Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Topic started by: yakra on August 11, 2017, 02:45:53 am

Title: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on August 11, 2017, 02:45:53 am
Primary data source = GeoBase shapefiles, as with CANAB Alberta Provincial Highways 1-216 (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=38.0)
I have some files (AB 500-546) on a thumb drive that have been gathering dust, edited between 2013-10-23 and 2014-05-27. Nothing has been uploaded yet; I'm just starting this topic to note that work has indeed begun.
I've been thinking of taking the approach used for the USAKY and GBNA systems, and temporarily breaking this up into four subsystems (CANAB5, CANAB6, CANAB7, and finally CANAB8, which would also include the three AB9xx routes) during development. Once all four subsystems undergo peer review and become ready for activation, they'd be merged into a single system. In the meantime, the individual subsystems could be activated as they become ready. This may or may not actually happen; I'll make the call once the AB5xx routes are drafted.

Don't expect to see much activity here for a while; my priorities at the moment are an ongoing Arkansas cleanup, and moving USANYP toward activation.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on September 09, 2017, 11:12:06 am
AB500 - 599
Canonical Shapefiles: NRN_AB_13_0_ROADSEG

Route Numbers:
500 501 503 504 505 506 507 508 509
510 511 512 513 514 515 519
520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529
530 531 532 533 534 535 537 539
540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 549
550 552 555 556
560 561 562 563 564 566 567 569
570 573 574 575 576 577 579
580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 589
590 591 592 593 594 595 597 598 599


Shaping points temporarily visible for gisplunge:
501: X488812
509: X503070 X901017 X355839 X106558
511: X631769 X978831
524: X411320
541: X274741
547: X896474 X264754 X696998
556: X175143
575: X845516
576: X683233
579: x1 x2 x5 x8 x9
584: X374366 X614237


Indetermini:
560 Check signage @W end on Glenmore Trail (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9794827,-113.9089685,3a,15y,138.57h,89.39t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sWiB_bh_XgPHGHGU1tcz-dg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41). Signed W from 791 -- "ends" where? Call it 201 anyway? (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/2017_PROVINCIAL_HWY_500-986_CONTROL_SECTION_MAP.pdf)
563 Unsigned within Calgary city limits
564 Check signage @W end

Unsigned:
501 "AB2 Trk (Cardston)"
580 N-S spur via RgeRd14 & 10Ave, Carstairs

ToDo / FixMe:
501: needs shaping point(s) near AB4_N
513: extend E
519: add AB843
531: Edit OSM @ E end
534: extend E
542Bro: fix AB873 points
583: extend file (13 vs 14 shapefiles?) / relabel endpoint

Implied multiplexes:
Split 501? (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2169.msg8867#msg8867)

Nota Bene:
586 not included in QGIS project file. Oops.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on September 09, 2017, 11:12:17 am
AB600 - 699
Canonical Shapefiles: NRN_AB_14_0_ROADSEG

Route Numbers:
600 601 602 603 604 605 607 608 609
610 611 613 614 616 617 619
620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629
630 631 633
640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647
651 652 654 655 656 657 658 659
660 661 663 665 666 667 668 669
670 671 672 674 676 677 679
680 681 682 683 684 685 686 688 689
690 691 692 695 697


Shaping points temporarily visible for gisplunge:
610: x343
620: x1 x5
643: X924624 outside tolerance; treat as normal shaping point
686: 3 4 5 12 14 20


Indetermini:
613: GIS to 45 St; signed from AB2A/13. Highway Connector in Wetaskiwin?
623: Looks legit. Not an indeterminus.
627: No signage E of Edmonton corporate limits @ 215St. Highway Connector?

ToDo / FixMe:
620: delete +x2 & +x4, or +x3; OSM is right about TowRd
661: split @ ferry
663: relabel point on AB55
663: RgeRd174.6? Is a decimal point an allowable character? Choose different point(s) for shaping?
667: recenter point on AB43; edit OSM
679: Edit OSM @ RgeRd155A; AB750
688: gisplunge new/old alignment divergence; fix points on AB2
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on September 09, 2017, 11:12:40 am
AB700 - 799
Canonical Shapefiles: NRN_AB_14_0_ROADSEG

Route Numbers:
717 719
721 722 723 724 725 726 727 729
730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 739
740 741 742 743 744 747 748 749
750 751 752 753 754 756 757 758 759
760 761 762 763 764 765 766 769
770 771 772 774 775 776 777 778 779
780 781 782 783 785 786
791 792 795 797 799


Shaping points temporarily visible for gisplunge:
724: X747655
734: 10 30 33 35 65 68 71
750: X134152 X365680 X773850 X753335 X189652
753: X294553
754: X388838 X705208 X120162 X166501
770: X964841

Indeterminus:
772: Calgary, Highway Connector, yadda yadda

Unsigned or decommissioned:
782

ToDo / FixMe:
724: fix AB43 point labels; check older shapefiles & prov. map
727: fix AB49 points; check older shapefiles & prov. map
730: *OldTwpRd862 -> *OldTR862
734: TwpRd310A, or ForTruRd (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=ForTruRd&type=)? ForTruRd.
748: relabel TCHYel/AB16@25St
748: *OldRgeRd152 -> *OldRR152
750: Look for old alignment near +X135172 -- GIS (no), Topo (yes) -- replaced with *OldAB750_Gif
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on September 09, 2017, 11:12:49 am
AB800 - 986
Canonical Shapefiles: NRN_AB_14_0_ROADSEG

Route Numbers:
800 801 803 804 805 806 808
810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817
820 821 822 824 825 827 829
830 831 833 834 835 836 837 838 839
840 841 842 843 844 845 846 848 849
850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859
860 861 862 864 866 867 869
870 872 873 875 876 877 879
880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 889
892 893 894 895 897 899
901 947 986


Shaping points temporarily visible for gisplunge:
813: 2 8 9 21 26 30
841: X974990
842: X221645 X164443 (all)
858: X485881
875: X885016 X488750
881: 20 21 30 35 44 45 46 48 49 956 57
897: X416691 X998627 X403348 X927011
899: X725479
901: X127401
947: x1
986: 11 23 26 29 32


Indetermini:
814: GIS to "Wetaskiwin No. 10, County of" / "Wetaskiwin"; signed from AB13. Highway Connector in Wetaskiwin?
833: GIS to "Camrose" / "Camrose County"; signed from AB13. Highway Connector in Camrose?
869: GIS to TwpRd442; unsigned N of AB13. Highway Connector in Sedgewick?

ToDo / FixMe:
838Kne = Kneehill County (check placename as listed in shapefiles)
862New = Newell No. 4, County of (check similar "County of" placenames in CSVs)
870 thru 881: recheck GIS 14.0 (drafted using old version)
880: retain draft MT/AB coords to sync with mt.sr409
897: needs shaper(s) both sides of AB641

Implied multiplexes:
Connect 881? (134.80 + 43.73 + 164.81 mi.) (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2169.msg8867#msg8867)

canab:
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1823
55: AB28_S +-> AB28_W
831: fix AB15 points
833: add point to AB13
854: fix AB14 points
866: fix AB55 point label
885: fix AB61 point label
893: reposition TCH16 point
986: recenter AB35 point


Before devel:
All City/Abbrev segments in correct order, 800 series especially
  761/bra/pon/wet -> 761/pon/wet/bra
  838/kne -> kne/838
  843/pic -> pic/843
  862/new -> new/862
  881/har -> har/881
  899/emp -> emp/899
verify that all routes are drafted
831: "Township Road 640.5" per shapefiles; see AB663
855: Decimal Twp/Rge Rds
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on September 21, 2017, 02:33:02 am
AB633
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/edmontonarea_flash.html

Quote
New Roadway - Hwy 43 to Hwy 779

PROJECT INFORMATION

Location: Hwy 633 from Hwy 43 to Hwy 779,
14.4 km in total.

