Author Topic: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread  (Read 28635 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1881
  • Last Login:Today at 11:50:46 am
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2017, 03:47:20 pm »

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2312
  • Last Login:Today at 06:32:47 pm
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #61 on: September 17, 2017, 02:49:57 pm »
Perhaps a more relevant question might be: are the "Winnipeg City Routes" (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) (canmbw) actually maintained by the province, or by the city? I don't know, but perhaps someone on the forum does, and the answer could be relevant here.
Maintained by the city I believe.
The Winnipeg Routes are a unique case, a one-off; they're the only such numbered/signed city system in Manitoba; it's highly unlikely that there will ever be another in the future. As such, there won't be any confusion with any other potential city systems, or a need the differentiate multiple such systems within Manitoba.
Some quotes from the canbmw thread:
Jim: "These seem to be an unusual case where they are well-signed and seem to take the place, within the Perimeter Highway, of what might normally be expected to be part of the provincial system."
mapcat: "I agree that they're a special case, and not analogous to USA county routes, or other smaller district systems we don't include."
I agree with this assessment. (Of course, having drafted the system. :) ) I'll note that not only are many of them extensions of canmb/canmbs routes from outside the Perimeter Highway, but many are themselves former Provincial highway alignments.
The canmbw thread blew up a bit too fast, and I've just left it alone for a while, but some day I'd like to revisit it, hash out a few of the topics therein as needed (maybe even with a topic split), and move canmbw toward activation again. But it's a low priority right now.

Online oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 877
  • Last Login:Today at 07:19:18 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #62 on: December 16, 2017, 06:26:51 am »
With usaak nearing activation, and usaca also well along, I'd like to lay claim to cansk.

See the separate thread I've created, with more details and notes (including some previously in this post).
« Last Edit: December 20, 2017, 09:58:26 pm by oscar »

Offline Wadsteckel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Last Login:October 14, 2019, 11:53:13 am
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #63 on: April 14, 2018, 10:56:28 am »
Does anyone have any plans to start work on the state highways for Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and/or Louisiana?  I would like to help, but my career change from IT support to OTR truck driver has me more in line with driving these roads instead of building the database for them.  :-/

Regards,
-Ed S

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
  • Last Login:Today at 05:54:17 pm
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #64 on: April 14, 2018, 12:38:06 pm »
Froggie is working on usams and planning to work on usaal. I'm working on usaar. The person who started usala has been quiet since the move from CHM to TM, and so it's unclear what's happening with that set. Someone else will probably pick it up eventually.

Your assistance identifying errors and omissions in any of the systems in preview is always welcome.
Clinched:

Offline Wadsteckel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • Last Login:October 14, 2019, 11:53:13 am
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #65 on: May 11, 2018, 03:30:59 pm »
Thanks, Mapcat. I'll keep trying to check in here and post my two cents, but I've seen most times that what we may see on the road isn't always up to date with what the state says is official. 

-Ed S

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1551
  • Last Login:Today at 05:41:01 pm
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #66 on: August 30, 2019, 09:30:52 am »
but there's no updates entry for it

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

Another example of why we need to move our preview systems forward to active status before developing more new systems.  With 100 systems in preview and available for mapping, that's a whole lot of users mapping travels in a whole lot of places with no promise of updates entries.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
  • Last Login:Today at 05:54:17 pm
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #67 on: August 30, 2019, 08:00:18 pm »
but there's no updates entry for it

Because it's just a preview but not an active system?
Oh right...yet still, there's usually discussion. It seems unusual that the city would have changed the routing of a highway purported to represent the historic path of a decommissioned route.
Clinched:

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1881
  • Last Login:Today at 11:50:46 am
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #68 on: August 31, 2019, 02:49:51 am »
Oh right...yet still, there's usually discussion.

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

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

*I guess that Highway63 had no doubts about the Springfield situation!?

Online oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 877
  • Last Login:Today at 07:19:18 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #69 on: August 31, 2019, 09:23:26 am »
Oh right...yet still, there's usually discussion.

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

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

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

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

More significant changes, such as preview route relocations and splits, could go into the Updates table. These could include major changes under discussion for cansk in Saskatoon and Regina, which are under discussion on the forum, but when implemented could use additional notice to users through the Updates table. I expect cansk to be activated by November anyway (after all the changes associated with the upcoming completion of the Regina Bypass), so the Saskatchewan changes would not be a major change in what goes into the Updates table.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 09:50:19 am by oscar »

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1881
  • Last Login:Today at 11:50:46 am
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #70 on: August 31, 2019, 10:52:34 am »
What a great idea! We could use alt labels for in-use wp labels for preview systems and also report preview system update entries on the updates table*. I think that would be a very good improvement! And we can do it without changing the policy. We just had to bring the system to active status first. Because that would be the only difference left between preview and active systems.
Why don't we just activate those systems? Sorry, but that's the only policy I'd really change.

*Update entries are more important to me than avoid breaking user list files

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 286
  • Last Login:Today at 06:24:23 pm
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #71 on: August 31, 2019, 12:14:16 pm »
I am opposed to beginning to treat preview systems like active systems by documenting changes in updates and whatnot. This effectively eliminates the distinction between the two, and at that point why even have preview and active as separate statuses?


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

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

Ergo, as I see it, we have two realistic options here:
- We need to realize that, without an authoritative data source, this system is lacking in officiality and go ahead and 86 it. Then it's no longer a problem.
- We need to realize that, without an authoritative data source, this system is never going to meet the usual threshold of being ready, and go ahead and promote it to active status. Then any further changes will get noted in updates and any waypoint relabelings will have their old labels preserved if in use, and we don't need to redefine anything about how preview systems are handled.

Offline osu-lsu

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
  • Last Login:November 16, 2019, 08:48:28 pm
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #72 on: August 31, 2019, 03:39:49 pm »
Just because they are active doesn't mean they can't and won't be updated (Ex: my occasional nagging at my neighbor concerning Ohio route additions and deletions)
Some preview systems aren't going to get that full of a review. Anyone here want to volunteer to field check all of Louisiana's routes?

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 495
  • Last Login:Today at 10:28:53 am
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #73 on: September 02, 2019, 08:12:52 am »
I think the last few posts bring up a misbalance we've had over the past couple years, which IIRC Jim mentioned something in another thread.  In the zeal to get new systems online (especially in Europe), we've let peer review and activation of already-built systems languish.  For some specific examples, Alabama state routes have sat for almost a year, Quebec provincial routes for 2 years, Georgia state routes for 2.5 years, and South Carolina state routes is over 3.5 years now.

I'd argue we need a temporary moratorium on creating new systems until we can clean out the preview backlog.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
  • Last Login:Today at 05:54:17 pm
Re: Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
« Reply #74 on: September 02, 2019, 10:32:04 am »
To add to Froggie's list:
  • Louisiana State Highways has been in preview since July 2018
  • New York Parkways and Arkansas State Highways have been in preview since June 2018
  • Florida State Highways has been in preview since August 2017
  • Puerto Rico Territorial Highways and California State Highways have been in preview since May 2017
It's not clear whether anyone has offered to do a comprehensive peer review of any of them.

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

Back to the original topic, I support activating usaush once any remaining datacheck issues are dealt with.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2019, 10:37:59 am by mapcat »
Clinched: