Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Topic started by: yakra on December 14, 2016, 02:36:29 pm

Title: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: yakra on December 14, 2016, 02:36:29 pm
Winnipeg has a system of numbered, signed City Routes. They're signed like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8131091,-97.1772587,3a,15y,7.52h,92.83t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1swjjOPUtc6ZQWELkC1iJihQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwjjOPUtc6ZQWELkC1iJihQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D336.12775%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41).
This was a very quick & easy system to bang together from OSM & GMSV. I also used the GeoBase NRN shapefiles (already listed on credits.php), though I didn't refer to them very much, as opposed to the larger provincial systems.

There were a couple cases of unclear/ambiguous signage. In both cases, I considered the route as shown in the shapefiles to be the canonical version.

Rte57:
East (1) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8939403,-97.1377767,3a,38.4y,134.29h,88.4t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s3SSGDkVRYKZo0Xyv7fh1tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) (2) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8950752,-97.1396006,3a,32.7y,61.89h,94.67t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1seQRUOQ-bwjZHsrtzuqGQ-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)
West (1) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8926405,-97.1329346,3a,75y,312.97h,91.06t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sqg5SFau_sYz3TZwSwxxXTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) (2) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8945072,-97.135361,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1smoZLI9WwA0WA6x_-wFDeQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) (3, no signage for Rte57 turning onto Rte52) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8943387,-97.1370618,3a,15y,298.33h,91.16t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sUSEdqoO2icuQ7efAgNdN_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)

Rte37 is a bit trickier:
Signage is a bit more indicative of a split alignment...
West (1) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9045142,-97.1052034,3a,51.3y,11.91h,93.68t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1szk0IOfghligDR_HPMByQIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) (2) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9048977,-97.1046318,3a,51.4y,322.75h,82.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sudig6Ylx9nH5Zpq6_uhbUA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (3) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9109379,-97.1031732,3a,31.4y,7.03h,91.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sX71xV5ClEuaPa1jq4J6jZw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (4, arrow disappeared between Oct'07 & Apr'09) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9111008,-97.1041615,3a,16.9y,276.45h,87.23t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sM9xEbAXLDuYOzE7g8uOD-w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) (5) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.91424,-97.1141856,3a,33.2y,318.89h,89.14t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s3y0YUnhPXPRCp6YGckCZWw!2e0!5s20150701T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)
East (1) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9132563,-97.1157449,3a,15y,219.56h,93.1t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sfPuse9yEoGxrg2UIowj0Cw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DfPuse9yEoGxrg2UIowj0Cw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D245.36154%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) (2) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9108545,-97.1175875,3a,75y,207.22h,91.08t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sZ0_etkZSMP1K7Z3DkBLsZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) (3) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9074065,-97.1129952,3a,75y,101.87h,88.69t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1snlt2eKsO-dnQiG2AH76fMg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) (4) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9069729,-97.1128425,3a,75y,195.38h,81.56t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sbWicUByHdpKlW1M7rUQroA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) (5) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9078,-97.1113184,3a,17y,241.71h,87.89t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sJDYJZ0gea6WClstTBFKvNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) (6) (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9072569,-97.1121689,3a,75y,282.41h,92.74t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sX3e1sKoYdkO0J8Fc50Sv1g!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DX3e1sKoYdkO0J8Fc50Sv1g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D73.20112%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)
Again, I went with what was in the shapefiles. There's a bit of precedent for how I handled the split route here (in terms of Just Pick One) in MA US202, on its multiplex with US5.
This makes for some potentially wonky labels on Rte42 (specifically, TalAve, Rte37_W & Rte37_E); discuss.

I have a pull request (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1004) pending to move this system up to Preview.
Once that happens, it's pretty much ready for Peer Review.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: michih on December 14, 2016, 04:12:34 pm
I thought we don't wanna draft district roads at all but we include city routes now?
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: Jim on December 14, 2016, 05:54:55 pm
This system is live on the site with preview status now.

I have no strong opinion on whether the system is appropriate for inclusion.  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.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: mapcat on December 14, 2016, 07:08:45 pm
Thanks for adding these. I agree that they're a special case, and not analogous to USA county routes, or other smaller district systems we don't include.

