Author Topic: Australia  (Read 9738 times)

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2437
  • Last Login:January 20, 2020, 12:25:11 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #75 on: October 05, 2019, 10:59:29 am »
Lol, OK!
I haven't looked at any other routes; dunno if others do anything similar.

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Last Login:January 19, 2020, 05:36:53 pm
Re: Australia
« Reply #76 on: October 05, 2019, 04:43:34 pm »
M1 in Queensland is the only other route that has more than one exit series; while I left the Bruce Motorway numbers without a (x) suffix, I put all the Pacific Motorway in (P) suffix.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
  • Last Login:Today at 12:21:34 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #77 on: October 07, 2019, 07:54:01 pm »
M1 in Queensland is the only other route that has more than one exit series; while I left the Bruce Motorway numbers without a (x) suffix, I put all the Pacific Motorway in (P) suffix.

Was actually the subject of the next batch of commentary I had started working on, but had paused because I've been entangled in other things the past few weeks. Might as well share this now:

AUS-QLD M1:
- 84(P), 85(P), and 85A(P) can be combined into two points or maybe even one
- combine 71(P) and 71A(P), one point per interchange
- combine 28(P) and 28A(P), recenter over Grandis St overpass
- the (G) and (B) suffixes can be removed - there is only actually one set of exit numbers between these two, and it's clearly the longer and thus more "main" section compared to the (P) numbers.
- also opening the question on what the remaining suffix should be. Precedent from I-87 in NY suggests (PM) might be more appropriate than (P). Precedent from zafn suggests (S) for South.
- combine 112(G) and 112A(G), one point per interchange
- 122(G) -> *122. The access point here closed a few years ago.
- 138(B) needs recentering

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
  • Last Login:Today at 12:21:34 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #78 on: October 18, 2019, 08:09:54 pm »
AUS-QLD M2:
- add point for interchange at Pine Mountain Rd (east of QLD38)
- WarRd -> WatRd (or KhoRd based on what exit is signed as)
- add point for interchange at Francis St (west of QLD37)
- 34 -> RivRd (exit number is not signed)
- 33 -> M15 (exit number is not signed)
- 1 -> 86

AUS-QLD M3:
- WLD32 -> QLD32
- MusRd -> QLD31

AUS-QLD M3Bal:
- OK

AUS-QLD M4:
- OK

AUS-QLD M5:
-GleRossRd -> GlenRossRd

AUS-QLD M6:
-OK

AUS-QLD M7:
- OK

AUS-QLD M7Bri:
- extend east to exit at The Boulevard, it is signed as M7 to this point.

AUS-QLD M15:
- BriRd -> 33
- Combine AbeSt with BriRd/33 (one point per interchange)

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
  • Last Login:Today at 12:21:34 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #79 on: October 24, 2019, 07:02:28 pm »
AUS-SA M1:
- MtLofSumRd -> SumRd
- MtBarRd -> B34
- SwaRd -> B35

AUS-SA M2:
- OK

AUS-SA M2Ade:
- Move ManSt up to A7 for graph connection
- add new point at south end of freeway, make M2/A2 changeover here

AUS-SA M2Noa:
- OK

AUS-VIC M1:
- no exit numbers are signed west of W19 so points W36 through W20 all need to be renamed
- W35A needs coord sync with A10 for graph connection
- combine W27A and W27B (one point per interchange)
- remove W prefix from W19 through W11, these exits are signed as just 19 through 11. Suggest using parenthetical suffix instead e.g. "11(W)"
- CreSt can be removed, this is not functionally a separate access point from E2
- combine E3B, E3A, and E3 (one point per interchange)
- remove E prifix from E8 through E24, these exits are signed as just 8 through 24.
- no exit numbers are signed east of E24 so points E25 through E31 all need to be renamed

AUS-VIC M1Mbt:
- it's an odd configuration in general but... is this actually a separate road? I would treat this as a one-way pair, since it functionally is. Eastbound traffic uses the Burnley tunnel, Westbound traffic follows the old alignment along the river and then uses the shorter Domain Tunnel.

AUS-VIC M1Win:
- is signed through Winchelesea in spite of the surface alignment. Extend and combine with main A1 segment

AUS-VIC M2:
- OK

AUS-VIC M3:
- no exit numbers are posted in field. All points will need to be relabeled.

AUS-VIC M8:
- add a point at Black Bottom Rd or Modesty Ln to break up the long visibile distance between TraRd and C805_W
- there are no signed exit numbers on this road, so points 1 through 10 need to be relabeled.

