Author Topic: usapr: Puerto Rico Territorial Highways  (Read 2580 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 163
  • Last Login:November 09, 2018, 03:33:13 pm
Re: usapr
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2017, 05:07:59 pm »
Well, that's weird. The HDX, which I'm mainly using for this peer review, shows a different name for the waypoint where PR 3 meets PR30. I guess I should just use the highway browser to review routes.

Anyway....as for PR 30,  the point currently labeled as 28 should be 27, and the point that's currently 28A should be 28.

HDX loads graphs, not routes.  There's an extensive process that simplifies labels at intersections and along concurrencies.  Definitely use the HB, not HDX, as the way to see what the labels are for TM purposes.

I see. I was using it before so that I could see other routes as well as the one I was reviewing, but now that we have the intersecting routes feature in the HB, I can just stick with that and not need to use the HDX.

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1316
  • Last Login:Today at 08:03:35 am
Re: usapr
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2017, 07:25:05 pm »
I see. I was using it before so that I could see other routes as well as the one I was reviewing, but now that we have the intersecting routes feature in the HB, I can just stick with that and not need to use the HDX.

HDX can still be helpful in finding things like broken concurrencies.  Others might want to comment on how they've used it to help find problems.

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 163
  • Last Login:November 09, 2018, 03:33:13 pm
Re: usapr
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2017, 04:50:29 pm »
Now that I am done with school, I can put more time into this peer review. And with the routes shorter, this should go A LOT faster!

PR5: No issues found.
PR5Toa: No issues found.
PR6: No issues found.
PR8: AveCamRico -> AveRobSanVil (per OSM, the official PR map, and GSV)
PR9: Need waypoint for CamdePon (CamPon? Not sure what to call it), located just south of the PR 10 intersection. Also I'm going to assume that the section of PR9 between PR 123 and PR 500 has opened to traffic and that OSM--which still shows it as under construction--is just out of date. You may want to double check this.
PR10: No issues found.
PR10Pon: No issues found.
PR12: MuePl -> CllA

That's all for now...

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 710
  • Last Login:Today at 08:14:49 am
Re: usapr
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2017, 09:06:39 pm »
Wow, your school goes late...

Re PR9: that part of PR9 may or may not be open, but since the satellite view shows significant progress, I included it assuming that it would be finished by the time the set is activated.

PR12's waypoint named "MuePl" comes from the DTOP classification log.
Clinched:

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 163
  • Last Login:November 09, 2018, 03:33:13 pm
Re: usapr
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2017, 01:40:54 am »
Okay, I see.

Anyway, I will continue:
PR14: PR162_N should be PR162_W, PR162_S should be PR162_E.
PR15: No issues found.
PR16: No issues found.
PR17: No issues found.
PR18: No issues found.
PR19: No issues found.
PR20: No issues found.
PR21: Instead of a shaping point where PR21 turns north and runs parallel to PR20, change it to an actual waypoint for PR20 as there is an offramp from PR 20 NB at that intersection. (and a waypoint on PR20 for PR21 there)
PR22: 37 -> 38
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 01:54:13 am by compdude787 »

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 710
  • Last Login:Today at 08:14:49 am
Re: usapr
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2017, 04:50:49 pm »
PR14: PR162_N should be PR162_W, PR162_S should be PR162_E.

Are you sure PR162 is signed as an E-W route? GMSV has no imagery and it's diagonal, so it's not obvious to me that one is preferable to the other.
Clinched:

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 163
  • Last Login:November 09, 2018, 03:33:13 pm
Re: usapr
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2017, 09:50:50 pm »
PR14: PR162_N should be PR162_W, PR162_S should be PR162_E.

Are you sure PR162 is signed as an E-W route? GMSV has no imagery and it's diagonal, so it's not obvious to me that one is preferable to the other.

My suggestion didn't have anything to do with whether or not PR 162 is an E-W route, but just the fact that one point was the western intersection of PR 162 and PR14, and the other waypoint is the eastern intersection of PR 162 and 14. It makes more sense to label the waypoints in this way. Anyway, I'll continue reviewing...

PR23: No issues found
PR24: No issues found
PR25: PsoJaiBen -> AveUni
PR26: No issues found
PR27: No issues found
PR28: The point for PR2 should be moved northeast to the same coords for the waypoint for PR 28 on the PR 2 waypoint file. There is no way to get directly from the eastern terminus of PR 28 to PR 22.
PR29: No issues found
PR30: No issues found
PR31: No issues found
PR32: No issues found
PR33: No issues found
PR34: No issues found
PR35: No issues found
PR36: No issues found
PR37: CllPelRod -> CllPro
PR38: No issues found
PR39: No issues found
PR40: No issues found
PR41: No issues found
PR42: No issues found
PR47: No issues found

That's all for now.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 710
  • Last Login:Today at 08:14:49 am
Re: usapr: Puerto Rico Territorial Highways
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2017, 12:03:04 pm »
My suggestion didn't have anything to do with whether or not PR 162 is an E-W route, but just the fact that one point was the western intersection of PR 162 and PR14, and the other waypoint is the eastern intersection of PR 162 and 14. It makes more sense to label the waypoints in this way. Anyway, I'll continue reviewing...