One suggestion: a waypoint on Rte90 at Wellington Ave, the road to the airport.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: si404 on December 15, 2016, 07:00:09 am
I thought we don't wanna draft district roads at all but we include city routes now?
I think there's analogies to the Dutch Stadsroute (https://www.wegenwiki.nl/Stadsroute) whereby the city is mostly excluded from the provincial/national routes but has its own system instead.


I'd suggest one tier-5 system with all the Stadsroute in with nld.s100ams names, even if there's no duplicated numbers (eg nld.s150zaa) and the cities listed for each route in .csvs ;)
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: michih on December 15, 2016, 10:09:15 am
I thought we don't wanna draft district roads at all but we include city routes now?
I think there's analogies to the Dutch Stadsroute (https://www.wegenwiki.nl/Stadsroute) whereby the city is mostly excluded from the provincial/national routes but has its own system instead.

I'd suggest one tier-5 system with all the Stadsroute in with nld.s100ams names, even if there's no duplicated numbers (eg nld.s150zaa) and the cities listed for each route in .csvs ;)

I agree that we could draft nlds but I thought about district / county roads, e.g. French D or Romania DJ routes. Are they "allowed" to be added? I think I read that these kind of roads should not be drafted or won't be drafted in US (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=267)...
Generally, I think that we cannot apply "US rules" to regions all over the world because classification / signposting / administration et cetera is different. Any limitation means that "important" routes may be included or not. Is there any limit what we wanna include?

Example:
France has national roads (N --> fran; 218 routes, 7,267.57mi). Romania has national roads (roudn; 192 routes, 9,729.18mi). Germany has federal roads (B --> deub; 645 routes, 24,106.10mi). All tier 4 systems drafted.

France has 101 départements (districts/counties; D --> frad?), Romania has 41 Drumuri Județene (districts/counties; DJ --> roudj?), Germany has 16 Bundesländer (states; L --> deul?) and 294 Landkreise (districts/counties; K --> deuk?). All mentioned road categories are signed, German systems on km posts only.

If we generally exclude district/county roads, France and Romania would not have any tier 5 system. If we would include them, Germany could even have a tier 6 system...
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: bejacob on December 15, 2016, 10:36:48 am
If we generally exclude district/county roads, France and Romania would not have any tier 5 system. If we would include them, Germany could even have a tier 6 system...

How many tiers is too many?

Seems to me tier 5 system are used sparingly and generally only when necessary. Most regions will be sufficiently covered by tiers 1 thru 4. Adding additional levels except in specialized cases is likely to be a slippery slope. I say leave out the county/district/city routes unless there is a compelling reason to include them.

I've got gaps in my maps because US county roads or Texas "Farm to Market" or "Ranch Roads" aren't included, yet I'm not in favor of adding those tiers. The Winnipeg routes do seem to be an unusual case. IMHO using them as justification for adding other tier 5 (or beyond) systems is not a good idea.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: mapcat on December 15, 2016, 11:33:23 am
I've got gaps in my maps because US county roads or Texas "Farm to Market" or "Ranch Roads" aren't included, yet I'm not in favor of adding those tiers.
I'm with you on county roads, but not FM/RM roads in Texas. They're a legitimate state secondary system.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fmfacts.htm

I'd add in the Park Roads in Texas as well.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: michih on December 15, 2016, 11:49:37 am
If we generally exclude district/county roads, France and Romania would not have any tier 5 system. If we would include them, Germany could even have a tier 6 system...

How many tiers is too many?

I don't think it's a matter of tiers but maybe tiers per region. For instance, FRA, ROU and DEU do not have any tier 2 system but tier 1+4 only plus (mostly concurrent) tier 3 E roads.

France is larger than Germany but the 2nd German network (deub) is 3 times longer than the French one (fran). If we would add all road systems "above" district/county roads, Germany could even get a third network (deul) but France would not get any additional system!

I say leave out the county/district/city routes unless there is a compelling reason to include them.

As mentioned before, county/district routes would be system no. 4 for Germany but no. 3 for France and Romania because the size/number of counties/districts are different!

The Winnipeg routes do seem to be an unusual case. IMHO using them as justification for adding other tier 5 (or beyond) systems is not a good idea.

That's why I ask. I don't think that there should be a general limit for tiers used (1-5).
I think there should be an individual limit per region depending on parameters like country size, number of road categories, road standard, network lengths et cetera.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: bejacob on December 15, 2016, 11:52:40 am
I've got gaps in my maps because US county roads or Texas "Farm to Market" or "Ranch Roads" aren't included, yet I'm not in favor of adding those tiers.
I'm with you on county roads, but not FM/RM roads in Texas. They're a legitimate state secondary system.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fmfacts.htm

I'd add in the Park Roads in Texas as well.

Fair points. The State of Texas does maintain those routes.

There is still the question of when a 5th tier actually makes sense. Perhaps these could be systems that do qualify. I still believe tier 5 systems should be limited. We already have a few, and those make sense. Maybe there are good cases for a few more. The idea of adding a 6th tier for district or county routes does seem to be going too far down that road (pun intended :) )
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: michih on December 15, 2016, 11:58:11 am
The State of Texas does maintain those routes.

I don't think that maintenance is a good indicator. It might be fine for USA but not for ROW.

There is still the question of when a 5th tier actually makes sense. Perhaps these could be systems that do qualify. I still believe tier 5 systems should be limited. We already have a few, and those make sense. Maybe there are good cases for a few more.

http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1776 ;)

The idea of adding a 6th tier for district or county routes does seem to be going too far down that road (pun intended :) )

No, I don't wanna add German Kreisstraßen (district/county roads). It was just for comparing to France...
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: bejacob on December 15, 2016, 12:15:56 pm
I don't think it's a matter of tiers but maybe tiers per region. For instance, FRA, ROU and DEU do not have any tier 2 system but tier 1+4 only plus (mostly concurrent) tier 3 E roads.

I'll admit to not knowing much about the European systems. My European routes so far only cover the British Isles. Still going too far below the state/provincial level seems problematic.

In regards to your earlier question of "Is there any limit what we wanna include?" I think there is a limit. At least in the US, it seems to stop where the jurisdiction changes from the state level to the county level. Someone please jump in if I've stated that incorrectly (BTW, mapcat, that would mean Texas FM and RR roads should be a system, though having driven a few, they really are more like county roads IMHO). Perhaps someone has a better way to define the dividing line of what should and should not be included. I know the Wisconsin county trunk highways were discussed and excluded.

As for what belongs in the European systems and how many tiers there should be, I leave that to others as my knowledge about them is virtually nil.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: michih on December 15, 2016, 02:18:28 pm
I thought about my prefered rule of thumb: If the routes are usually tagged "yellow"* on OSM, the system could be drafted for TM. If the routes are usually below "yellow", e.g. "white", they should not be drafted for TM.

*Dunno what's the official tag name, I think it's "secondary highway"!?

French and Romanian district roads are "yellow", German district roads are "white".
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: julmac on February 10, 2017, 12:36:07 am
I noticed that the Tiers are not necessarily in decreasing order of prominence or importance. For example, I'm much more interested in tracking most of the Tier 4 systems than the Interstate Business Routes which are a Tier 2 system. I would consider the Winnipeg City Routes to be at least equivalent to the Interstate BRs on the basis that for both systems I have to concentrate really hard to remember which one's I travelled prior to their existence on Travel Mapping/CHM (since I never kept track otherwise).