AUS-VIC M8Bea:
- OK

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Last Login:January 19, 2020, 05:36:53 pm
Re: Australia
« Reply #80 on: October 25, 2019, 02:59:57 am »
The E3 points were seperated to account for the eastbound Burnley Tunnel lanes joining in to the mainline. And while nominally I'd agree with this being a one way couplet pairing and treating it as such, I decided on the split files because of the interchanges on the Domain Tunnel side, and of the non-M1 eastbound lanes running along side the M1's westbound carriageway.

If there is indeed no exit numbers on the ground for W19 to W36 despite what OSM shows, they should be renamed, however, just to keep the exits absolutely clear, I think that the rest of the numbers should retain their E or W prefixes and not switch to suffixes midstream.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:34:26 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #81 on: October 25, 2019, 05:36:23 am »
- combine W27A and W27B (one point per interchange)
This is 2 separate interchanges with no way between them on surface roads.

The other stuff I've done, save for the stuff Bickenden talks about on the M1 in Melbourne - namely the split routes, and keeping the Exx and Wxx numbers even though they are just xx numbers - wanting further discussion. I've merged exit E3 to one point.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2437
  • Last Login:January 20, 2020, 12:25:11 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #82 on: October 26, 2019, 08:28:16 pm »
Are the C Roads something that [cw]ould theoretically be mapped?
If not I'd be inclined to go for 1 point.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
  • Last Login:Today at 12:21:34 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #83 on: October 29, 2019, 07:09:33 pm »
Are the C Roads something that [cw]ould theoretically be mapped?
If not I'd be inclined to go for 1 point.

I think this makes sense, actually. If we're going to map the C-roads, then 2 points are needed to avoid graph connecting routes that do not physically connect.

If not, then there's no functional need. Sure, the destinations of the ramps have no surface connection, but they leave/depart the freeway in the same location, so from the perspective of how much of M1 has a user clinched... it's the same either way.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
  • Last Login:Today at 12:21:34 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #84 on: November 01, 2019, 07:20:27 pm »
AUS-VIC M11:
- exit numbers above 19 are not signed, points 20 to 23 will need relabeling
- 23 also needs recentering

AUS-VIC M31:
- C529 -> MelRd (C529 is not signed)
- McKoySt ->McKSt
- No exit numbers are signed, so points 7 to 1 will need relabeling

AUS-VIC M39:
- OK

AUS-VIC M79:
- No exit numbers are signed, so points 1 to 16 will need relabeling
- CarCenRd -> SprRd
- Move M79/A79 changeover to A790

AUS-VIC M80:
- No exit numbers are signed south of 6, so points 1 to 4 will need relabeling
- No exit numbers are signed east of 16, so points 17 to 22 will need relabeling

AUS-VIC M420:
- No exit numbers are signed, so points 1 to 5 will need relabeling
- TorStaRd -> TooStaRd
- C431 -> McDTrk
- WesRd -> C431
- KentRd -> GurSHRd

AUS-VIC M780:
- 5 -> M420
- move M780/A780 changeover point south to HallRd


This concludes the peer review for ausm, so once all issues are addressed the system can be activated.

Also, bonus! Here is the peer review for the entirety of ausr, since this was easy to knock off quickly:

AUS-SA R1
- A6 -> SirDBDr (side note for ausa: A6's eastern end is at A2)
- StLewCohAve -> SirLCAve

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:34:26 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #85 on: November 02, 2019, 07:40:32 am »
This concludes the peer review for ausm, so once all issues are addressed the system can be activated.
Excellent.
Quote
AUS-SA R1
- A6 -> SirDBDr (side note for ausa: A6's eastern end is at A2)
- StLewCohAve -> SirLCAve
I've dropped the knighthoods to amplify their names: DonBraDr and LewCohAve. They were given roads for the same reason as their knighthoods (the best ever cricketer by a considerable margin, and long-term Mayor of Adelaide respectively).

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2119
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:28:17 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #86 on: November 02, 2019, 08:58:49 am »
Do we really wanna have a system with one (short) route only? http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=aussa.r001

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 788
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:15:12 pm
Re: Australia
« Reply #87 on: November 02, 2019, 10:11:21 am »
Do we really wanna have a system with one (short) route only? http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=aussa.r001

We already have that with DC 295 in usadc.  I am sure no one supports removing that from the HB.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2119
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:28:17 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #88 on: November 02, 2019, 10:17:47 am »
Do we really wanna have a system with one (short) route only? http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=aussa.r001

We already have that with DC 295 in usadc.  I am sure no one supports removing that from the HB.

I don't wanna remove it but wanna avoid that we get many tiny systems. I'm not familar with Australia and don't know whether there are similar routes at all. aussf is not an option since it's not a freeway.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:34:26 am
Re: Australia
« Reply #89 on: November 02, 2019, 12:43:49 pm »
Arguably the bannered routes could go in the main systems, and arguably this is a bannered route of the A1.

We can always make a decision later, adding the R1 to another system.