Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Topic started by: si404 on January 02, 2016, 11:42:22 am

Title: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on January 02, 2016, 11:42:22 am
canab Alberta Provincial Highways 1-216
canabs Alberta Primary Provincial Highways 500-986 (tier 5) reviewer: julmac
canbc British Columbia Provincial Highways
canmb Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
canmbs Manitoba Provincial Roads (tier 5) reviewer: michih
canmbw Winnipeg City Routes (tier 5) reviewer: michih
cannl Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Highways reviewer: yakra
cannb New Brunswick Arterial Highways (tier 1)
cannb New Brunswick Collector Highways
cannbl New Brunswick Local Highways (tier 5)
cannst Nova Scotia Trunk Routes
cannsc Nova Scotia Collector Routes (tier 5)
cannss Nova Scotia Scenic Travelways (tier 5) reviewer: t.b.d.
cannt Northwest Territorial Highways
cannu Nuavuat Territorial Highways (no system)
canon Ontario King's Highways
canpe Prince Edward Island Provincial Highways
canqc Quebec Provincial Highways reviewer: si404
cansk Saskatchewan Provincial Highways reviewer: julmac
canyt Yukon Territorial Highways

usaak Alaska State Highways
usaal Alabama State Highways reviewer: t.b.d.
usaar Arkansas State Highways reviewer: t.b.d.
usaas American Samoa Territorial Highways reviewer: t.b.d.
usaaz Arizona State Highways
usaca California State Highways reviewer: t.b.d.
usaco Colorado State Highways
usact Connecticut State Highways
usadc District of Columbia District Highways
usade Delaware State Highways
usafl Florida State Highways reviewer: neroute2
usaga Georgia State Highways reviewer: ntallyn
usagu Guam Territorial Highways
usahi Hawaii State Highways
usaia Iowa State Highways
usaid Idaho State Highways
usail Illinois State Highways
usain Indiana State Highways
usaks Kansas State Highways
usaky Kentucky State Highways
usala Louisiana State Highways reviewer: cl94
usama Massachusetts State Highways
usamd Maryland State Highways
usame Maine State Highways
usami Michigan State Highways
usamn Minnesota State Highways
usamo Missouri State Highways
usamp Northern Mariana Islands Territorial Highways
usams Mississippi State Highways
usamt Montana Primary State Highways
usamts Montana Secondary State Highways (tier 5)
usanc North Carolina State Highways
usand North Dakota State Highways
usane Nebraska State Highways
usanes Nebraska State Links and Spurs
usanv Nevada State Highways
usanh New Hampshire State Highways
usanj New Jersey State Highways
usanm New Mexico State Highways
usany New York State Highways
usanyp New York Parkways reviewer: t.b.d.
usaoh Ohio State Highways
usaok Oklahoma State Highways
usaor Oregon State Highways
usapa Pennsylvania State Highways
usapr Puerto Rico Territorial Highways reviewer: t.b.d.
usari Rhode Island State Highways
usasd South Dakota State Highways
usasc South Carolina State Highways reviewer: Markkos1992
usatn Tennessee State Highways
usatx Texas State Highways
usatxl Texas State Highway Loops
usatxs Texas State Highway Spurs
usatxre Texas Recreation Roads (tier 5) reviewer: t.b.d.
usaut Utah State Highways
usava Virginia State Highways
usavi US Virgin Islands Territorial Highways
usavt Vermont State Highways
usawa Washington State Highways
usawi Wisconsin State Highways
usawv West Virginia State Highways
usawy Wyoming State Highways

usanp United States Select National Park Highways
usaush United States Historic US Routes reviewer: t.b.d.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on January 02, 2016, 01:37:33 pm
I have canmb well underway, but nothing's added to the DB as in-dev yet.

Mike started usala1 back in the day. It's commented out of systems.csv now due to a missing _con.csv file.
I don't see any data in TM/master (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/tree/master/hwy_data/LA), but it's included in chm_final (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/tree/master/chm_final/usala1).
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on January 02, 2016, 02:02:51 pm
Mike started usala1 back in the day. It's commented out of systems.csv now due to a missing _con.csv file.
I don't see any data in TM/master (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/tree/master/hwy_data/LA), but it's included in chm_final (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/tree/master/chm_final/usala1).
I left it out deliberately, for some reason, IIRC. Probably as I didn't check the files to see that the .csv only had the first 50 routes, which does match the .wpt files made.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on January 02, 2016, 05:12:15 pm
I have canmb well underway, but nothing's added to the DB as in-dev yet.

Just the provincial trunk highways (<200), or also the provincial roads (200-600s)? PTHs are primary and the most important, but I've clinched some of the more remote PRs and hope some year to be able to map them too.

Not on Si's list are some in-dev multi-region systems like USANP.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on January 02, 2016, 05:27:11 pm
Not on Si's list are some in-dev multi-region systems like USANP.
They are a slightly different thing, at the same tier.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on January 02, 2016, 09:16:00 pm
Just the provincial trunk highways (<200), or also the provincial roads (200-600s)? PTHs are primary and the most important, but I've clinched some of the more remote PRs and hope some year to be able to map them too.
Just the PTHs, <200. (Is PTH the proper system name that I should use?) Provincial Roads 200-699 are in the longer range plans as a separate system; no work has been done there yet.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on January 02, 2016, 10:20:33 pm
Just the provincial trunk highways (<200), or also the provincial roads (200-600s)? PTHs are primary and the most important, but I've clinched some of the more remote PRs and hope some year to be able to map them too.
Just the PTHs, <200. (Is PTH the proper system name that I should use?)