I assume that Manitoba Provincial Roads (three-digit highways), if included in the future, would also be a Tier 5 system (I do track those)?
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: 7/8 on November 20, 2017, 07:03:45 pm
How come these are no longer in preview status? Was it decided that these are too much like country roads? I would like to add my travels in the system and it seems like it shame that I can't when they appear ready-to-go.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: yakra on November 20, 2017, 10:03:38 pm
Posted in another thread, but relevant here:
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 to 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.
I still haven't gotten back around to that.
I have a good number of different sub-projects I'm working on, with the result that any given one (or all) of them will move along slowly.
My main priority right now is an ongoing Arkansas Cleanup. Once that's more out of the way (or I want to take a break from it) I'll put more attention on canmbw or usanyp, whichever I think would face a quicker path to activation.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: yakra on December 16, 2017, 05:45:13 am
I *could* go into the history of tiers, a precursor "layers" concept in CHM, and their development in TM. But I'm not always very good with the whole brevity thing.
There's been talk in this thread and others about how to define a given tier, what should/shouldn't be included, etc. IMO, this is overthinking it a bit; all a tier really does is determine in what order systems are rendered on the map views (mapview.php, region.php).
WRT what to include, where/why/how, one size does not fit all, and what works in one area may not work well in another. EG, North America vs. Europe, or even different regions within Europe.
For any system under consideration, we'd want it to pass the "actually makes sense" test. (A subjective judgment, yes.) I foresee more yellow / tier 5 in Canada, with Manitoba Provincial Roads (which @julmac mentioned upthread (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1846.msg5291#msg5291)) and Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986 (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2169) in the pipeline. (There's potential for yellow / tier 5 in SK too, but SK isn't my turf.) I see more limited use in the USA: Texas FM & RM roads are in my longer range plans; other than that, we only have the Montana Secondary State Highways now. (I can't really comment on potential systems in other states; my knowledge is limited.)

Does canmbw make sense?
I think so. For my rationale, see my previous post, the bits where I quoted myself.

I plan on moving canmbw back to preview status within the next several days.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: yakra on December 24, 2017, 03:26:42 pm
canmbw has been moved back to preview status (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?sys=canmbw), and is ready for peer review.

Tricky routes include Rte37 & Rte57, as noted in the OP.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: michih on September 09, 2019, 09:54:13 am
canmbw has been moved back to preview status (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?sys=canmbw), and is ready for peer review.

Here it is :)

Concurrencies:    FINE
NMPs:             ALREADY FPs
Add cannf routes: NOPE
soures:           https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/map/ + http://mli2.gov.mb.ca/roads_hwys/index.html
route list check: I've compared the April 2019 map to our graph on mapview and think that it's fine. The shp files are from 2017 but the system was already drafed in 2016 - @yakra: Maybe you can have look whether any route has been added or removed (compared to shp files or any other source?


Rte20:
EliRd should be located in the median or do you generally position it like this when there are only ramps for one carriageway?
MB100 -> MB59/100 ?
MB101 -> MB59/101 ?
The difference to Rte42 wp MB75/100 is that M59 is concurrent to Rte20 but it also extends and I usually indicate both in this case.


Rte30:
Add corresponding wp for EliRd @ Rt20
MB1 is off


Rte37:
WattSt_N -> ChaAve ? (just because it's shorter)
Please check whether shp files have been updated
We might add a branch for the southern route b/n Rt42 and Rt30?


Rte42:
Rte125 is off, move it to the overpass!
SutAve is off, move it to the underpass!
TalAve is off, move it to the underpass!
TalAve -> MidAve
MB101 -> MB101/204 like you've labeled MB75/100


Rte52:
MB1_E is off
MB100 -> MB100/200


Rte57:
Rte70 might be moved to http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.900885&lon=-97.158837 ?


Rte85:
StuRd is off
EmpSt is off, move it to the overpass!
ArlSt is a litte bit off
MB1_E is off


Rte90:
Add corresponding wp for OakPtHwy @ MB190 (or remove the MB190 wp)
Add corresponding wp for AcaRd_W @ Rt70


Rte95:
Add corresponding wp for Rt96/Rt105 junction


Rte105:
Add corresponding wp for CamSt @ Rt95
MB100 -> MB100/241


Rte115:
Add corresponding wp for TacAve @ Rt57


Rte145:
MB100 -> MB100/427


Rte150:
MB1/135 -> MB1_E


Review done except if you have comments to my suggestions.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: neroute2 on September 09, 2019, 10:50:58 am
For the record, there are two Mexican cities - Mexico City and Monterrey - that have systems like this.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: yakra on September 12, 2019, 05:19:07 pm
Quote
The shp files are from 2017 but the system was already drafed in 2016 - @yakra: Maybe you can have look whether any route has been added or removed (compared to shp files or any other source?
The LRS files are blank within the perimeter hwy other than a few stubs. The newest NRN files still date to 2016-06-06, so nothing new there.