Description: A planning study has been
completed to identify the future alignment and
configuration of Highway 633 between Highway
43 and Highway 779. The objectives of the study
are to confirm the feasibility and cost of
constructing Highway 633 on the previously
designated straight-through alignment, review
expected traffic changes in the highway network
with construction of the missing Highway 633
link, and identify future right-of-way
requirements and access points.

A Public Information Session was held on May 5,
2011 at Muir Lake Community Hall. Information
shown at the session is available for download.

Schedule: Planning has been completed.
Construction is outside the three-year program.

Consultant: AMEC Earth & Environmental

For more information, contact:  Roberta
Clifford, P. Eng., Sr. Transportation Engineer,
AMEC Earth & Environmental, ph. 780-377-3692,
roberta.clifford@amec.com

PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
Location Plan (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Edmonton_Area/Hwy633/Location_Plan.pdf)
Information Session - Fact Sheet (24MB) (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Edmonton_Area/Hwy633/Fact_Sheet.pdf)
Information Session - Display Boards (1.9MB) (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Edmonton_Area/Hwy633/PIS_Exhibits.pdf)
Information Session - Alignment Drawings (8.2MB) (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Edmonton_Area/Hwy633/PIS_Alignment_Plans.pdf)
With this as the most recent info on the Alberta Provincial Highway Projects (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/) site, I'm more comfortable taking the path I was already considering for AB633; including two sections:
AB633, from AB757 to AB43.
AB633 (St. Albert), from AB779 to AB2.

Here's my original analysis, transferring the text into this post from the AB600 - 699 master post upthread.

Section 1, AB757 to AB43:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 633
  ProChart (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/2017_PROVINCIAL_HWY_500-986_CONTROL_SECTION_MAP.pdf): Asphaltic Surface Course - Final
  Include.
Section 2, AB43 to Range Road 21:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 633
  ProChart: Graded / Gravelled
  GMSV: No signage pointing east from AB43 in May 2013; no imagery further east.
  Include? Treat as unsigned; wait for updated GMSV or field reports.
Section 3, Range Road 21 to (53.657542°, -114.150049°):
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = None; L_STNAME_C = "633 Highway"
  ProChart: Proposed Route
  GMSV: No coverage
  Do not include.
Section 4, (53.657542°, -114.150049°) to (53.657541°, -114.137948°):
  355072-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.657542&lon=-114.150049
  355072-1 +243004-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.657542&lon=-114.148982
  243004-1 +82103-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.657541&lon=-114.141671
  82103-1 +15433-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.657541&lon=-114.141507
  15433-1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.657541&lon=-114.137948

  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 633
  ProChart: Graded / Gravelled
  GMSV: No coverage
  Include? A Segment of Independent Not-Much-Utility. Assume it's unsigned; wait for updated GMSV or field reports.
Section 5, (53.657541°, -114.137948°) to Range Road 15:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = None; L_STNAME_C = "633 Highway"
  ProChart: Proposed Route
  GMSV: No coverage
  Do not include.
Section 6, Range Road 15 to Range Road 14:
  GIS: No road segment here
  Satellite: No road segment here
  ProChart: Proposed Route
  GMSV: No coverage
  Do not include.
Section 7, Range Road 14 to AB779:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 633
  ProChart: Graded / Gravelled
  GMSV: just this (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.6601276,-114.0018446,3a,15y,203.07h,87.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srjWDep8kZJHB-KC4kUugzw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Aug 2009
  Include? Follow Section 2's precedent and wait for definitive evidence of signage to the west.
Section 8, AB779 to St. Albert:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 633
  ProChart: Asphaltic Surface Course - Final
  GMSV: Signed east from AB44. From there...?
  Include.
Section 9, St. Albert limits to AB2:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 633
  ProChart: Multi-lane / Divided
  GMSV: no shields at AB2, RgeRd260, or corporate limits just west of there.
        blade signs = "Sec Rd 633" @ RgeRd260; "Villeneuve Rd" @ RayGibbon Dr & east.
  Highway Connector?
  Initially included; ask @julmac his opinion; now thinking delete. (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2169.msg8862#msg8862)

The southern temp. route / detour that OSM & Google show via RgeRd20, TwpRd541, and RgeRd14 appears apocryphal; I'm unable to confirm it in any official source. (Official sources *do* seem to point to a routing via TwpRd542 -- albeit a proposed & incomplete one.) If it turns out to be signed, I can add it later on.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on December 17, 2017, 02:10:16 am
AB761
No projects listed on the Provincial Highway Projects (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/) site.

Section 1, AB54 to AB12:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 761
  ProChart (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/2017_PROVINCIAL_HWY_500-986_CONTROL_SECTION_MAP.pdf): Asphaltic Surface Course - Final
  GMSV: Well signed
  Include, AB761
Section 2, AB12 to just south of Township Road 413:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 761
  ProChart: Asphaltic Surface Course - Final
  GMSV: signed from AB12; no coverage N of there
  Include, AB761
Section 3, just south of Township Road 413 to (52.594330°, -114.625562°):
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 761
  ProChart: Graded / Gravelled
  GMSV: No coverage
  Include, AB761
Section 4, (52.594330°, -114.625562°) to just south of Township Road 423:
  GIS: No road segment here
  ProChart: Proposed Route
  GMSV: No coverage
  Do not include.
Section 5, just south of Township Road 423 to AB53:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 761
  ProChart: Graded / Gravelled
  GMSV: No coverage
  Include, AB761 (Ponoka County)
Section 6, implied concurrency with AB53:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 53; L_STNAME_C = "53 Highway"
  GMSV: No coverage
  Include, AB761 (Ponoka County)
Section 7, AB53 to AB607:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 761
  ProChart: Graded / Gravelled
  GMSV: No coverage
  Include, AB761 (Ponoka County)
Section 8, AB13 to Township Road 465:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 761
  ProChart: Graded / Gravelled
  GMSV: signed from AB13; no coverage N of there
  Include, AB761 (Wetaskiwin No. 10 County)
Section 9, Township Road 465 to (53.032574°, -114.733621°):
  GIS: No road segment here
  ProChart: Proposed Route
  GMSV: No coverage
  Do not include.
Section 10, (53.032574°, -114.733621°) to AB616:
  GIS: RTNUMBER1 = 761
  ProChart: Graded / Gravelled
  GMSV: signed from AB616; no coverage S of there
  Include, AB761 (Brazeau County)
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on January 20, 2018, 01:36:29 am
a couple tricky waypoint labeling scenarios / decimal points? (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2343)
(topic may not be visible to all forum members)

*Old Township Road 862
*Old Range Road 152
Range Road 174.6
Township Road 640.5
Range Road 171.3
Range Road 173.3
Township Road 672.5
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on January 21, 2018, 01:13:55 am
*Old Township Road 862 -> *OldTR862
*Old Range Road 152 -> *OldRR152

Stylistically a bit different from the "TwpRd" & "RgeRd" conventions otherwise used, but forward-compatible with a potential province-wide TwpRd -> TR / RgeRd -> RR relabeling, which may or may not end up happening.

I think that makes everything just about ready to hit the HB in devel mode.
I'll put some CSVs together & do whatever else I need, and open a pull request.

convenient link for future reference (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1878.msg4866#msg4866)
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: oscar on January 21, 2018, 01:45:00 am
FWIW, in Saskatchewan there is an active route with an RR abbreviation for a Range Road. Some of the in-dev cansk routes I've been slowly adding to the HB have RR abbreviations and/or TR for Township Roads.

We probably should have consistent abbreviations for the prairie provinces, though I don't feel strongly about RgeRd vs. RR, or TwpRd vs. TR.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on January 21, 2018, 03:10:11 am
If you've used RR & TR in Saskatchewan, and have not used RgeRd & TwpRd, you can just keep on doing what you have been doing, and I'll have an excuse to do an Alberta-wide relabeling.

With the way section line roads are signed in Manitoba, I prefer to keep the convention I'm using there (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg4887#msg4887) in place.
If we're able to use a common convention for Alberta & Saskatchewan, I'm all for it.

Can't forget sk.ab017san.wpt.
I believe this would be a carbon copy of sk.sk017san. oscar, you have a say WRT this route.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on January 21, 2018, 11:20:24 pm
My current plan is to do a province-wide relabeling, including active systems:
TwpRd -> TR
RgeRd -> RR
Any objections? Oscar, what's your opinion here?

Edit: Done, for active systems. No pull request (yet), but here's a comparison:
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/compare/master...yakra:KingRalph

canabs has 323 WPT files, so for that I'll make an adaptation of the program I wrote to help with the TNs -> TN relabeling in Tennessee. <--Done.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: oscar on January 22, 2018, 04:24:25 am
Go ahead. But two TwpRd__ and RgeRd___ points on active routes are in use, so only for those routes the old label needs to be kept and hidden:

ab.ab001alak(12): AB1_W AB1_E TWPRD265B
ab.ab043x(2): AB2/43 RGERD63
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on January 22, 2018, 02:00:56 pm
Yep. Those (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/blob/KingRalph/hwy_data/AB/canab/ab.ab001alak.wpt) are done (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/blob/KingRalph/hwy_data/AB/canab/ab.ab043x.wpt).
The data's already in place; I'll just open a pull request (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1837).
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on January 23, 2018, 03:11:20 am
Before preview:
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1840

Points in correct order?
511 525 594
622 647 684
742 748
838 838Kne

Endpoints, labels & related
527: TR135A -> FlyEastRd
546: TR194A -> BluWilPP
601: GMSV as shown in Google; extend
608Ami: TR415 -> End
642: fix AB777 labels
663Bea: TR670 -> End
666: RR85 -> End
695: TR1011A -> End
754: NeeDr -> LakDr
769: TR630 -> AB661_W
855: replace TR394 with AB601


AB5xx Twp/Rge labels @uselessplex ends?
Check provincial boundary points near intersecting roads
834Chi: Chipman, or Tofield? Chipman. It does enter, per AltaLIS & NRN shapefiles. Less ambiguous than Tofield.
implied multiplexes (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2169.msg8867#msg8867)
indetermini (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2169.msg8862#msg8862) -- ArcGIS - Alberta County Municipal District Map (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=611b449b44454fbcbb4b89010e17e3e3)
http://www.altalis.com/products/property/municipal_boundaries.html

Before active:
833: consider relabeling AB14 based on HDX label
899: consider relabeling AB13_W based on HDX label
NMPs
datacheck
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on January 31, 2018, 05:21:08 pm
Indetermini

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16779.msg2115865#msg2115865
Quote from: julmac
In general, highways through cities are controlled by the respective city not the province (and therefore not officially Provincial Highways) except for those highways which are part of the National Highway System (NHS). There are, however, exceptions to both cases. For example, AB 22X (east of AB 201) is a Provincial Highway despite not being part of the NHS, while AB/TCH 16 between either end of AB 216 and AB/TCH 1 between Calgary west boundary and AB 201 (east) are controlled by Edmonton and Calgary respectively, despite being part of the NHS. There are official "Highway Connector" routes which provide provincial highway continuity through cities. Funding is provided by the province to the cities to maintain and sign these roadways, except in Calgary and Edmonton, where a separate transportation funding scheme was negotiated a number of years ago - rendering the official Highway Connector routings in these cities meaningless. In either case, highway route signing in cities is sometimes spotty. “TO” tabs are also sometimes used.
Still have yet to fully wrap my head around the details of exactly how this works, but I suspect Highway Connectors may be involved in many of the following cases where a route's end as shown in the shapefiles differs from what's indicated by signage in the field.
It looks like Highway Connectors are sometimes shown in the shapefiles and sometimes not, if everything I suspect is a Highway Connector actually is.

560 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab560), City of Calgary:
GIS: W end @ AB2
ProChart (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/2017_PROVINCIAL_HWY_500-986_CONTROL_SECTION_MAP.pdf): W end @ AB201
GMSV: No route numbers on overhead signage at AB201, for either direction. Signed W from AB791. This. (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9794839,-113.9089672,3a,15y,138.57h,89.39t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sWiB_bh_XgPHGHGU1tcz-dg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)
Comments: The city line appears to run along east-west along Glenmore Trail here, per the ProChart & the Alberta County Municipal District Map (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=611b449b44454fbcbb4b89010e17e3e3), which shows the boundary slightly S of the roadway, putting Glenmore Trail, east of the interchange footprint, in Rocky View County. If I load these shapefiles (http://www.altalis.com/products/property/municipal_boundaries.html) into QGIS, I see the same thing, yielding a boundary (where it turns N-S) point here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.979557&lon=-113.911778).
OTOH, the shapefiles have the L_PLACENAM attribute changing from "Calgary" to "Rocky View County" here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.979634&lon=-113.907287). The TO (560) GMSV link above would make a bit more sense in this context.
ToDo: Truncate. With a Highway Connector situation probably in play here, and the absence of signage on AB201, I'm okay with with an end E of AB201. Question is, should it be here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.979557&lon=-113.911778) or here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.979634&lon=-113.907287)?

563 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab563), City of Calgary:
GIS: E end takes Old Banff Coach Rd into Calgary, curving south to end at Bow Trl.
ProChart: E end @ Calgary limits; no brown line continues inside. Mileage of 6.46 km seems to correspond to Calgary limits <-> the north end of the TCH/AB1 interchange.
GMSV: Nothing at or east of city limits. First I see is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.066994,-114.2388814,3a,25.8y,275.83h,87.16t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s2SZ0M6JuIQgf1ey-dTofyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41).
Comments: Signage sparse west of there too.
ToDo: Truncate. (GeoBase (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.066973&lon=-114.234374) vs AltaLIS (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.066973&lon=-114.234341) coords. I've gone with AltaLIS in the stuff I've drafted already.)

564 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab564), City of Calgary:
GIS: Older versions have the W end @ AB2. Newer versions have more and more (but not yet all) of the roadway W of AB201 reverting to RTNUMBER1 = None. (Work in progress?) :P
ProChart: City limits, just E of AB201.
GMSV: No route numbers on AB201 or AB2, just "Country Hills Blvd".
Comments: GeoBase NRN shapefiles & AltaLIS municipal boundary shapefiles differ by ~0.000001 on the boundary location.
ToDo: Truncate

613 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab613), City of Wetaskiwin:
GIS: W end @ 45 St, just inside Wetaskiwin limits.
ProChart: Looks like Wetaskiwin limits. 11.18 km @ AB822_N appears to back this up. No brown line inside city limits.
GMSV: Signed facing N, S & E @ the AB2A/13 intersection.
Comments: That little bit inside city limits in the shapefiles is odd.
ToDo: Leave as-is

627 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab627), City of Edmonton:
GIS: E end @ 184St
ProChart: E end @ Edmonton limits; brown line continues inside.
GMSV: 627 W from city line @ 215St, nothing E of there.
ToDo: Truncate

628 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab628), City of Edmonton:
GIS: E end @ AB216
ProChart: E end @ Edmonton limits; no brown line continues inside.
GMSV: Old-style "Secondary" shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5122269,-113.7142448,3a,34.6y,288.75h,90.05t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1srqEFbkDeRIjUGAala2QwPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) just W of city line & 231 St, nothing E of there: No mention from 216 or westbound Whitemud
ToDo: Truncate? (coords) (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.512211&lon=-113.713592)

633StA (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab633StA), City of St. Albert:
GIS: E end @ AB2
ProChart: E end @ city limits.
GMSV: Signed east from AB44. From there...? No shields at AB2, RgeRd260, or corporate limits just west of there.
Comments: GeoBase NRN shapefiles & AltaLIS municipal boundary shapefiles disagree a negligibly tiny amount on the boundary location.
ToDo: Truncate

733 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab733), (hamlet of) Wanham:
GIS: N end @ Wanham / Birch Hills County, just N of 2 Ave
ProChart: A bit N of AB49
GMSV: I only found this (https://www.google.com/maps/@55.7304129,-118.3920817,3a,15y,127.28h,85.93t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1slFme44Kby1f1-3JhJyc6fg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)
Comments: Hamlet, not City? Probably no Highway Connector here...
ToDo: Northernmost bits look unsigned; truncate

772 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab772), City of Calgary:
GIS: Older versions have the E end @ AB2. Newer versions, similar to 564 above, have a discontinuity between Sage Hill Dr & 144 Ave.
ProChart: Calgary limits
GMSV: Nothing at, or SE of, AB201. Old-style "Secondary" shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1843931,-114.1358183,3a,20.7y,12.68h,89.4t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sXtxDI6mMevVViGukR5PAtA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) a bit N of 144Ave.
Comments: OK, so that's an old sign. If it were being signed today, with modern signs & practices, would it still be signed there?...
ToDo: Truncate

814 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab814), City of Wetaskiwin:
GIS: S end @ Wetaskiwin limits
ProChart: Wetaskiwin limits
GMSV: signed from AB13
ToDo: Leave as-is

833 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab833), City of Camrose:
GIS: S end @ Camrose limits
ProChart: Camrose limits
GMSV: signed from AB13, and left turn onto 48A Ave.
ToDo: Leave as-is

869 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab869), Town of Sedgewick:
GIS: N end @ Township Rd 442, just outside Wetaskiwin limits.
ProChart: N of AB13
GMSV: unsigned N of AB13
Comments: Sedgewick, like Sylvan Lake, is a Town not a City. Nonetheless... highway connector?
ToDo: Leave as-is



What I'm thinking of doing...
1.
For routes where signage indicates a longer route than shown in shapefiles, go with signage.

  613, 814, and 833 stay as they are now, with their full extents in the HB.
2. For routes where shapefiles show a longer route than what's signed, go with signage if there's a clear endpoint.
  733 ends at AB49 (truncate); 869 ends at AB13 (as-is).
3. In cases where, approaching a municipal boundary, signage does not indicate a clear endpoint, go with the municipal boundary.
  560: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange (see above).
  564: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange.
  627: Truncate E end to Edmonton line @ 215St.
  633StA: Truncate E end to St. Albert line, about 1 km W of the current RayGibDr point.
  772: Truncate S end to Calgary line, slightly south of the current TR261A point. This case is a perhaps a bit more iffy than the others, what with the old-style "Secondary" shield still with city limits. It doesn't do anything to help me more precisely pin down an endpoint. If I write it off as an old remnant shield, that might not even get installed under modern signing practices, I can just be consistent about my "rules" here and how I'm implementing them.

What does everyone think of this proposal?
@julmac, any insight here?
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: oscar on January 31, 2018, 08:53:35 pm
Just a few thoughts, the second of which might be unhelpful:

-- 869 in the town of Sedgwick, I'm not sure Town vs. City makes a difference, or whether they're just different names for otherwise similar urban municipalities. A town can graduate to a city if its population grows enough, but I'm not sure anything but the name changes.

-- This issue is similar to the agonies I'm going through figuring out California's relinquishments of state highway segments to local jurisdictions. But the "Highway Connector" concept seems to help here, if the province is indicating which locally-maintained routes should be treated as if they were part of the provincial system for continuity, and which others it doesn't care about continuity. Of course, California usually requires signage for route continuity, but the local governments often ignore that law. Whether the absence of signage makes it hard for travelers to stay on a route from one side of a city to the other, can tip the scale for me on whether or not to ignore a relinquishment.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on January 31, 2018, 09:36:28 pm
Town vs. City may not make much of a difference. I noted that mostly as a follow-up to julmac's post Re: canab: Alberta Provincial Highways 1-216 (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=38.msg456#msg456):
Quote
1. Re. AB11ASyl (now AB11ARed): I looked into it further and the portion out to the west town boundary is indeed included as a "provincial highway connector" (which is probably why it shows up in the GeoBase shapefile). This is strange given that Sylvan Lake is a Town not a City. Even so, the "connector" status is almost certainly meaningless now since AB11A west of Sylvan Lake was de-designated (given to Red Deer County) about 15 years ago. Keep the HB as is.
At least in this one case, it's possible for a Highway Connector to exist in a town.

A potential Highway Connector shouldn't affect the final outcome of AB869 in the HB.
869, along with 733, was included in my #2, "clear-enough-signage" category above.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on February 01, 2018, 12:39:27 am
Implied multiplexes

There was some discussion on Thresholds for Implied Multiplexes (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1878) about a year ago.
The gist of it was that implied multiplexes are best figured out on a case-by-case, "what feels right in this situation?", basis.
One general point of agreement = that if connecting the two segments requires running concurrent with multiple distinct routes, it makes sense to split based on that.



AB881Har (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab881har) & AB881 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ab.ab881) pass the "connected by only a single route" test, thanks to AB55.
But the gap is much longer than any other implied multiplex in Alberta.

I think that the lengths of a gap depends on the entire length of the route and the relation to the lengths of the gap:
1mi - 10mi gap - 1mi,
10mi - 10mi gap - 10mi,
10mi - 10mi gap - 1mi or
100mi - 10mi gap - 100mi
are totally different and should be handled differently. I have no clear rule of thumb in my mind though.
FWIW, AB881 clocks in at 135 mi - 44 mi gap - 165 mi.

With the usatn routes I've drafted so far, I've chosen to split a few:

TN1, which has 2 segments of 1 and 3 miles. It follows US70 in between segments, but those segments are separated by about 300 miles.
TN7, which has 2 segments of 2 and 29 miles. It follows US31 in between segments, but those segments are separated by about 50 miles.
Note how in both cases, the gap is longer than the route segments at either end.

Quote
Others with unsigned parts have been kept as single files:
...
TN43 (unsigned on US45E)
Of those mapcat kept as single files, probably the best comparison to AB881 WRT the gap's length relative to the signed portion of the route:
6.71 mi - 6.26 mi gap - 1.16 mi.

We get a feel for how the local authority signs their highways, and work that into the decisions we make. Ultimately we should be working towards something that makes it easy for users to plan, execute, and document their travels.
Most implied multiplexes in AB are far shorter. Often (but not always?), they have TO trailblazers.
This gap is of much more significant length, and has no TO trailblazers at the northern segment's south end (No GMSV at the southern segment's north end). ATM, I'm leaning toward leaving the two segments separated. Thoughts?



AB501 is an unusual case, a bit of a conflict between the "leave out unsigned routes" rule and the usual implied multiplex guidelines.
What would otherwise be the implied route to connect AB501Car (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ab.ab501car) and AB501 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ab.ab501) is parallel to another unsigned segment (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/AB/canab/ab.ab002trkcar.wpt) which was considered and rejected (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=38.msg512#msg512) as AB2 Truck (Cardston).
It seems a bit wrong-headed to run AB501 along AB AB2 AB501_W AB501_E (Should these be labeled AB501_S & AB501_N if there's no multiplex? Or maybe AB501 & AB501Car? Oh bother...) in this case. Heck, someone arriving at AB AB501Car AB2 would actually have to turn the other way on AB2 to reach the next (the unsigned one) segment.
Heh -- if the ultimate test is "what feels right in this situation?", then this is what feels right in this situation. 8)
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: julmac on February 17, 2018, 12:57:48 pm
What I'm thinking of doing...
What does everyone think of this proposal?
@julmac, any insight here?