Maybe "canmbpth" and later "canmbpr" for the system codes, spell out the abbreviations elsewhere?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on January 02, 2016, 11:48:58 pm
Maybe "canmbpth" and later "canmbpr" for the system codes, spell out the abbreviations elsewhere?
I'd prefer keeping the system codes as short as we can. To date nothing has used more than six characters.
I'm leaning toward keeping canmb & canmbs as originally proposed by Tim.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Bickendan on January 18, 2016, 11:18:39 pm
I suppose you can add
usaorh Oregon Internal Highways (where not synced with usaor)
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on January 18, 2016, 11:42:13 pm
I suppose you can add
usaorh Oregon Internal Highways (where not synced with usaor)
Are these signed?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on January 19, 2016, 05:50:51 am
I suppose you can add
usaorh Oregon Internal Highways (where not synced with usaor)

What are "internal highways" not already in the numbered-and-posted state highway system?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Jim on January 19, 2016, 05:44:57 pm
I suppose you can add
usaorh Oregon Internal Highways (where not synced with usaor)

I wonder if these would be on the same level as New York's reference routes.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Bickendan on January 20, 2016, 06:11:01 pm
I suppose you can add
usaorh Oregon Internal Highways (where not synced with usaor)

What are "internal highways" not already in the numbered-and-posted state highway system?
Best way to describe them are as Jim noted: reference numbers.
Most are signed 1-to-1 with their visible routes since ODOT's decision to sign them in 2002 so are wholly redundant (ORH 1 = I-5, ORH 69 = OR 569), others don't follow their given route the entire time (ORH 26 = US 26 from OR 99W to OR 35; OR 35 from US 26 to US 30). It's these latter highways I'm interested in, and as far as field signage goes, it's via the bridge inventory signs.
(http://www.oregonhighways.us/image_files/Pictures/hwy-102_bridge_marker.jpg)
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on January 21, 2016, 08:26:06 pm
cannf discussion split. (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=30.0)
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on February 04, 2016, 09:39:20 am

I've just drafted a BC provincial road system, meaning that this is the state of play map currently.
(green = active, yellow = preview, pink = devel, red = nothing, stripes are explained below)(http://s19.postimg.org/w8rwj6rdu/image.jpg)


We really don't seem to care much about the South, do we? ;P


Re: stripes
- MB, SK, QC, NL: canspf has very few provincial highways from these provinces in there, and is a devel system
- MT: secondary road system a devel system
- LA: devel system for first 500 state highways, only has first 50 (colors ought to be reversed as most routes aren't drafted)
- KY: 1-999 active, 1000-1499 preview, 1500-1999 devel, 2000+ not started
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: froggie on February 05, 2016, 04:12:28 pm
I'd like to get the Alabama and Mississippi systems going at some point since those are my states, but given that the semester is in full swing, it'll be end of May at the earliest.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on March 11, 2016, 08:23:26 am
US89 Temp reminded me:

Navajo Routes - do we make a system for them? What about other similar systems of roads?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on March 11, 2016, 09:31:32 am
Uh, no.

My impression is that most of the tribal routes are unpaved roads (N-20 was paved only when it was pressed into service as Temp US 89), serving mainly local travel. US and state routes cross the Navajo and other reservations, to handle regional/long-distance travel. So I'd give this no higher priority than county routes (which is to say, not for many years at the earliest).
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapmikey on March 12, 2016, 02:20:35 pm
I'd like to get the Alabama and Mississippi systems going at some point since those are my states, but given that the semester is in full swing, it'll be end of May at the earliest.

I could start one or both of these and turn them over when you are ready (i kinda enjoy putting together these sets) in exchange for a SC peer review...?

Mike
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: the_spui_ninja on March 31, 2016, 01:42:40 pm
Uh, no.

My impression is that most of the tribal routes are unpaved roads (N-20 was paved only when it was pressed into service as Temp US 89), serving mainly local travel. US and state routes cross the Navajo and other reservations, to handle regional/long-distance travel. So I'd give this no higher priority than county routes (which is to say, not for many years at the earliest).
Probably even lower, as it's a lot harder to dig up info on the BIA routes than county routes.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: vdeane on April 03, 2016, 11:16:07 am
Are US county routes even on the todo list?  If so, it looks like the bar for "clinching" NY is going to be a moving target for a very long time (and go up by several orders of magnitude).
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Jim on April 03, 2016, 12:19:02 pm
Are US county routes even on the todo list?  If so, it looks like the bar for "clinching" NY is going to be a moving target for a very long time (and go up by several orders of magnitude).

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't go to that level of highways in the main Travel Mapping project.  That said, I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to create the files and have an alternate version of the site (everything's out there on GitHub).  I have toyed with the idea of having even small areas (such as cites where I've lived or worked) plotted out to the level of city streets as an example I could use for my related academic projects.  But I'd never see those as data sets we'd want in the primary project.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on April 03, 2016, 01:58:41 pm
County Roads seems rather excessive, absolutely. As do BIA routes.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Jim on April 11, 2016, 09:04:40 am
Are US county routes even on the todo list?  If so, it looks like the bar for "clinching" NY is going to be a moving target for a very long time (and go up by several orders of magnitude).

Related to this, one place we could expand in NY is to include the reference routes.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of or against doing this, but at the least, I believe they're unambiguous (unlike the truck routes we already are attempting to include).  Most are relatively short so could be plotted fairly easily.  It looks like there are a few hundred of them listed in the NYSDOT Traffic Data Report.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: vdeane on April 11, 2016, 11:25:04 am
Related to this, one place we could expand in NY is to include the reference routes.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of or against doing this, but at the least, I believe they're unambiguous (unlike the truck routes we already are attempting to include).  Most are relatively short so could be plotted fairly easily.  It looks like there are a few hundred of them listed in the NYSDOT Traffic Data Report.
Indeed, especially since at least some other state-level places are considering including secondaries (notably Alberta), which is what the reference routes essentially are, albeit unsigned.  The one issue is that I haven't heard anything about adding unsigned state/US routes.  There's also the interesting case of the two lane wyes (which get inventoried with a reference route number on one branch).

I believe there's also the proposed NY Parkways system.  We probably wouldn't want to do both, as I'm pretty sure all the ones the state considers itself as having interest in have reference route numbers (though that does have some interesting cases - the Belt is multiple reference route numbers, while the Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow share one).
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on April 11, 2016, 01:06:18 pm
I'm against including the NY reference routes. The big reason is because they're unsigned (little green reference markers notwithstanding). There's also the parkway ugliness vdeane mentioned.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on April 11, 2016, 01:35:35 pm
I agree with yakra. The route numbers on NY reference markers are smaller than on the small number plates under milemarkers in Hawaii, or the route numbers on postmiles or callbox signs in California. We excluded Hawaii routes signed only with number plates, and in California I'm treating postmiles and callbox signs similarly (see my note in the usaca thread on removing CA 259 from that system).