Rte20:
EliRd recentered, also in MB59.
MB100 & MB101: I'm less of a fan of indicating a concurrent route in a case like this, where the route we're plotting is otherwise concurrent and then just ends. I consider the newly intersected route to be the more important piece of information. I don't have a problem with the way you do it though.

Rte30:
I only added EliRd to Rte20 as a shaping point.
MB1 recentered, also in MB1 & TCHMai.

Rte37:
WattSt_N -> ChaAve
Quote
We might add a branch for the southern route b/n Rt42 and Rt30?
That's not an alternate/branch/child route though, just half of an unusual couplet/split alignment. That's a can of worms I don't want to go near; don't wanna set that precedent.
OTOH, anyone wanna talk me into removing the Rte42_N, LevSt_W & (WattSt_N / ChaAve) points, and just cutting from one corner of the couplet to the other?

Rte42:
If I remove the above points from Rte37, then TalAve & Rte37_E may be better off as Rte37_E & JohAve respectively. Or even if I leave as-is? Discuss.
Rte125, I consider to be a "misbehaving parclo". It makes a nicer-looking graph view; I like it as is.
SutAve & TalAve: Misbehaving parclos again.
Talbot Ave is signed northbound. (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.909116,-97.119851,3a,15y,57.08h,89.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ1yuIJZaSaVG9cLnhv4NLQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) See above, though.
MB101: I went with just using the tier 4 routes in the labels in these cases.

TCH1 / Rte52 / Rte150 junction recentered.
Rte57: Maybe, but, eh... I kinda like the nice clean trace we get off to the west...

Rte85:
StuRd & MB1_E recentered, also in MB1 & TCHMai.
EmpSt is another misbehaving parclo.
ArlSt is a CHM-era TCH relic. I snipped out several other points along this stretch once upon a time, but left this one in. It eventually leads up to that long bridge over the wide spot in the rail yard, sure, but otherwise doesn't look like a very major street. Fairly close to MB1_E. Not in use. Just remove it?

Rte90:
MB190 is a controlled-access expressway, so it seemed more appropriate to include all its access points, since there are relatively few. Zoom in close enough and you'll see that Oak Point Hwy doesn't actually connect directly to Rte90.
AcaRd_E (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.875760&lon=-97.202362) added.

Rte95:
Quote
Add corresponding wp for Rt96/Rt105 junction
Unsure what you mean here. 96 & 105 are concurrent on Grant Ave from William Clement Pkwy to Shaftesbury Blvd. 95 intersects 105 alone W of the overlap, and 96 alone N of it.

Rte105: CamSt was added to Rte95 for shaping/clarity, even though not strictly needed to keep within tolerance. On Rte105, the Rte80 point is close enough for this.
Rte115: Same deal with TacAve on Rte57. This would be awful close to MB1.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3135
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: michih on September 13, 2019, 09:21:25 am
Rte37:
OTOH, anyone wanna talk me into removing the Rte42_N, LevSt_W & (WattSt_N / ChaAve) points, and just cutting from one corner of the couplet to the other?

Rte42:
If I remove the above points from Rte37, then TalAve & Rte37_E may be better off as Rte37_E & JohAve respectively. Or even if I leave as-is? Discuss.

I tend to leaving Rte37 as-is but removing the wps might also be fine to me.....


ArlSt is a CHM-era TCH relic. I snipped out several other points along this stretch once upon a time, but left this one in. It eventually leads up to that long bridge over the wide spot in the rail yard, sure, but otherwise doesn't look like a very major street. Fairly close to MB1_E. Not in use. Just remove it?

yep.

