor 201St; rather, as To TCH1.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 05, 2023, 12:47:30 am
Thanks for making the updates.

Any more comments? If we're ready to move forward, who makes the change to systems.csv, etc?

I'll work on the later Ontario routes to be added to the site once we've gotten the system up and running.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on February 05, 2023, 10:03:02 pm
Golden Ears Way:
199A/201St -> one or the other per this rule (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#dropnamed). Maybe 199ASt as it's the exiting one; what would be signed if they didn't sign control cities instead?

I'd go with 199ASt, based on its being the lower number.

I was getting ready to pull in that change, and run Datacheck on it, from my old laptop. Then the laptop failed, perhaps permanently.

If it doesn't come back to life overnight (as has happened before), I'll e-mail the revised file to Jim tomorrow for him to plug in. Once I'm back from a short trip to North Carolina, I'll resume work on completing the transition to my new laptop, including figuring out how to submit Datacheck-able pull requests from there.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 06, 2023, 09:50:57 am
Good news about datacheck is, there's no need to run it for minor non-newsworthy updates that only make changes to already-existing .wpt files.
https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5359.msg30626#msg30626
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: oscar on February 07, 2023, 12:03:54 am
Change to bc.golearsway now in the HB.

WRT my two regions (BC and SK), I think cannf is ready to activate.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on February 07, 2023, 10:09:59 am
I'll see if I can get it done tonight. Any opinions on changing it to cansf?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 07, 2023, 11:06:36 am
I'mm neither for nor against.
As you noted, it would be consistent with other ***sf systems.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: michih on February 07, 2023, 11:37:16 am
Any opinions on changing it to cansf?

Go for it!
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on February 07, 2023, 08:15:47 pm
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/pull/745 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/pull/745)
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6381 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6381)

Not sure if datacheck automatically looks at changes to the Web directory, or just looks at HighwayData. Either way, wouldn't mind it if someone looked through the changes before the update runs tonight.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: yakra on February 07, 2023, 08:37:28 pm
datacheck only reads HighwayData & UserData.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on February 07, 2023, 09:00:46 pm
Okay, thanks. I only changed 4 files in Web (3 of them .svgs) so there's not a lot to examine there. But ISTR a line in shieldgen.php referring specifically to ONDVP.svg and ONGAR.svg (using canonf names), yet I couldn't find anything this time. Is there any other file besides shieldgen.php needed to associate the correct shields with the route files?
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: Jim on February 07, 2023, 10:20:51 pm
Okay, thanks. I only changed 4 files in Web (3 of them .svgs) so there's not a lot to examine there. But ISTR a line in shieldgen.php referring specifically to ONDVP.svg and ONGAR.svg (using canonf names), yet I couldn't find anything this time. Is there any other file besides shieldgen.php needed to associate the correct shields with the route files?

It might not happen tonight, but I'll take a look at this and if all looks good, first will try on tmdevel or tmstage.  If all looks good, I can install on the main site.  If it doesn't happen by, say, Monday, feel free to remind me.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 07, 2023, 11:53:34 pm
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/pull/745 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/pull/745)
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6381 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6381)

Not sure if datacheck automatically looks at changes to the Web directory, or just looks at HighwayData. Either way, wouldn't mind it if someone looked through the changes before the update runs tonight.

Just made my comment on GitHub.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: Jim on February 08, 2023, 11:53:25 pm
I believe we're all good on this, both from the HighwayData and shield generator sides of things.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 09, 2023, 02:48:40 am
Meh. Lots of non-freeway in the east, and signalized ramps @ the west end.
To be clear, I only meant the part that's currently a freeway. The interchange at the west end does allow for free-flowing traffic in two directions already and plans exist (https://www.deerfootimprovements.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/20-0006231-Deerfoot-Trail-Phase-4-Final-Recommendation-Report-P11-DEC28.pdf) to eliminate the signals.
Yeah. I guess I'm just generally less enthusiastic about including the freeway portion of an otherwise longer facilty.
Good to hear about the interchange upgrade plans. remaining That E->N left-turn movement did give me pause for a second, but it doesn't conflict with any WB movements. It keeps left while the SB->EB traffic entering Airport trail is keeping right. Interesting...
Heck, if Highbury Avenue (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=on.higave) is included...

Main reason I had Highbury Ave was due to it being a former Ontario route, 126.  Plus, at one time, it was completely freeflowing.  They had a cloverleaf @ 401 till ~1994 per Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highbury_Avenue
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 09, 2023, 02:56:24 am
Hwy 27:
Agree as 'Hwy-27'.  However........  This could be possibly added as a spur of ON-427, at least partially.

Why you may ask?  Well, it has 427's km markers (https://goo.gl/maps/JKvkuoeE69D2qAKw5) along it.  Plus it has an 'END ON-427' shield (https://goo.gl/maps/cs18b28gK17PqXks8) just north of the ON-401 overpass.  And directly on the other side, there's the first SB ON-427 shield too (https://goo.gl/maps/25DteLuWdnvU7q2M7).

Interesting. I completely misunderstood the OP's suggestion and thought that the proposal related to the route south of the QEW. As for that one, it would be really short if you're limiting it to the segment south of the END sign.

Anybody else with a comment on this?  Not sure if I should just make it as a separate ON427Tor file?  Probably could make the 'split' at the last collector ramp swap just south of the 'EriDr' SB ramps (and maybe move 'EriDr' to the new file because of this).

At least, maybe on the base ON427, I should convert that shaping point between 'ON401' & 'Hwy27' to a usable point (and recenter) for 'EglAve', due to the direct SB on/off ramps.

Also probably recenter 351 & 352 a tic on ON401 at the same time.
Title: Re: cannf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 19, 2024, 10:14:46 am
Dougall Pkwy:
It was at one time considered part of ON-3B/ON-401A.  Guess we could add it.

Hwy 2A:
Was formerly part of the provincial system as ON-2A before downloading.  This is some of the last signage mentioning this fact. (https://goo.gl/maps/CdbgUJRK3DfbDAhJ9)  Is also still called 'Highway 2A' (https://goo.gl/maps/z4zerU9uQZbHoNB4A) along the EB Collector Lanes of ON-401, but doesn't get a mention going WB.  Honestly could go either way with me here.

Nikola Tesla Blvd (Hamilton):
Meh, I guess we could add it.  Not too thrilled about this one.

All 3 have been submitted.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7171

Also, on a side note, the Gardiner, DVP, & RR174 are being 'uploaded' back to the province (well, the DVP was never on the provincial books, and same goes for 'most' of the Gardiner).  Not sure when that will happen, and not sure if they'll gain new 400-series numbers (or normal numbers), or be continuations of the 400-series numbers they're connected to.
Title: Re: cansf: Canada Select Named Freeways
Post by: mapcat on January 19, 2024, 04:54:06 pm

If we're going with "used to be part of the system" as one of the criteria for inclusion, would you consider adding Hwy 109 (formerly part of ON409 on TM) from the end of ON 409 to Pearson Airport as well?