I'm not opposed to narrow exceptions to our normal exclusion of routes without conventional route markers. But the potentially hundreds of additional routes added with a NY reference routes system would not be a narrow exception.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Bickendan on April 12, 2016, 06:44:30 pm
OTOH, I am thinking about adding Oregon's named highways (internal highway numbers vs signed route numbers), but it's also something I'm not especially worried about.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on April 13, 2016, 12:22:17 am
I'm not opposed to narrow exceptions to our normal exclusion of routes without conventional route markers.
I'd be hesitant to allow that. I fear it opening up a Pandora's Box of "You did this; why don't you do this?"
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapcat on April 13, 2016, 06:07:22 pm
I'd be hesitant to allow that. I fear it opening up a Pandora's Box of "You did this; why don't you do this?"
+1. Case in point: US33 Truck (Goshen, IN) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?u=mapcat&r=in.us033trkgos), which has no conventional route markers (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5825649,-85.8344281,3a,50.9y,256.7h,96.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDXWVpPrXZea1I6aXJCKNGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and doesn't belong in the usausb set IMO.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on April 13, 2016, 07:12:07 pm
I'd be hesitant to allow that. I fear it opening up a Pandora's Box of "You did this; why don't you do this?"
+1. Case in point: US33 Truck (Goshen, IN) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?u=mapcat&r=in.us033trkgos), which has no conventional route markers (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5825649,-85.8344281,3a,50.9y,256.7h,96.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDXWVpPrXZea1I6aXJCKNGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and doesn't belong in the usausb set IMO.

OTOH, there's the Cordova segment of AK 10. Unsigned, because whenever the DOT posted route markers, they quickly disappeared (apparently at the hands of locals intensely hostile to plans to connect Cordova to the rest of AK 10).
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapcat on May 31, 2016, 05:29:16 pm
Now that all the usaky routes have been drafted and are in peer-review, I'd enjoy working on another set. From the discussion below, it seems that froggie intends to get started on usaal and usams this summer, and theFXexpert has already done much of usaga. What plans are there for usaar and usatn? As far as I can tell, AR & TN maintainers yakra & rickmastfan67 aren't currently developing these.

If neither of those are available, which currently non-existent system is most needed? canqc? Or something in another continent?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on June 01, 2016, 11:41:55 am
I have an Operation Arkansas Cleanup (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=8) in progress, fairly very low priority but ongoing nonetheless. This should probably be finished before work on USAAR begins. It's mostly checking to make sure point labels are copacetic, and whatever else I notice that needs attention along the way.
I've added a guide to my color code scheme (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=62.msg1123#msg1123) to help make sense out of the posts in that thread & similar ones.
That said, I'd probably be grateful to have the state taken off my hands.

Multiplexes:
I never did an Operation Multiplex for Arkansas, and it's possible that there are broken I/US concurrencies, as in Oklahoma ("Point drift", where coords along the multiplexes are off by the tiniest amount). However, I did look at one random segment of I-40 / US70, and that was fine. So it could be that things are okay, my small unscientific sample size notwithstanding. Maybe Tim straightened out all the multiplexes when AR was one of his states back in the CHM days.

A few notes:
• I'd started putting together a list of routes (county-by-county) by looking over the county maps, and did 23/76 counties. No real intent to start developing them though. I can provide the list if it'd help out.
• Lots of disconnected segments of the same route number, that may or may not be related. So, lots of City/Abbrevs will be needed. There could be some signed multiplexes along I/US (or other state) routes. There could be unsigned/implied multiplexes. I anticipate headaches. Probably, we won't even know how many exactly there are, which counties connect to which others, and which is the "primary" segment of each that doesn't a City/Abbrev, until all the work is drafted. I was envisioning just adding a City/Abbrev to all routes with >1 segment while work was in progress, then finding the longest segment of each and dropping the City/Abbrev.
• There are many, MANY, AR980s, and they all seem to serve airports. I've found 11 so far, and there are bound to be many others. I haven't checked on whether these are signed or not. I think, if they DO all serve airports (which looks likely), it might be neato to use the airport codes for the Abbrevs, though that's never been an official/approved convention. Just a thought.
• AR likes its US hwy spurs. I've found a few more of them (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=8.msg826#msg826) not in the HB, and likely more will be uncovered as the state routes are put together. US 62 Spur (Pyatt) is signed. US 65 Spur (Eudora) looks like it's not. I haven't checked out US 63 Spur (Moro Bay State Park).
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on June 01, 2016, 12:05:23 pm
usala is basically frozen and barely started. mwasleski is the maintainer of Lousiana.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on June 09, 2016, 01:23:46 pm
updated map

(http://s33.postimg.org/5a4szk03x/image.png)

(only dealing with highest level systems, ie not counting secondary highway systems in these tallies)
Active systems in 45.5 of 68 regions (67%): NB, NS, NT, ON, PE, YT, AZ, CT, DC, DE, GU, HI, IA, ID, IL, KS, KY (half), MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MP, MT, NC, ND, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SD, TX, UT, VI, VT, WA, WI, WV
Preview systems in 8.5 of 68 regions (12.5%): AB, BC, AK, CO, IN, KY (half), SC, VA, WY
Devel systems in 5.1 of 68 regions (7.5%): MB, AS, CA, FL, GA, LA (a small part)
No systems in 8.9 of 68 regions (13%): NL, QC, SK, AL, AR, LA (most), MS, PR, TN

Over two thirds of the way there!
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on February 01, 2017, 08:35:47 am
update
(https://s29.postimg.org/42bcvcqmf/image.png)

Ignoring any secondary systems and what not:
Active systems in 49 of 68 regions (72%): AB, AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, GU, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MP, MT, NB, NC, ND, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NS, NT, NY, OH, OK, ON, OR, PA, PE, RI, SD, TX, UT, VI, VT, WA, WI, WV, YT
Preview systems in 8 of 68 regions (12%): AK, BC, GA, MB, SC, TN, VA, WY
Devel systems in 4.1 of 68 regions (6%): AS, CA, FL, LA (a small part), NL
No systems in 6.9 of 68 regions (10%): AL, AR, LA (most), MS, PR, QC, SK

We're almost three fourths of the way there (2 more systems activated and we will be)!
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: 7/8 on May 06, 2017, 12:55:08 pm
Should Ontario's secondary (500's and 600's) and tertiary (800's) highways be added to the OP? I'm guessing these will be included separately from the King's Highway system. I'm hoping these will eventually be added, though I know it will be a while before that happens.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Duke87 on May 10, 2017, 08:45:40 pm
Should Ontario's secondary (500's and 600's) and tertiary (800's) highways be added to the OP? I'm guessing these will be included separately from the King's Highway system. I'm hoping these will eventually be added, though I know it will be a while before that happens.