1.
For routes where signage indicates a longer route than shown in shapefiles, go with signage.

  613, 814, and 833 stay as they are now, with their full extents in the HB.

OK, that's consistent with the treatment in the AB 1-216 system.

Quote
2. For routes where shapefiles show a longer route than what's signed, go with signage if there's a clear endpoint.
  733 ends at AB49 (truncate); 869 ends at AB13 (as-is).

OK. 733 and 869 are provincial highways proper (not connectors), but this treatment is consistent with other unsigned segments such as unsigned AB 3A at Barnwell.

Quote
3. In cases where, approaching a municipal boundary, signage does not indicate a clear endpoint, go with the municipal boundary.
  560: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange (see above).
  564: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange.
  627: Truncate E end to Edmonton line @ 215St.
  633StA: Truncate E end to St. Albert line, about 1 km W of the current RayGibDr point.
  772: Truncate S end to Calgary line, slightly south of the current TR261A point. This case is a perhaps a bit more iffy than the others, what with the old-style "Secondary" shield still with city limits. It doesn't do anything to help me more precisely pin down an endpoint. If I write it off as an old remnant shield, that might not even get installed under modern signing practices, I can just be consistent about my "rules" here and how I'm implementing them.

AB 560 and 564 both extend to AB 201. They are unsigned form AB 201 for no good reason. I suggest they be truncated to AB 201 instead of the city boundary. (Side technicality: AB 560 is designated as such to AB 201; however, AB 564 appears to only be designated to the city boundary. Moot point since the Transportation Utility Corridor [the ownership boundary for AB 201] extends east to the city boundary).

Agree with truncating AB 267 and AB 633Sta to the city boundaries.
Truncate AB 772 to city boundary. I might suggest a point further south except that AB 772 is planned to be re-routed to Shaganappi Trail in the future. The remnant signage is left-over from before the city boundary extended so far north.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: julmac on February 17, 2018, 01:06:16 pm
AB501 is an unusual case, a bit of a conflict between the "leave out unsigned routes" rule and the usual implied multiplex guidelines.
What would otherwise be the implied route to connect AB501Car (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ab.ab501car) and AB501 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ab.ab501) is parallel to another unsigned segment (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/AB/canab/ab.ab002trkcar.wpt) which was considered and rejected (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=38.msg512#msg512) as AB2 Truck (Cardston).
It seems a bit wrong-headed to run AB501 along AB AB2 AB501_W AB501_E (Should these be labeled AB501_S & AB501_N if there's no multiplex? Or maybe AB501 & AB501Car? Oh bother...) in this case. Heck, someone arriving at AB AB501Car AB2 would actually have to turn the other way on AB2 to reach the next (the unsigned one) segment.
Heh -- if the ultimate test is "what feels right in this situation?", then this is what feels right in this situation. 8)

Agree with how you have it in the HB. The "truck bypass" portion of AB 501 is basically an unsigned segment of AB 501. Leaving it out would be consistent with the treatment of other unsigned segments in both AB systems.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on February 28, 2018, 06:32:39 pm
Oy, this is starting to remind me of the headache of sorting out what to include for the usanyp system...

AB 560 and 564 both extend to AB 201. ... AB 564 appears to only be designated to the city boundary.
On the surface, this looks contradictory, unless there's some nuance I'm missing.
Do 560 & 564 extend to 201 as provincial highways proper? Or, as just connectors?
By "designated", do you mean designated as a provincial highway proper, or as AB5**, including whatever connector(s) may be involved? (I assume the former?)
If connectors exist for 560 and/or 564, where are they; what are their endpoints? This could provide a little clarity...

AB 560 and 564 both extend to AB 201. They are unsigned form AB 201 for no good reason. I suggest they be truncated to AB 201 instead of the city boundary. (Side technicality: AB 560 is designated as such to AB 201; however, AB 564 appears to only be designated to the city boundary. Moot point since the Transportation Utility Corridor [the ownership boundary for AB 201] extends east to the city boundary).
Right now, I'm working under the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that the portions of 560 & 564 within city limits are highway connectors. If this assumption turns out to be incorrect, I can re-evaluate my approach.

I want to take as consistent an approach as I can in cases of highway connectors that are unsigned. I don't like the idea of including some-but-not-all of an unsigned connector; I want to head off any arguments/questions about "You included this, why not this?" (In this context, one could make the case for AB201 being a bit of an arbitrary cutoff...) Thus in choosing between "all" and "nothing", I choose "nothing", out of not wanting to include unsigned route segments. It's consistent with what's been done on the site so far.

627, 633StA, & 772 also fall into the same #3, unsigned within city limits, go with the municipal boundary, category. Creating an exception for 560 & 564 opens up the door to a rethink of how these three are done. :(

Truncate AB 772 to city boundary. I might suggest a point further south except that AB 772 is planned to be re-routed to Shaganappi Trail in the future.
Eyeballing this out, it looks like such a reroute would peel away from the existing road a wee bit south of the boundary.
Under an "Endpoint at the city line" scenario, it'd mean no changes necessary to this file if/when that happens. (Unless the extension magically becomes signed.) I like this.
Under a "somewhere south of there" scenario, it'd mean a relocation in the HB at an end of an active route, which is yecchier than a straightforward extension, especially one that won't even take effect. :)

New business:
I just noticed AB628 also falls into this category. :(
I've had AB563 on my radar a while as deserving another look. Checking out the map again, it does enter Calgary limits. ISTR signage being subpar on the western bits, and non-existent in the east. I'll give GMSV another look. Most likely, this one gets truncated.
I'll add entries for these routes to Reply #15, above.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: julmac on March 03, 2018, 01:35:04 pm
Do 560 & 564 extend to 201 as provincial highways proper? Or, as just connectors?
By "designated", do you mean designated as a provincial highway proper, or as AB5**, including whatever connector(s) may be involved? (I assume the former?)
If connectors exist for 560 and/or 564, where are they; what are their endpoints? This could provide a little clarity...

Designated means provincial highway proper. The province has "direction, control, and management" of a designated highway. AB 560 is designated to the west side of the AB 201. AB 564 is designated only to the City boundary, but the province still has "direction, control, and management" of Country Hills Boulevard to the west side of the interchange (exactly the same as for AB 560) by virtue of it being within the right-of-way boundary for AB 201, meaning that for all practical purposes AB 564 extends to AB 201. It's an inconsistent treatment for sure (not exactly sure the historical reason for the difference), but for the province to extend the designation of AB 564 the extra 500 m at this point would only be a paper exercise.

Quote
I want to take as consistent an approach as I can in cases of highway connectors that are unsigned. I don't like the idea of including some-but-not-all of an unsigned connector; I want to head off any arguments/questions about "You included this, why not this?" (In this context, one could make the case for AB201 being a bit of an arbitrary cutoff...) Thus in choosing between "all" and "nothing", I choose "nothing", out of not wanting to include unsigned route segments. It's consistent with what's been done on the site so far.

627, 633StA, & 772 also fall into the same #3, unsigned within city limits, go with the municipal boundary, category. Creating an exception for 560 & 564 opens up the door to a rethink of how these three are done. :(

While it would technically be an exception to your rule to include the extra 500 m of undesignated AB 564, I think that's the most practical approach for the benefit of travel mapping. The other examples (AB 627/633Sta/772) are much longer undesignated segments.