Rte95:
Quote
Add corresponding wp for Rt96/Rt105 junction
Unsure what you mean here. 96 & 105 are concurrent on Grant Ave from William Clement Pkwy to Shaftesbury Blvd. 95 intersects 105 alone W of the overlap, and 96 alone N of it.

Add a wp @ http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.867109&lon=-97.229559


btw: Rte135 concurrency to TCHMai,MB1 is now broken. Sync Rte30 wp.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: yakra on September 13, 2019, 12:25:51 pm
ArlSt removed from TCH/1/85.
ShaBlvd (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.867109&lon=-97.229559) added to MB95.
Rte135@Rte30 resynced.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3137

Rte37:
OTOH, anyone wanna talk me into removing the Rte42_N, LevSt_W & (WattSt_N / ChaAve) points, and just cutting from one corner of the couplet to the other?
I tend to leaving Rte37 as-is but removing the wps might also be fine to me.....
Still toying with the idea; haven't made a decision yet.
If I add a shaping point hereish (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.908359&lon=-97.106953), I can fit both westbound & eastbound within the tolerance lines.
Though one could say that's less appropriate than just cutting straight across...

Rte42:
If I remove the above points from Rte37, then TalAve & Rte37_E may be better off as Rte37_E & JohAve respectively. Or even if I leave as-is? Discuss.
Or I could call them Rte37_A, Rte37_B, Rte37_C...
'C', Johnson Ave, won't be signed for Rte 37 *from* Rte42 though.
Opinions?

New business: I'm starting to reconsider my handling of Rte57 @ Rte52...
Link from the OP (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8944685,-97.135346,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1smoZLI9WwA0WA6x_-wFDeQQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41), and what was there at the time it was posted (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8944113,-97.1354121,3a,16.2y,29.53h,89.38t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s4uJygRCE3wezjRnJkGwjjg!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41). That sign was gone by July 2017. So now we have a clearer case for WB 57 via Pioneer Ave. This agrees with the shapefiles, and is the assumption behind the current layout in the HB. This much is good at least.

Eastbound, if I go by the "follow the signage the thru traveler sees" rule of thumb (see Watertown (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/7) NY (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3110.msg14400#msg14400)), we'd go straight on Portage across Rte52 (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8950752,-97.1396006,3a,32.7y,61.89h,94.67t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1seQRUOQ-bwjZHsrtzuqGQ-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) and then find  this (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8948084,-97.135936,3a,15y,116.52h,89.5t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s9Eys9ijTOYh83lYfafYWbQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D9Eys9ijTOYh83lYfafYWbQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.63126%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41). The left turn from Westbrook St to William Stephenson Way isn't signed, but I don't think this is a deal-breaker: Westbrook ends, and William Stephenson is one-way, so there's only one option here.

I could just cut the diagonal across the couplet as per SOP. Keep Rte52_N, renaming to Rte52, and remove Rte52_S.
It's a bit like VT30 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=r=vt.vt030&lat=44.011684&lon=-73.168226&zoom=16) and VT125 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=r=vt.vt125&lat=44.011684&lon=-73.168226&zoom=16): we have a triangle with one through route (VT30/Rte52) and another route on a couplet, where only one direction multiplexes (VT125/Rte57).
In that case, VT30 has AcaSt, not a label referencing VT125, because VT125 enters here on a one-way, and there's no signage for VT125 leaving the concurrency here. (More on this below...)
Conversely, Going by the signage along Rte52, Rte52 could keep its existing labels. There's Rte57 signage at both points.

Getting back to Rte42's labels...
Rte42 can be our VT30 thru route, and Rte37 can be our VT125 half-multiplex. ...Okay, double half multiplexes in this case. :P
Following the "go by what's signed leaving the multiplex from the thru route", that'd yield Rte37_E, Rte37_W, and JohAve for our point labels.
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: michih on September 13, 2019, 01:04:04 pm
Or I could call them Rte37_A, Rte37_B, Rte37_C...

I generally dislike _A, _B, _C
Title: Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
Post by: yakra on September 13, 2019, 02:21:28 pm
I generally dislike _A, _B, _C
I was editing my previous post while this was posted. My latest thinking is to avoid the _A, _B, _C in this case.