There is precedent for making a system of secondary routes (Montana), so I see no reason why not for those - but yes, it would be a separate system.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on May 30, 2017, 07:07:44 am
Active systems in 51 of 68 regions (75%): AB, AZ, BC, CO, CT, DC, DE, GU, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MP, MT, NB, NC, ND, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NS, NT, NY, OH, OK, ON, OR, PA, PE, RI, SD, TX, UT, VI, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY, YT
Preview systems in 10 of 68 regions (15%): AK, CA, GA, MB, NL, PR, QC, SC, TN, VA
Devel systems in 2.1 of 68 regions (3%): AS, FL, LA (a small part)
No systems in 4.9 of 68 regions (7%): AL, AR, LA (most), MS, SK
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: JJBers on June 08, 2017, 07:20:22 pm
Active systems in 51 of 68 regions (75%): AB, AZ, BC, CO, CT, DC, DE, GU, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MP, MT, NB, NC, ND, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NS, NT, NY, OH, OK, ON, OR, PA, PE, RI, SD, TX, UT, VI, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY, YT
Preview systems in 10 of 68 regions (15%): AK, CA, GA, MB, NL, PR, QC, SC, TN, VA
Devel systems in 2.1 of 68 regions (3%): AS, FL, LA (a small part)
No systems in 4.9 of 68 regions (7%): AL, AR, LA (most), MS, SK
Now active in VA...
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 25, 2017, 12:28:47 am
are there plans to add in the 500 series county routes in New Jersey? they use a system that keeps the same number across county lines unlike the 600 and 700 routes which are unique only in their respective county
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapcat on July 25, 2017, 11:19:31 am
are there plans to add in the 500 series county routes in New Jersey? they use a system that keeps the same number across county lines unlike the 600 and 700 routes which are unique only in their respective county
Maybe in the distant future, but many of us fear opening up a can of worms by including any system designated "county". I'd personally be against it even though I've got mileage on many of them.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: voyager105 on July 25, 2017, 09:38:58 pm
There are a select few signed county routes in West Virginia that act mostly like state routes, the best examples being CR 21 (Old US 21) and CR 857 in Morgantown. There are probably 7-8 like these in the state, my question is do these have a possibility of getting added sometime?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapcat on July 25, 2017, 10:29:06 pm
Even less so than the ones in New Jersey, most likely. They are county routes, right? Not state secondary? Since the fractional routes are also county routes (IIRC), it would be hard to justify counting some and not all.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: voyager105 on July 25, 2017, 10:36:42 pm
Even less so than the ones in New Jersey, most likely. They are county routes, right? Not state secondary? Since the fractional routes are also county routes (IIRC), it would be hard to justify counting some and not all.
Right, they are county routes, but a few in WV might as well be state routes for all intents and purposes. CR 21 for example runs through four different counties while keeping the same number, while 857 runs concurrent with US 119 at one part. Also, both of those plus a few others, are signed, which very rarely happens with county routes. There are other roads like 151 and 707 which get unusually high numbers for county routes and also get signed like a state route.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapcat on July 25, 2017, 11:02:01 pm
Well it's not up to me (this is one of rickmastfan67's states) but neither "might as well be state routes for all intents and purposes" nor the presence of signs that are unlike state route signs seems like a convincing argument. Consider how difficult it would be to arrive at a definitive list. We're getting away from systems made up of "select" routes.

Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: voyager105 on July 25, 2017, 11:29:46 pm
That's fine. I thought they seemed important enough to at least possibly included with the state highways system but whatever works the best.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on July 26, 2017, 12:48:06 pm
We're getting away from systems made up of "select" routes.

As we already have, for instance: http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?sys=cansph

Is there anything special to justify that these routes are in HB?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapcat on July 26, 2017, 01:00:24 pm
We're getting away from systems made up of "select" routes.

As we already have, for instance: http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?sys=cansph

Is there anything special to justify that these routes are in HB?
Pretty sure it began as an idea that started in CHM and never went anywhere. The list included lots of routes in other provinces previously, before sets were introduced in each of them. Saskatchewan is the only one left without its own set.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on July 26, 2017, 01:05:51 pm
Pretty sure it began as an idea that started in CHM and never went anywhere. The list included lots of routes in other provinces previously, before sets were introduced in each of them. Saskatchewan is the only one left without its own set.

Should we remove the system or extend the idea to other regions?

There are only 7 routes left and the system is in development...
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on July 26, 2017, 03:37:58 pm
Pretty sure it began as an idea that started in CHM and never went anywhere. The list included lots of routes in other provinces previously, before sets were introduced in each of them. Saskatchewan is the only one left without its own set.

Should we remove the system or extend the idea to other regions?

There are only 7 routes left and the system is in development...

The SK routes can be moved into an in-dev cansk system, to preserve the routes in the HB (some of which have received spot updates) for whoever decides to further develop the system. Indeed, could this be done by simply renaming cansph to cansk?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on July 26, 2017, 03:49:06 pm
The SK routes can be moved into an in-dev cansk system, to preserve the routes in the HB (some of which have received spot updates) for whoever decides to further develop the system. Indeed, could this be done by simply renaming cansph to cansk?

Sure, but you have to rename the csv files including their content, the wpt file folder and systems.csv. I could do it if you are too busy...
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on July 27, 2017, 02:50:22 pm
As we already have, for instance: http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?sys=cansph

Is there anything special to justify that these routes are in HB?
CHM's original criterion for inclusion in cansph was that these were on the Canadian equivalent of the National Highway System, IIRC. Can't remember where we got that info from, though.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on July 27, 2017, 03:15:58 pm
^^ What does it mean? And what's your idea to do with it?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on July 29, 2017, 02:02:13 am
^^ What does it mean? And what's your idea to do with it?
Not sure what exactly you mean, or if this was in reply to my post.
I'm on board with converting cansph over to an in-dev cansk system.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on July 29, 2017, 03:02:49 am
I'm on board with converting cansph over to an in-dev cansk system.

That's what I wanna know :)

@oscar: Will you do it?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on July 29, 2017, 11:10:18 am
I'm on board with converting cansph over to an in-dev cansk system.

That's what I wanna know :)

@oscar: Will you do it?