Quote
New business:
I just noticed AB628 also falls into this category. :(
I've had AB563 on my radar a while as deserving another look. Checking out the map again, it does enter Calgary limits. ISTR signage being subpar on the western bits, and non-existent in the east. I'll give GMSV another look. Most likely, this one gets truncated.
I'll add entries for these routes to Reply #15, above.

Yes, truncate these to the City boundaries. Two others that deserve some consideration are AB 542 and 873 through Brooks. They were both de-designated and turned over to the town a few years ago. Signing is inconsistent.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: julmac on March 10, 2018, 01:36:46 pm
My notes on the 500s (critical in bold)

AB501
-change WP6 TR11 --> "RR231"

AB501Car
-add WP @ 7 St (Cardston)

AB505
-change WP12 RR241 -->"TR50A"

AB506
-change WP9 AB5 --> "AB4"

AB507
-change WP6 TR62_W --> "RR20A"
-add SPs through Pincher Creek (and on AB6)

AB512
-remove WP0 "AB3"
-in conjunction with above, WP4 AB3_E --> "AB3"

AB527
-change WP3 AB 527 --> "AB2"

AB533
-change WP7 TR163 --> "RR292"

AB546
-add more SPs or WPs near Turner Valley

AB552
-WP @ AB 797 is missing

AB552Dew
-uppercase "W" is showing up in .list name

AB560
-add WP @ Rainbow Road

AB561
-add WP @ Hussar

AB575
-add WP @ 12 St (Drumheller)

AB579
-add WP @ Dagnall Park

AB582
-add WPs @ 20 Ave, 20 St (Carstairs)
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on March 26, 2018, 05:55:03 pm
I've put in a pull request (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1927) to promote canabs to preview status.

Included: eight truncations as noted upthread (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2169.msg8862#msg8862).
WRT AB560 & AB564, I'm still a bit on the fence about those, and considering truncating them back to the city line.
For now though, why not get rid of the bits that julmac and I both agree should get zapped.

Two others that deserve some consideration are AB 542 and 873 through Brooks. They were both de-designated and turned over to the town a few years ago. Signing is inconsistent.
These are still on the ToDo list.

All of the critical changes julmac listed here (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2169.msg9144#msg9144) have been implemented, with one caveat:

Quote
AB552
-WP @ AB 797 is missing
I don't really consider it critical, with AB797 itself unsigned here, but why not. Added as 244St.

-- Non-critical items --

Quote
AB552Dew
-uppercase "W" is showing up in .list name
This is intentional; "De Winton", two words, both capitalized.
On that note, some fixes are included in the pull request:
AB608ami -> AB608Ami
AB628she -> AB628She
AB633sta -> AB633StA
AB661fta -> AB661FtA
AB663bea -> AB663Bea
AB663lak -> AB663Lak
AB697pad -> AB697Pad

Wow. I pooched it on a lot of those...  :-[

Quote
AB533
-change WP7 TR163 --> "RR292"
Shapefiles list "Williams Coulee Road", instead of Twp Rd 163. Rge Rd 292 is signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.3391199,-113.8963878,3a,15y,319.16h,84.74t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s1hFx6NTvAiMMEaag86id2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) in the field, OTOH. Changed.

Quote
AB507
-change WP6 TR62_W --> "RR20A"
Looks like Rge Rd 20A to me. (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.4663875,-114.1433404,3a,15y,25.56h,86.02t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sqssgkUkxObSVaswMFMAsdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i42) Changed. TR62_E -> TR62 too.

Quote
AB501
-change WP6 TR11 --> "RR231"
AB505
-change WP12 RR241 -->"TR50A"
For these, I don't see any signage in GMSV. Sticking with the names listed in the shapefiles, which usually match what I can see in GMSV when there's disagreement with other sources.

Quote
AB579
-add WP @ Dagnall Park
Between RR60A & RR53? Maybe, if's a major destination in and of itself. I'm most interested in points that could break up the long visible distance to the west.

Quote
AB501Car
-add WP @ 7 St (Cardston)
AB507
-add SPs through Pincher Creek (and on AB6)
AB546
-add more SPs or WPs near Turner Valley
AB561
-add WP @ Hussar
AB575
-add WP @ 12 St (Drumheller)
I think my philosopy WRT points in smaller communities & keeping routes within lateral tolerance is probably pretty similar to Oscar's (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2320.msg9113#msg9113).

Quote
AB582
-add WPs @ 20 Ave, 20 St (Carstairs)
Assuming you mean Didsbury. The way in which the route bypasses this medium-sized community, making a bit of a de facto business route, I can almost see this. I'll leave it in "unless someone specifically needs another for their list files" territory.

Quote
AB560
-add WP @ Rainbow Road
This is more justified, IMO. A more subarban, short-distance route overall here. Chestermere's a fairly large community. I could see a point here serving the AB791 or Langdon corridors. Appears to change to Rge Rd 283 south of Twp Rd 240; is signed as such @ AB560.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on March 26, 2018, 06:52:49 pm
Quote
Two others that deserve some consideration are AB 542 and 873 through Brooks. They were both de-designated and turned over to the town a few years ago.
So, these are no longer provincial highways proper. Out of curiosity, are there highway connectors here?

Quote
Signing is inconsistent.
I saw nothing eastbound on AB542 approaching AB873_S. Everything else in-town was still marked. GMSV here is from 2015; signage may have changed since.
542: Signage at TCH 1 / Cassils Rd interchange was changed after May 2012 to remove references to AB542. Similar 2012-era signage on the ramps themselves may also be gone; there's no newer imagery to compare.
 Where should the new east end be? City limits?
AB542 on TCH 1 would be relabeled CasRd.
873: Even if this (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.5909421,-111.8986125,3a,30.7y,113.95h,89.8t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s5fm44wU0BW1X36gM_fkvlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) sign is still around, signage from TCH 1 itself has changed, listing AB 873 NORTH specifically. That's worth something.
Where would the south end of the northern segment be? The TCH 1 interchange, or Brooks limits?
The southern segment: North end at Brooks limits, I presume?
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on March 27, 2018, 03:24:16 pm
Datacheck

ab.ab501;RR193;RR175;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.34RR175 -> RR183; two new shapers
ab.ab501;RR51;AB41;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.09no intermediate named roads
ab.ab501;AB41;AB/SK;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.61no intermediate named roads
ab.ab504;RR160;AB877;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.33RR160 -> RR155
ab.ab509;AB511;AB3;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;28.57no intermediate named roads
ab.ab511;RR253;AB509;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.54no intermediate named roads
ab.ab579;AB40;TR294B;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.05RR64A added; one new shaper
ab.ab621;RR92;AB22;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.30RR85 added
ab.ab663lak;RR123;TR684;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.35no intermediate named roads
ab.ab686;IndDr;PeeLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;38.98no intermediate named roads
ab.ab686;PeeLake;TroLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.29no intermediate named roads
ab.ab695;RR224;End;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.14no intermediate named roads
ab.ab697pad;AB35;TomLanFry;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.96no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;TR312;JamWil;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;19.03no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;AB584;AB591;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.51no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;PepLakeRd;RamFalPP;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.17no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;HumRd;NorRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.60no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;NorRd;NorIndDr_S;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.58no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;ChuRd;BlaRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.29no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;BlaTowRd;GraFlaRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.04no intermediate named roads
ab.ab750;OldAB750_Ati;AB88;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;16.30+X365680 -> UtiLake155A
ab.ab754;AB88;YelRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;50.71no intermediate named roads
ab.ab813;TR700;WardCheDr;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.86no intermediate named roads
ab.ab813;TR734;WolfTrl;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;36.16no intermediate named roads
ab.ab813;SerRd;TR800A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.46no intermediate named roads; TR800A -> TR801A
ab.ab881;AlpKRd;TR743A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;36.81no intermediate named roads
ab.ab881;TR743A;Con;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.64no intermediate named roads
ab.ab881;NorDr;Cha;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;20.03no intermediate named roads
ab.ab881;NokRd;EngLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;25.21no intermediate named roads
ab.ab881;EngLake;SinDr;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.84no intermediate named roads
ab.ab947;AthRiv;AB43;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.71no intermediate named roads
ab.ab986;RR193;TR871A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;24.04no intermediate named roads
ab.ab986;RR130A;AB88;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;23.93+X32 -> LoonLake
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: oscar on April 02, 2018, 09:13:49 pm
Now that canabs is in preview, and I have a few new entries for that system to add to my list file, some point requests:

AB 735: please add point for TR830. That's a county line road, and I turned around just north of there after a side trip to clinch Clear Hills County.

