Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Topic started by: neroute2 on December 03, 2019, 07:26:01 pm
-
PowPlaRd (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.65182,-89.4804895,3a,42.7y,227.57h,81.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svet2mNV0jUTC2vJKbMQPiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is a Great River Road spur that can replace a shaping point.
BriBypRd (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9193504,-89.8295588,3a,19.7y,113.89h,89.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8XOfiNlBLMY8Bv3lGbz0gA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is an important intersection, being the direct route to the Mississippi River bridge and the point where the Great River Road leaves IL 3.
IL 3: FortKasRd -> ShaTr (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9762551,-89.88043,3a,23y,39.31h,86.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXkjvlb5PVYOodn02lUU92w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
One more point on IL 3 at NewPoagRd (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8021616,-90.0998653,3a,36.9y,60.4h,85.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skrVx6h9AtJBCis36hliOcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Also on IL 150 is RanSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9064283,-89.8330619,3a,28.2y,229.66h,88.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skdHy6Vfdx4oG98wCDup_jg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (if that's the correct name).
IL 96 at OldHwy57 (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7253804,-91.1933521,3a,28.3y,50.25h,86.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saSLpAdAcCzlZZLXuj0Y0Rg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
-
More missing points on other routes:
IL 164 at 1350E (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.9316604,-90.9324842,3a,21.9y,140h,86.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfbprVWDA3NS1HlBU7lliuQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
IL 92: CR59 -> CRTT_W (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.397752,-90.899766,3a,22.8y,13.34h,83.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb_a9QR_6cS7yENhTzD249A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and add CRTT_E (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4340742,-90.8105615,3a,39y,218.92h,82.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scy9_xixB64l7hxe3GLSJ0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
-
MN 55: 46thSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9186541,-93.2176344,3a,23.3y,339.17h,87.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6YD3AaWEYll6AH9JvAm_4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
MN 27: CR213 (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.9773983,-94.3695056,3a,75y,51.38h,81.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snGaObILBbU6SdjM9OP2Uog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
MN 115: CR213 (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.0752158,-94.3461729,3a,38.2y,309.6h,80.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1safWCuH3NU6QkPLIkSgeiug!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
MN 371 Bus: LauSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@46.3563,-94.2006011,3a,24.7y,207.12h,88.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_1nMn7MiXna3xSLFzYkbeA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
-
US 136: 4thSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.395155,-91.3826563,3a,33.5y,188.56h,84.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUWdj0hqZeQsm_l1XPjDRPA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 52: DeKSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7739222,-91.100564,3a,75y,170.9h,86.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHURQjKB0QKCmYozOKvmbqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
-
I have merged Dan's threads into a single topic that I think warrants further discussion given it's multi-state in scope. Are GRR waypoints something we should revise the relevant route files to include en-masse?
There's been discussion in other threads about eventually including the GRR itself, but that's a ways down the road (pun intended).
-
Have there been requests for those points from GRR travelers? Would Dan be one of those travelers?
-
These 14 points across four states are the only ones I could find in those states. All are major enough roads (with the possible exception of the spurs).
-
The route sets in those states are among the oldest in the CHM/TM system. The team members maintaining those sets have done so from the beginning. If in all those years no GRR or other traveler needing those points has asked for their addition, ISTM their addition is a low priority.
-
In my PA work, I have automatically added points at any crossroad that is a part of Pittsburgh's belt system. While this is definitely low priority, it seems similar in nature to me.
-
The route sets in those states are among the oldest in the CHM/TM system. The team members maintaining those sets have done so from the beginning. If in all those years no GRR or other traveler needing those points has asked for their addition, ISTM their addition is a low priority.
There's so much hot garbage I found in those states when looking at the GRR (just one minor example (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=neroute2&r=ia.us061&lat=40.672892&lon=-91.263492&zoom=15)). But if this is the sort of thing I can expect when reporting issues, it's not worth my while.
-
There's so much hot garbage I found in those states when looking at the GRR (just one minor example (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=neroute2&r=ia.us061&lat=40.672892&lon=-91.263492&zoom=15)). But if this is the sort of thing I can expect when reporting issues, it's not worth my while.
We appreciate reporting of any hot garbage - i.e. anything that is clearly and objectively "wrong" - so that it can be addressed.
That said, there are established guidelines (http://yakra.teresco.org/manual/manual_includepts.html) as to where waypoints are needed. It's perfectly fine to suggest that waypoints outside of these guidelines be added if there is some reasonable argument to be made in favor of doing so, but since their inclusion isn't explicitly required it's not unreasonable for such suggestions to see some discussion as to their merit.