I can take care of it before I fly back to California next week, once I've finished off a bunch of usaca updates in progress.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: dave1693 on September 12, 2017, 11:23:40 pm
are there plans to add in the 500 series county routes in New Jersey? they use a system that keeps the same number across county lines unlike the 600 and 700 routes which are unique only in their respective county
Maybe in the distant future, but many of us fear opening up a can of worms by including any system designated "county". I'd personally be against it even though I've got mileage on many of them.
I see both sides of the issue, though I'd add quite a bit of mileage were this system to be added. Each county maintains the routes, but NJDOT is nominally responsible for assigning the route numbers. (I say nominally because some NJ counties may disagree with NJDOT how to sign sign routes in the field, and the county puts up the signs.)

As to the can of worms: I think we reached a consensus that Virginia secondary roads would NOT get done even though the state maintains them, thanks to massive duplication of secondary route numbers. (Hypothetically, every county can have a route with the same SR number with no two so-numbered roads ever touching.) That's kind of the inverse of the NJ 500-series issue. Perhaps a more relevant question might be: are the "Winnipeg City Routes" (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) (canmbw) actually maintained by the province, or by the city? I don't know, but perhaps someone on the forum does, and the answer could be relevant here.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapmikey on September 13, 2017, 07:14:17 am
For Virginia and South Carolina, the only secondary routes that could be worth doing are ones that are former state highways.  Otherwise it would be 30,000 miles of secondary routes in each state that not many people will ever have an opportunity to drive versus the huge amount of work it would take to get them into TM (although it would give me personally thousands more miles  ;))

Virginia actually has two distinct non-duplicative numbering systems that would be equally obscure for people actually driving them: Frontage roads (technically these are in the primary system) and school bus routes.  I would not think these are worth doing either.

North Carolina could be done with the 10xx routes only (these are "important" secondary routes that are often either former primary routes or routes most likely to be promoted to a primary route), which have anywhere from 1 to several designations per county.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on September 13, 2017, 11:40:35 am
I'm on board with converting cansph over to an in-dev cansk system.

That's what I wanna know :)

@oscar: Will you do it?

I can take care of it before I fly back to California next week, once I've finished off a bunch of usaca updates in progress.

Actually, it never got done before I resumed my road trip out West. Now I'm back home, recovering from eye surgery. While much of my vision is back, it won't be 100% until late October at the earliest. I don't consider the extermination of cansph a high priority, it can wait.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on September 14, 2017, 03:47:20 pm
^^ We already talked longer than the change takes... Done: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1609/commits/00923fd6dc8bcb8a6db78612838c75a72fc4195a
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on September 17, 2017, 02:49:57 pm
Perhaps a more relevant question might be: are the "Winnipeg City Routes" (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) (canmbw) actually maintained by the province, or by the city? I don't know, but perhaps someone on the forum does, and the answer could be relevant here.
Maintained by the city I believe.
The Winnipeg Routes are a unique case, a one-off; they're the only such numbered/signed city system in Manitoba; it's highly unlikely that there will ever be another in the future. As such, there won't be any confusion with any other potential city systems, or a need the differentiate multiple such systems within Manitoba.
Some quotes from the canbmw thread:
Jim: "These seem to be an unusual case where they are well-signed and seem to take the place, within the Perimeter Highway, of what might normally be expected to be part of the provincial system."
mapcat: "I agree that they're a special case, and not analogous to USA county routes, or other smaller district systems we don't include."
I agree with this assessment. (Of course, having drafted the system. :) ) I'll note that not only are many of them extensions of canmb/canmbs routes from outside the Perimeter Highway, but many are themselves former Provincial highway alignments.
The canmbw thread blew up a bit too fast, and I've just left it alone for a while, but some day I'd like to revisit it, hash out a few of the topics therein as needed (maybe even with a topic split), and move canmbw toward activation again. But it's a low priority right now.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on December 16, 2017, 06:26:51 am
With usaak nearing activation, and usaca also well along, I'd like to lay claim to cansk.

See the separate thread I've created (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2320.msg8498#msg8498), with more details and notes (including some previously in this post).
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Wadsteckel on April 14, 2018, 10:56:28 am
Does anyone have any plans to start work on the state highways for Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and/or Louisiana?  I would like to help, but my career change from IT support to OTR truck driver has me more in line with driving these roads instead of building the database for them.  :-/

Regards,
-Ed S
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapcat on April 14, 2018, 12:38:06 pm
Froggie is working on usams and planning to work on usaal. I'm working on usaar. The person who started usala has been quiet since the move from CHM to TM, and so it's unclear what's happening with that set. Someone else will probably pick it up eventually.

Your assistance identifying errors and omissions in any of the systems in preview is always welcome.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Wadsteckel on May 11, 2018, 03:30:59 pm
Thanks, Mapcat. I'll keep trying to check in here and post my two cents, but I've seen most times that what we may see on the road isn't always up to date with what the state says is official. 

-Ed S
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Jim on August 30, 2019, 09:30:52 am
but there's no updates entry for it

Because it's just a preview but not an active system?

Another example of why we need to move our preview systems forward to active status before developing more new systems.  With 100 systems in preview and available for mapping, that's a whole lot of users mapping travels in a whole lot of places with no promise of updates entries.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapcat on August 30, 2019, 08:00:18 pm
but there's no updates entry for it

Because it's just a preview but not an active system?
Oh right...yet still, there's usually discussion. It seems unusual that the city would have changed the routing of a highway purported to represent the historic path of a decommissioned route.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on August 31, 2019, 02:49:51 am
Oh right...yet still, there's usually discussion.

As a standard user I would be p*** off when things change every now and then without notification but I don't think that we need to discuss everything on the forum.  Our "notification channel" is updates.php (http://travelmapping.net/devel/updates.php). If the responsible highway data manager is not sure about the situation and needs to ask for other opinions*, the forum is the right place. But I don't think that John Doe must follow the forum discussion.

I'm with Jim that we should try to keep the preview state period as short as possible (< 12 months ?) to avoid bothering users with "silent changes".

*I guess that Highway63 had no doubts about the Springfield situation!?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on August 31, 2019, 09:23:26 am
Oh right...yet still, there's usually discussion.

As a standard user I would be p*** off when things change every now and then without notification but I don't think that we need to discuss everything on the forum.  Our "notification channel" is updates.php (http://travelmapping.net/devel/updates.php). If the responsible highway data manager is not sure about the situation and needs to ask for other opinions*, the forum is the right place. But I don't think that John Doe must follow the forum discussion.