Ok, I was going with the CHM guidelines on this:

Quote from: CHM guidelines

For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with another non-exit-numbered route, use normal waypoint labels for the intermediate points.

For the multiplex splits, add a suffix: an underscore followed by a direction letter. The direction letter should match the signed direction the concurrent route is splitting toward. US80_W in the US25 file means that US 80 heads west from US 25 at that point but is concurrent to the east.

The guidelines are under review, but I don't recall seeing this one being overturned yet.

Quote from: compdude787
PR25: PsoJaiBen -> AveUni

GMSV says otherwise.

Quote from: compdude787
PR37: CllPelRod -> CllPro

Here too.
Clinched:

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1718
  • Last Login:Today at 10:25:40 am
Re: usapr: Puerto Rico Territorial Highways
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2017, 12:50:12 pm »
Is "Pso" a standard abbreviation for Paseo"?

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 710
  • Last Login:Today at 08:14:49 am
Re: usapr: Puerto Rico Territorial Highways
« Reply #24 on: June 24, 2017, 05:24:21 pm »
Is "Pso" a standard abbreviation for Paseo"?

If you consider the USPS Standard Abbreviations for Spanish–Language Addresses a legitimate standard, it is.
Clinched:

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 163
  • Last Login:November 09, 2018, 03:33:13 pm
Re: usapr: Puerto Rico Territorial Highways
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2017, 08:19:46 pm »
My suggestion didn't have anything to do with whether or not PR 162 is an E-W route, but just the fact that one point was the western intersection of PR 162 and PR14, and the other waypoint is the eastern intersection of PR 162 and 14. It makes more sense to label the waypoints in this way. Anyway, I'll continue reviewing...

Ok, I was going with the CHM guidelines on this:

Quote from: CHM guidelines

For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with another non-exit-numbered route, use normal waypoint labels for the intermediate points.

For the multiplex splits, add a suffix: an underscore followed by a direction letter. The direction letter should match the signed direction the concurrent route is splitting toward. US80_W in the US25 file means that US 80 heads west from US 25 at that point but is concurrent to the east.

The guidelines are under review, but I don't recall seeing this one being overturned yet.

I didn't know such a guideline existed. Seems like a really counter-intuitive way to do it. But since it's been a long-established way of doing things, I suppose we can leave it how it is.

Quote from: compdude787
PR25: PsoJaiBen -> AveUni

GMSV says otherwise.

Quote from: compdude787
PR37: CllPelRod -> CllPro

Here too.
Well...okay then. I guess both Google Maps and OSM were wrong.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 710
  • Last Login:Today at 08:14:49 am
Re: usapr: Puerto Rico Territorial Highways
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2017, 10:18:48 pm »
Here is the CHM Instruction Manual. Sorry no one shared the link with you yet.

http://cmap.m-plex.com/tools/manual.php
Clinched:

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1718
  • Last Login:Today at 10:25:40 am
Re: usapr: Puerto Rico Territorial Highways
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2017, 01:56:08 am »
If you consider the USPS Standard Abbreviations for Spanish–Language Addresses a legitimate standard, it is.
Sounds good to me. USPS standard abbrevs have been invoked in the past, albeit for English. Spanish for PR sounds sensible.

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 163
  • Last Login:November 09, 2018, 03:33:13 pm
Re: usapr: Puerto Rico Territorial Highways
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2017, 12:06:58 am »
Okay thanks for the link to the CHM instruction manual. Now I'm gonna continue this peer review.

PR52: 108 -> PR9 (no exit number shown on GMSV)
PR53: No issues found
PR53Gua: No issues found
PR53Mau: No issues found
PR53Pat: No issues found
PR54: No issues found
PR60: No issues found
PR63: No issues found
PR64: No issues found
PR65: No issues found
PR66: CamClu -> CamCiu
PR100: No issues found

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 163
  • Last Login:November 09, 2018, 03:33:13 pm
Re: usapr: Puerto Rico Territorial Highways
« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2017, 12:27:16 am »
Finally continuing my review, sorry for the delay.

PR101: fine
PR102: So I'm assuming that this does not actually connect to PR120 or 121, right?
PR103: fine
PR104: fine
PR105: fine
PR106: fine
PR107: fine
PR108: fine
PR109: fine