AB 827: please add point for 8Ave in Thorhild. That's a turnoff for the Thorhild County administrative offices, a "county seat" where I went inside the building (a little more effort than usual for my county-snagging efforts, but the building was open and I really needed to take a pee). That's only about 1 km north of the existing AB18 point, and I have the highway between AB28 and AB18 in my list file, so no biggie.

Otherwise, I don't have much to add from canabs. The main ones are three connectors between AB 41 and Saskatchewan primary routes, and also AB 881 between Lac La Biche and Fort McMurray.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on April 03, 2018, 03:02:04 pm
AB 735: please add point for TR830. That's a county line road, and I turned around just north of there after a side trip to clinch Clear Hills County.
Why not. This allow travelers to clinch something other than all or nothing, and does so with as close to a 50/50 mileage split as can be done.
Added (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1943). Along for the ride, AB734: ForTruRd -> Big/Cle

AB 827: please add point for 8Ave in Thorhild. That's a turnoff for the Thorhild County administrative offices, a "county seat" where I went inside the building (a little more effort than usual for my county-snagging efforts, but the building was open and I really needed to take a pee). That's only about 1 km north of the existing AB18 point, and I have the highway between AB28 and AB18 in my list file, so no biggie.
I'm more meh about this one, being so close to the existing AB18 point.

Otherwise, I don't have much to add from canabs. The main ones are three connectors between AB 41 and Saskatchewan primary routes, and also AB 881 between Lac La Biche and Fort McMurray.
Grin -- I was actually checking out your mapview a couple hours before I first read your post.



AB 560 is designated to the west side of the AB 201. AB 564 is designated only to the City boundary, but the province still has "direction, control, and management" of Country Hills Boulevard to the west side of the interchange (exactly the same as for AB 560) by virtue of it being within the right-of-way boundary for AB 201, meaning that for all practical purposes AB 564 extends to AB 201. It's an inconsistent treatment for sure (not exactly sure the historical reason for the difference), but for the province to extend the designation of AB 564 the extra 500 m at this point would only be a paper exercise.
While it would technically be an exception to your rule to include the extra 500 m of undesignated AB 564, I think that's the most practical approach for the benefit of travel mapping. The other examples (AB 627/633Sta/772) are much longer undesignated segments.
I'm starting to come around to this line of thinking.
The shapefiles indicate a west end for AB630 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ab.ab630) about here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.512119&lon=-113.33248), a point wholly within Sherwood Park. It doesn't correspond to a municipal boundary -- though, a historical one, possibly? The boundary does turn from E-W to N-S just south of there, pretty much at what looks like the southern edge of the ROW.
Seeing this, it kinda made me say "Hell with it; how far down this rabbit hole do I wanna go?"
I can see a bit of a One Point Per Interchange argument to be made here (though to be clear, no one's suggesting more than one point) in terms of granularity of point placement. Having connections at the interchanges makes graphs more useful for Jim's students, and enables the "Intersecting/Concurrent Routes" feature...

As far as splitting AB873 due to its turnback in Brooks, here's what I'm working with:
AB873:
Code: [Select]
RR162 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.368284&lon=-112.112304
AB36 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.366357&lon=-112.019038
RR151 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.362627&lon=-111.951970
RR150 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.367462&lon=-111.929125
AB535 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.398241&lon=-111.888086
ParkRd103 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.444669&lon=-111.883302
BroLim http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.542932&lon=-111.883377

AB873 (Duchess):
Code: [Select]
BroLim http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.586577&lon=-111.897143
AB1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.590539&lon=-111.897254
AB544 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.688437&lon=-111.897418
AB550 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.730624&lon=-111.897373
For this segment, we may want to take out the BroLim point and just have the end at AB1. I'm including BroLim here for reference purposes.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on April 12, 2018, 02:58:01 am
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1955

542: ... Where should the new east end be? City limits? ...
873: ... The southern segment: North end at Brooks limits, I presume?
Moving ahead under the assumption that both of these are the case.

873: Even if this (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.5909421,-111.8986125,3a,30.7y,113.95h,89.8t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s5fm44wU0BW1X36gM_fkvlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) sign is still around, signage from TCH 1 itself has changed, listing AB 873 NORTH specifically. That's worth something.
Where would the south end of the northern segment be? The TCH 1 interchange, or Brooks limits?
AB873 (Duchess):
Code: [Select]
BroLim http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.586577&lon=-111.897143
AB1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.590539&lon=-111.897254
AB544 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.688437&lon=-111.897418
AB550 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.730624&lon=-111.897373
For this segment, we may want to take out the BroLim point and just have the end at AB1. I'm including BroLim here for reference purposes.
BroLim corresponds to 15 Ave, which corresponds to the edge of the TCH footprint, because 15 Ave becomes the TCH 1 East onramp.
This is as good a place as any to invoke One Point Per Interchange, and thus match signage from TCH 1.
BroLim is out; AB1 is the northern segment's endpoint.

This makes canabs officially ready for peer review.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on July 19, 2018, 01:07:37 pm
Is there a reason the [AB 742] file doesn't end here (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0834995,-115.3873031,3a,75y,329.43h,78.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6ogrXg0w7j6k-vbJ6RMg4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), at the END sign?
This is where the shapefiles had it ending, all the way back to the 10.0 revision, dated 2013-04-26. A bit before the May 2015 GMSV date.
I did a fair bit of GMSVing around this route and area when drafting it, and somehow missed this sign.

Other stuff that may be noteworthy:
That's an old-style END sign, FWIW. See discussion of AB772 upthread.
The control section map / progress chart (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/2017_PROVINCIAL_HWY_500-986_CONTROL_SECTION_MAP.pdf) shows a short Graded / Gravelled segment at the west end. The 0.00 km mark is clearly shown at the W end of that, and the total length of 9.76 km neatly matches the distance (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/51.0820249,-115.4056881/51.056106,-115.3128827/@51.0708866,-115.4009322,13z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) to the far side of the AB1 interchange.
julmac, do you have the inside scoop on this route?

Ultimately though, it should probably be truncated. There's an actual junction, the pavement ends, and there's an END sign. Another case of "Think of the traveler who..."
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: julmac on July 22, 2018, 07:56:10 pm
Quote
Two others that deserve some consideration are AB 542 and 873 through Brooks. They were both de-designated and turned over to the town a few years ago.
So, these are no longer provincial highways proper. Out of curiosity, are there highway connectors here?

Connectors historically were are only applicable to cities and "primary" highways. This is because 1) cities by default assumed control of all provincial highways within their boundaries, unless a separate agreement in place. The legislation behind this changed recently so that now the highways remain under provincial control whenever a city expands its boundaries, and 2) the "secondary" highways were already under municipal control. So... no, these would not be considered connectors. They do, however, remain as control sections within the provincial inventory (listed as "municipal").
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: julmac on July 22, 2018, 08:01:20 pm
Quote
AB582
-add WPs @ 20 Ave, 20 St (Carstairs)
Assuming you mean Didsbury. The way in which the route bypasses this medium-sized community, making a bit of a de facto business route, I can almost see this. I'll leave it in "unless someone specifically needs another for their list files" territory.