I'm with Jim that we should try to keep the preview state period as short as possible (< 12 months ?) to avoid bothering users with "silent changes".

Perhaps we should also change our policy about waypoint label changes while a system is in preview. Our current policy is not to keep and hide labels in use when we relabel a preview route waypoint, unless perhaps the system is about to go active.

I'm planning on bulk changes in California, to change any CH____ waypoint labels (back) to CR___ labels, for consistency with how we handle intersections with signed county routes in other jurisdictions. In-use CH___ labels in active routes would go to CR____ +CH____. We could do same for the preview usaca routes (and usaush routes in California, though most of their CR___ labels were never changed over to CH___, and the one I know about that was changed isn't in use).

More significant changes, such as preview route relocations and splits, could go into the Updates table. These could include major changes under discussion for cansk in Saskatoon and Regina, which are under discussion on the forum, but when implemented could use additional notice to users through the Updates table. I expect cansk to be activated by November anyway (after all the changes associated with the upcoming completion of the Regina Bypass), so the Saskatchewan changes would not be a major change in what goes into the Updates table.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on August 31, 2019, 10:52:34 am
What a great idea! We could use alt labels for in-use wp labels for preview systems and also report preview system update entries on the updates table*. I think that would be a very good improvement! And we can do it without changing the policy. We just had to bring the system to active status first. Because that would be the only difference left between preview and active systems.
Why don't we just activate those systems? Sorry, but that's the only policy I'd really change.

*Update entries are more important to me than avoid breaking user list files
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Duke87 on August 31, 2019, 12:14:16 pm
I am opposed to beginning to treat preview systems like active systems by documenting changes in updates and whatnot. This effectively eliminates the distinction between the two, and at that point why even have preview and active as separate statuses?


That said I do agree about one thing here - preview was intended to be a temporary status, a way of saying "this is almost ready for primetime, we just need to get everything checked out and polished up and then it'll be active". What has happened instead with usaush is that with no single authoritative data source for it available, it has been languishing in limbo, routinely getting adjustments made as new information is found but never brought to a state of being "done" because there is no measuring stick by which to declare it done.

In this regard, the usaush system is effectively another example of "stupid truck routes".

Ergo, as I see it, we have two realistic options here:
- We need to realize that, without an authoritative data source, this system is lacking in officiality and go ahead and 86 it. Then it's no longer a problem.
- We need to realize that, without an authoritative data source, this system is never going to meet the usual threshold of being ready, and go ahead and promote it to active status. Then any further changes will get noted in updates and any waypoint relabelings will have their old labels preserved if in use, and we don't need to redefine anything about how preview systems are handled.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: osu-lsu on August 31, 2019, 03:39:49 pm
Just because they are active doesn't mean they can't and won't be updated (Ex: my occasional nagging at my neighbor concerning Ohio route additions and deletions)
Some preview systems aren't going to get that full of a review. Anyone here want to volunteer to field check all of Louisiana's routes?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: froggie on September 02, 2019, 08:12:52 am
I think the last few posts bring up a misbalance we've had over the past couple years, which IIRC Jim mentioned something in another thread.  In the zeal to get new systems online (especially in Europe), we've let peer review and activation of already-built systems languish.  For some specific examples, Alabama state routes have sat for almost a year, Quebec provincial routes for 2 years, Georgia state routes for 2.5 years, and South Carolina state routes is over 3.5 years now.

I'd argue we need a temporary moratorium on creating new systems until we can clean out the preview backlog.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapcat on September 02, 2019, 10:32:04 am
To add to Froggie's list:
It's not clear whether anyone has offered to do a comprehensive peer review of any of them.

Lots of collaborators are familiar with (and have travelled) routes in these sets. I'm willing to do a review in exchange for a review of one of my sets (AR, LA, PR).

Back to the original topic, I support activating usaush once any remaining datacheck issues are dealt with.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: neroute2 on September 02, 2019, 11:46:46 am
I can do Florida and maybe California.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on September 02, 2019, 12:36:35 pm
I've merged topics and added  "reviewer: t.b.d." to the OP. Si offered reviewing canqc. Anyone else?
Is there any preview system which was peer-reviewed but not yet activated?

I can do Florida and maybe California.

rickmastfan67 is currently quite busy and I guess he won't work on it soon. I think that you might start with usaca. Fine to you, oscar?

In the zeal to get new systems online (especially in Europe), we've let peer review and activation of already-built systems languish.

How many US contributors have peer-reviewed European or Asian systems in post-CHM times?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Duke87 on September 02, 2019, 02:01:35 pm
How many US contributors have peer-reviewed European or Asian systems in post-CHM times?

I reviewed zafn (South Africa) and have now started on the Australian systems. Neither are Europe or Asia but both are on continents I've never set foot on.

I don't have qualms reviewing systems in such circumstances so long as there is sufficient street view imagery available to be able to do a good check on what is actually signed.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on September 02, 2019, 03:04:40 pm
I reviewed zafn (South Africa) and have now started on the Australian systems. Neither are Europe or Asia

yep, I was aware of it :) I meant that no US contributor was tied on peer-reviewing European systems. You reviewed zafn, I reviewed canmb.... And to be honest, if Si had not started drafting European tier 4 systems, I had also never started drafting and reviewing (mainly European) systems....
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on September 02, 2019, 03:19:16 pm
canabs Alberta Primary Provincial Highways 500-986 (tier 5) reviewer: julmac

http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2169

I've added Julmac as reviewer since he has obviously started reviewing the system.

canmbs Manitoba Provincial Roads (tier 5) reviewer: t.b.d.
canmbw Winnipeg City Routes (tier 5) reviewer: t.b.d.

http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2344
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1846

canmbw is in preview since 2017-12-24 and canmbs is in preview since 2018-08-15. Are they ready for peer-review?
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on September 02, 2019, 05:09:06 pm
Is there any preview system which was peer-reviewed but not yet activated?

cansk has been peer-reviewed, subject to changes under discussion or shortly forthcoming in Saskatoon and Regina, and also a double-check for new rural routes I might've missed. I expect this will be ready to activate soon after the Regina Bypass is completed in late October, if not sooner.

Quote from: michih
I can do Florida and maybe California.

rickmastfan67 is currently quite busy and I guess he won't work on it soon. I think that you might start with usaca. Fine to you, oscar?