Regarding the GRR intersection points specifically, I think it's perfectly reasonable to add them. Whether or not the GRR itself ultimately ends up being mapped, a user may still have use for them.
As for this counterargument to that...
The route sets in those states are among the oldest in the CHM/TM system. The team members maintaining those sets have done so from the beginning. If in all those years no GRR or other traveler needing those points has asked for their addition, ISTM their addition is a low priority.
I'm going to point out that just because no one has explicitly requested these points doesn't mean no one would benefit from their addition. Especially in the CHM days, it was well established that only contributors were entitled to make requests for specific points. Anyone else requesting one would usually have their request denied due to a desire to keep the number of points down on account of server resource constraints.
Hell, even as a contributor now, there are numerous places in my travels where I left a route (or turned around) at a location that isn't a waypoint and I typically just use the nearest one rather than bothering someone to add a point at an otherwise insignificant place just for my sake.
And this is to say nothing of the users who never come on to the forum at all and may not even be aware that requesting a point is a thing they can do.
We know that traveling the Great River Road is a thing some number of people have done and/or have plans to do, and without exhaustively surveying our userbase we can't assert that this doesn't matter to anyone.
...all that said, if the maintainers of the affected states have other things they'd rather prioritize over this (such as addressing the aforementioned hot garbage), that's also understandable.
-
If neroute2 wants to work on GRR waypoints, help out reviewing Arkansas & Louisiana.
-
If neroute2 wants to work on GRR waypoints, help out reviewing Arkansas & Louisiana.
He's working on Arkansas already.
-
Given that the Great River Road is a signed tourist route that promotes itself to leisure travellers, I think it's reasonable to add these points.
-
If neroute2 wants to work on GRR waypoints, help out reviewing Arkansas & Louisiana.
He's working on Arkansas already.
I'm almost done with Arkansas (did all the state numbered routes, now checking the U.S. Routes) and can do Louisiana next, but it's already marked as being reviewed by cl94. But I see he's only done a bit of LA 1.
-
I'd be in favor of getting these kinds of points in as the maintainers of each state are willing and able to do so.
-
If neroute2 wants to work on GRR waypoints, help out reviewing Arkansas & Louisiana.
He's working on Arkansas already.
I'm almost done with Arkansas (did all the state numbered routes, now checking the U.S. Routes) and can do Louisiana next, but it's already marked as being reviewed by cl94. But I see he's only done a bit of LA 1.
Have at Louisiana. I haven't had much time to.
-
Don't forget the states east of the river and south of Illinois, that also have GRR segments.
-
Don't forget the states east of the river and south of Illinois, that also have GRR segments.
Kentucky and Mississippi need no points. Tennessee needed one which was added with no trouble.
-
There's so much hot garbage I found in those states when looking at the GRR (just one minor example (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=neroute2&r=ia.us061&lat=40.672892&lon=-91.263492&zoom=15)).
That looks strange for how roads are now, but for travelers who went on US61 before the bypass was built they left the current highway at the * points around Fort Madison. Keeping up with new road construction on routes that you have not been near for years, it can be quite helpful. Depending on the construction changes and the maintainer, some areas end up with * points like this where the former route path separates from the current roadway or right of way, while others would just say the interchange was close enough. The pickier traveler would prefer having the * point, as it is a more accurate map of their travels.
-
I agree with Duke87, mapcat and Jim.
Though IMO I'd also call it a low priority to put the specific onus on the contributors to add these points.
Low priority, but still a useful & good idea.
Re IA US61:
https://historicaerials.com/location/40.67196420482975/-91.26652836799623/2009/16
-
I could have sworn that point didn't have an asterisk a week ago.
-
I could have sworn that point didn't have an asterisk a week ago.
It didn't.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blame/master/hwy_data/IA/usaus/ia.us061.wpt#L20
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/ae439881a81ab15cc3e6d7de0fbde1609fe60f99#diff-ddc0cfa6a58567fa6261f6283d529d14
The really anal part of me wants to point out that it shoulda been left in place, better marking the original alignment's split, but hey, whatevs. Water under the overpass.
-
Last thread in the "unsolved" space with latest post from the last decade....
Is still something open? If so, is anyone willing to work on that?
-
I think this fits better under "Other Discussion", and I would add the usasf topic to that as well.