20 Ave (Didsbury) should have a WP to remove ambiguity. (A turn is required in order to remain on AB 582).
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: julmac on July 22, 2018, 08:10:02 pm
Is there a reason the [AB 742] file doesn't end here (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0834995,-115.3873031,3a,75y,329.43h,78.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6ogrXg0w7j6k-vbJ6RMg4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), at the END sign?
This is where the shapefiles had it ending, all the way back to the 10.0 revision, dated 2013-04-26. A bit before the May 2015 GMSV date.
I did a fair bit of GMSVing around this route and area when drafting it, and somehow missed this sign.

Other stuff that may be noteworthy:
That's an old-style END sign, FWIW. See discussion of AB772 upthread.
The control section map / progress chart (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/2017_PROVINCIAL_HWY_500-986_CONTROL_SECTION_MAP.pdf) shows a short Graded / Gravelled segment at the west end. The 0.00 km mark is clearly shown at the W end of that, and the total length of 9.76 km neatly matches the distance (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/51.0820249,-115.4056881/51.056106,-115.3128827/@51.0708866,-115.4009322,13z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) to the far side of the AB1 interchange.
julmac, do you have the inside scoop on this route?

Ultimately though, it should probably be truncated. There's an actual junction, the pavement ends, and there's an END sign. Another case of "Think of the traveler who..."

The end point you have matches the provincial highway designation. I'm going to look into this more... it sure does look like provincial maintenance ends where the "END" sign is located. Regardless of the explanation behind it, I would agree with truncating it to the "END" sign for practical purposes.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: julmac on July 24, 2018, 10:33:05 pm
My notes on the 600s:

AB604
-adjust co-ordinates of WP3 "AB2A"

AB608
- change WP0 AB36/AB53 --> "AB36/53"

AB608Ami
-this route is unsigned. Delete?

AB610
-extend to AB17

AB616
-change WP10 RR12 --> "AB778_S"
-consider splitting @ AB 2A (not co-signed)

AB619
-change WP1 AB130 --> "RR130"
-change WP15 AB/SK --> "AB17/SK17" and check the co-ordinates

AB628
-change WP4 ParEdm --> "231St" and check the co-ordinates

AB641
-change WP4 AB/SK --> "AB17/SK17"

AB660
-change WP3 AB472 --> "RR472"

AB661
-change WP4 TR630 -->"AB769_N"

AB663
-add two WPs @ Railway Ave and 1 St (Colinton)
-consider splitting route @ AB 63 (not co-signed)

AB663Lak
-this route is unsigned. Delete?

AB677
-change WP3 50Ave --> "50St"
-consider splitting route @ AB 2 (not co-signed)

AB684
-check location of WP9 "LanSt"

AB686
-convert SP11 to WP (this is the location of the future extension of AB 686 shown on the Progress Chart)

AB695
-consider splitting route @ AB 35 (not co-signed)
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on July 25, 2018, 03:21:57 pm
20 Ave (Didsbury) should have a WP to remove ambiguity. (A turn is required in order to remain on AB 582).
Not all turns on a route are worthy of a waypoint. See for example NS NS322 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=ns.ns322) NanAve OchSt via Thistle St. IMO there's not terribly much ambiguity to resolve here. If I were to add a point here, it would be because Didsbury itself is a sorta-large community that draws some traffic & travelers on its own.
Aw what the hey. I've added points for less in Massachusetts. And Nebraska. And Alberta.

My notes on the 600s:

AB604 -adjust co-ordinates of WP3 "AB2A" (Adjusted on AB2aWet too.)
AB608 - change WP0 AB36/AB53 --> "AB36/53"
AB608Ami -this route is unsigned. Delete? (Point renamed on AB884.)
AB610 -extend to AB17
AB619 -change WP1 AB130 --> "RR130"
AB660 -change WP3 AB472 --> "RR472"
AB663Lak -this route is unsigned. Delete?
AB677 -change WP3 50Ave --> "50St"
AB684 -check location of WP9 "LanSt" (Another case of imperfect coords in the shapefiles. Adjusted.)

AB616 -change WP10 RR12 --> "AB778_S"
AB661 -change WP4 TR630 -->"AB769_N"
Labels chosen because the concurrent route doesn't leave the multiplex here; it just quietly begins/ends, with no junction as such. I chose the intersecting road name instead.

AB616 -consider splitting @ AB 2A (not co-signed)
AB663 -consider splitting route @ AB 63 (not co-signed)
AB677 -consider splitting route @ AB 2 (not co-signed)
AB695 -consider splitting route @ AB 35 (not co-signed)
These are cases of our "implied concurrency" or "implied multiplex" practice on TM. Even if a route is not signed, or not designated, on a short hop along another route, the connection is plotted within a single file anyway. This helps with continuity, not having too many distinct routes in the HB, etc.

AB619 -change WP15 AB/SK --> "AB17/SK17" and check the co-ordinates
AB641 -change WP4 AB/SK --> "AB17/SK17"
At route endpoints, regional boundary labels take precedence over exit numbers or intersecting routes.
The coordinates came from the shapefiles, and line up with Mapbox Satellite & ESRI WorldImagery.

AB628
-change WP4 ParEdm --> "231St" and check the co-ordinates
These coords came from QGIS, as a result of my "truncate to the municipal boundary" policy I decided on upthread. The boundary was just a tiny tiny bit west of the road junction. The point is shown on the municipal boundary in ESRI WorldTopoMap.

AB663 -add two WPs @ Railway Ave and 1 St (Colinton)
Another one like NS NS322 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=ns.ns322) NanAve OchSt via Thistle St. No need to plot out every turn, especially in small communities like this. Having the point at Main & Railway might be arguably more useful though. Moved, as it results in slightly better shaping.

AB686 -convert SP11 to WP (this is the location of the future extension of AB 686 shown on the Progress Chart)
I couldn't find any road name to name this point after, so I left it hidden. With no GMSV in the area, I was also at a loss for finding any signage for a nearby or distant placename.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2077
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: julmac on August 18, 2019, 05:14:20 pm
My notes for the 700s:

AB736
- consider moving the north end point south a bit to "RR11". While the end point shown in technically correct, it doesn't match the signage and is less practical.

AB742
- add WP @ Three Sisters Blvd (turn required).

AB744
- define the route through Peach River (multiple turns required).

AB750
- move WP18 "TR794B" about 270 m south to match a recent intersection relocation.

AB761Pon
-add WPs @ "TR430_E" and "TR430_W" (turns required).

AB769
- change WP1 "TwpRs612" --> "TR612".

AB774
- For practical purposes consider moving the south end point 300 m north to the north parking lot entrance. This is where the recently paved road ends. There is no end sign. The first shield northbound is about 250 m north of that.

AB780
- add WPs @ "TR470_E" and "TR470_W" (turns required).

AB791
- add WPs @ "TR250_W", "TR250_E", "TR270_W", and "TR270_E" (turns required).
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: yakra on September 05, 2019, 09:09:13 am
Added AB686 (Fort McMurray) (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=ab.ab686ftm). Somehow missed this when originally drafting the system.
julmac, thanks for the continued review; I hope to get back to this soon.
Title: Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
Post by: julmac on January 04, 2020, 11:31:35 am
My notes for routes 800-849:

AB800
-add WP @3rd St (east) (turn required)

AB813
-change WP3 "TwpTd680"--> "TR680"

AB827
-add WPs @ "TR590_E" and "TR590_W" (turns required)

AB837
-change WP3 "AB838" -->"AB838Kne"

AB840
-check co-ordinates of WP5 "MainSt_S"

AB845
-add WP @ "TR163" (Lomond) (turn required)