I think so. I'd been holding off on putting usaca out for review, due to some work to be done, as well as my finishing off cansk:

-- relabeling intersections with many county routes (in response to neroute2's and yakra's previous comments), and cross-checking and adding more from improved coverage of Signed County Routes on cahwyguy's California Highways site

-- nailing down what to do with route segment relinquishments to local control, now that fad seems to be slowing down

Neither really needs to delay neroute2's peer review (which could include comments on my tentative relinquishment "rules" laid out in the usaca thread, and the relinquished segments already removed from some usaca routes), if he wants to go ahead.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Markkos1992 on September 02, 2019, 05:32:43 pm
Personally, I am fine with doing South Carolina.  I did not even realize that it had not been peer-reviewed.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: yakra on September 02, 2019, 05:43:14 pm
Another example of why we need to move our preview systems forward to active status before developing more new systems.  With 100 systems in preview and available for mapping, that's a whole lot of users mapping travels in a whole lot of places with no promise of updates entries.
I'm with Jim that we should try to keep the preview state period as short as possible (< 12 months ?) to avoid bothering users with "silent changes".
Yes. Even if I've been bad about this myself. More below...

Perhaps we should also change our policy about waypoint label changes while a system is in preview.
...
I'm planning on bulk changes in California, to change any CH____ waypoint labels (back) to CR___ labels, for consistency with how we handle intersections with signed county routes in other jurisdictions. In-use CH___ labels in active routes would go to CR____ +CH____. We could do same for the preview usaca routes (and usaush routes in California, though most of their CR___ labels were never changed over to CH___, and the one I know about that was changed isn't in use).
I'd say, don't require +AltLabels as we do with active systems, but don't go and say This Can't Be Done either.
I think something like this for some of the more stale preview systems could be helpful to keep things sane for travelers.

And we can do it without changing the policy. We just had to bring the system to active status first. Because that would be the only difference left between preview and active systems.
;)

Rather than quote Duke87 (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=12.msg15049#msg15049) and froggie's (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=12.msg15083#msg15083) posts in full, I'll just say that I agree with them. :)
Even the bit about
I'd argue we need a temporary moratorium on creating new systems until we can clean out the preview backlog.
With a little guilt, with 4 systems of my own in preview, and two that I've mentioned reviewing but actually done very little about...
Si reminds me about cannl every (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1920.msg12019#msg12019) so (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1920.msg13014#msg13014) often (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1920.msg15005#msg15005), and I've meant to have a look at usaal too.
Not to mention julmac's review of the AB700 series routes I've not responded to yet...

New York Parkways
I'm confident that this has had a thorough review from the various participants in its thread.
All that's really keeping it from activation is the status of West River Parkway (SR 957C), closed to vehicular traffic for conversion into a pedestrian and bicycle linear park. (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1928.msg11499#msg11499)

I've merged topics and added  "reviewer: t.b.d." to the OP. Si offered reviewing canqc. Anyone else?
I've put myself down for cannl.

canmbs Manitoba Provincial Roads (tier 5) reviewer: t.b.d.
canmbw Winnipeg City Routes (tier 5) reviewer: t.b.d.

http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2344
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1846

canmbw is in preview since 2017-12-24 and canmbs is in preview since 2018-08-15. Are they ready for peer-review?
Both canmbw and canmbs are ready for peer-review.

a double-check for new rural routes I might've missed.
I can help with this if you'd like. Just a quick scan of shapefiles for any newly introduced route numbers not in the HB. I'll stop short of the plate of spaghetti that's checking each for extensions/truncations/etc. though...

Here are the systemupdates.csv entries for CAN & USA preview systems, to get an idea how long each has been languishing:
Code: [Select]
2016-02-23;(USA) South Carolina;usasc;South Carolina State Highways;preview
2017-01-20;(USA) Georgia;usaga;Georgia State Highways;preview
2017-02-03;(Canada) Newfoundland and Labrador;cannl;Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Highways;preview
2017-05-05;(USA) Puerto Rico;usapr;Puerto Rico Territorial Highways;preview
2017-05-06;(USA) California;usaca;California State Highways;preview
2017-05-29;(Canada) Quebec;canqc;Quebec Provincial Routes;preview
2017-08-23;(USA) Florida;usafl;Florida State Highways;preview
2017-09-06;USA;usaush;United States Historic US Routes;preview
2017-12-24;(Canada) Manitoba;canmbw;Winnipeg City Routes;preview
2018-03-03;(Canada) Saskatchewan;cansk;Saskatchewan Provincial Highways 1-399;preview
2018-03-26;(Canada) Alberta;canabs;Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986;preview
2018-06-15;(USA) Arkansas;usaar;Arkansas State Highways;preview
2018-06-15;(USA) New York;usanyp;New York Parkways;preview
2018-07-22;(USA) Louisiana;usala;Louisiana State Highways;preview
2018-08-15;(Canada) Manitoba;canmbp;Manitoba Provincial Roads;preview
2018-11-12;(USA) Alabama;usaal;Alabama State Highways;preview
2019-01-13;(USA) American Samoa;usaas;American Samoa Territorial Highways;preview
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: si404 on September 02, 2019, 07:01:00 pm
In the zeal to get new systems online (especially in Europe), we've let peer review and activation of already-built systems languish.
I don't agree with this reading of the situation. Obviously, had I not been working on getting started with the rest of the world, I could have probably reviewed some more North America systems, however I felt - especially when michih came on board and I had someone to bring Europe up to the same sort of standard as North America with me - that there's plenty enough of you North Americans to be getting on with stuff over there.

It's not like I've not put pulled quite a lot of weight in North America making and reviewing systems either.

Yes, certainly there is a problem that I'm about the only one interested in more 'exotic' parts of the world meaning many systems without review. However, blaming the North American problems on foreigners on other continents is really not on and such will not endear the prolific European contributors to review North American systems would it? :pan:

I think part of the problem in North America (eg usaca, cannl) is a chasing of perfection, or near enough. Certainly the very thorough and excellent peer reviews I've received for NAm systems have been part of why I'm reluctant to undertake reviews in North America as I can't see how I'd bring the same quality of insight and understanding as someone more local (or even just someone who instinctively thinks in grids, even when there isn't an obvious one) would do.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: oscar on September 02, 2019, 07:22:50 pm
a double-check for new rural routes I might've missed.
I can help with this if you'd like. Just a quick scan of shapefiles for any newly introduced route numbers not in the HB. I'll stop short of the plate of spaghetti that's checking each for extensions/truncations/etc. though...

Thanks. I'll scan the provincial Highway Hotline and press releases, especially for the most recent changes that might not yet be in the shapefiles. That's how I picked up the new SK 11 Warman bypass, the associated extension of SK 305, and the addition of SK 52A near Yorkton, all in the HB.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: froggie on September 02, 2019, 08:22:31 pm
In the zeal to get new systems online (especially in Europe), we've let peer review and activation of already-built systems languish.
I don't agree with this reading of the situation. Obviously, had I not been working on getting started with the rest of the world, I could have probably reviewed some more North America systems, however I felt - especially when michih came on board and I had someone to bring Europe up to the same sort of standard as North America with me - that there's plenty enough of you North Americans to be getting on with stuff over there.

It's not like I've not put pulled quite a lot of weight in North America making and reviewing systems either.

Yes, certainly there is a problem that I'm about the only one interested in more 'exotic' parts of the world meaning many systems without review. However, blaming the North American problems on foreigners on other continents is really not on and such will not endear the prolific European contributors to review North American systems would it? :pan:

I think part of the problem in North America (eg usaca, cannl) is a chasing of perfection, or near enough. Certainly the very thorough and excellent peer reviews I've received for NAm systems have been part of why I'm reluctant to undertake reviews in North America as I can't see how I'd bring the same quality of insight and understanding as someone more local (or even just someone who instinctively thinks in grids, even when there isn't an obvious one) would do.

I did not intend this as a North America vs. Europe thing...I'm sorry if you took it otherwise.  I have not been paying attention to whomever's creating systems outside of those few states (and Quebec) I'm most familiar with.  My point was that, to the outside folks, there's all of these systems being created, but long-standing systems sitting in preview have not been activated.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: Markkos1992 on September 03, 2019, 06:30:07 am
In the zeal to get new systems online (especially in Europe), we've let peer review and activation of already-built systems languish.
I don't agree with this reading of the situation. Obviously, had I not been working on getting started with the rest of the world, I could have probably reviewed some more North America systems, however I felt - especially when michih came on board and I had someone to bring Europe up to the same sort of standard as North America with me - that there's plenty enough of you North Americans to be getting on with stuff over there.

It's not like I've not put pulled quite a lot of weight in North America making and reviewing systems either.

Yes, certainly there is a problem that I'm about the only one interested in more 'exotic' parts of the world meaning many systems without review. However, blaming the North American problems on foreigners on other continents is really not on and such will not endear the prolific European contributors to review North American systems would it? :pan:

I think part of the problem in North America (eg usaca, cannl) is a chasing of perfection, or near enough. Certainly the very thorough and excellent peer reviews I've received for NAm systems have been part of why I'm reluctant to undertake reviews in North America as I can't see how I'd bring the same quality of insight and understanding as someone more local (or even just someone who instinctively thinks in grids, even when there isn't an obvious one) would do.

I did not intend this as a North America vs. Europe thing...I'm sorry if you took it otherwise.  I have not been paying attention to whomever's creating systems outside of those few states (and Quebec) I'm most familiar with.  My point was that, to the outside folks, there's all of these systems being created, but long-standing systems sitting in preview have not been activated.


I agree with Froggie's point.  I have been focused on revamping PA so I personally had not even been considering peer reviewing other systems.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on September 03, 2019, 11:42:00 am
I've added reviewers for:

canabs Alberta Primary Provincial Highways 500-986 (tier 5) reviewer: julmac
canmbs Manitoba Provincial Roads (tier 5) reviewer: michih
canmbw Winnipeg City Routes (tier 5) reviewer: michih
cansk Saskatchewan Provincial Highways reviewer: julmac (already done)

usafl Florida State Highways reviewer: neroute2
usasc South Carolina State Highways reviewer: Markkos1992


@neroute2: I've merged your topics since there was already a usafl thread! And again... oscar is fine with you reviewing usaca but rickmastfan67 will likely not respond soon to tell you whether you are right with your suggestions or not... the way learning the rules might be longer...
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: cl94 on September 03, 2019, 04:28:43 pm
If you need someone else to review Alabama, Georgia, and/or Louisiana, I might be able to help with that. Those have been sitting in preview limbo forever.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: ntallyn on September 03, 2019, 06:28:40 pm
If you need someone else to review Alabama, Georgia, and/or Louisiana, I might be able to help with that. Those have been sitting in preview limbo forever.

I'm still working through all of the existing comments; now that the job has settled down a bit, I should be able to get through the rest of the updates/fixes.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: mapcat on September 03, 2019, 07:12:27 pm
If you need someone else to review Alabama, Georgia, and/or Louisiana, I might be able to help with that. Those have been sitting in preview limbo forever.

Thanks for the offer. I'd welcome help with Louisiana.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on September 04, 2019, 12:23:29 pm
I've added:

usaga Georgia State Highways reviewer: ntallyn
usala Louisiana State Highways reviewer: cl94

Have I missed adding the reviewer on these preview systems or is there still a lack of reviewer? (list with preview date)

2018-11-12: usaal Alabama State Highways reviewer: t.b.d.
2018-06-15: usaar Arkansas State Highways reviewer: t.b.d.
2019-01-13: usaas American Samoa Territorial Highways reviewer: t.b.d.
2017-05-06: usaca California State Highways reviewer: t.b.d.
2018-06-15: usanyp New York Parkways reviewer: t.b.d.
2017-05-05: usapr Puerto Rico Territorial Highways reviewer: t.b.d.
2017-09-06: usaush United States Historic US Routes reviewer: t.b.d.
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: ntallyn on September 04, 2019, 02:51:59 pm
I've added:

usaga Georgia State Highways reviewer: ntallyn
usala Louisiana State Highways reviewer: cl94


Sorry, I was being confusing. I'm not reviewing the GA highways, I'm doing the update work (I picked it up around Christmastime).
Title: Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
Post by: michih on September 04, 2019, 03:27:05 pm
I've added:

usaga Georgia State Highways reviewer: ntallyn
usala Louisiana State Highways reviewer: cl94


Sorry, I was being confusing. I'm not reviewing the GA highways, I'm doing the update work (I picked it up around Christmastime).

well, no. I thought that your "update work" is also the peer-review. But if I'm not mistaken, you are quite new, your first "new" system? If so, I think that another more experienced contributor should peer-review it. If you prefer being peer-reviewed, just edit the first post and replace your name by t.b.d.