Author Topic: Intersecting routes on the HB  (Read 4236 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
  • Last Login:Today at 03:04:47 am
Re: Intentional NMPs & Intersecting Routes
« Reply #30 on: September 16, 2018, 04:06:45 pm »
I can't conceive of any example where this would not be the case. (Does anyone know of any?)
Rather a lot - check, for example, Bologna and the RA1, which are free local carriageways outside the A14. Or the B30, ditto with the AP7 (and more junctions on the AP7). There's others, but I frankly can't be bothered to list them all, having shown that there's a good score or more examples where it is the case*.

In my regions, its when the FPs (which I need to mark) are not off by the .0000001 where there's an actual connection (eg a short link road). As such, I strongly oppose this proposal.

The TX example could have off-by-.00000001 shaping point(s) either side to break the concurrency, with the TX130 intersection the same co-ords as the other two roads.

*if it's still up, have a look at Bologna on CHM. Looks terrible!
« Last Edit: September 16, 2018, 04:09:10 pm by si404 »

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:23:56 pm
Re: Intentional NMPs & Intersecting Routes
« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2018, 12:10:34 am »
The TX example could have off-by-.00000001 shaping point(s) either side to break the concurrency, with the TX130 intersection the same co-ords as the other two roads.
True. I have no choice but to agree with this. This alone makes my proposal unnecessary.

I still want to argue with the rest of your post, but will refrain from doing so at the moment. :)

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:23:56 pm
Re: Intentional NMPs & Intersecting Routes
« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2018, 03:38:17 pm »
Consider US87 & US287 in Amarillo TX as a reason against my proposal.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:23:56 pm
Re: Intersecting routes on the HB
« Reply #33 on: October 23, 2018, 10:17:12 pm »
Topics merged.

I would prefer that we NOT include routes that are close but don't intersect.
If there's an intersection, then maybe those should be lined up and concurrencies should be broken with a shaping point instead.
The TX example could have off-by-.00000001 shaping point(s) either side to break the concurrency, with the TX130 intersection the same co-ords as the other two roads.

I'm on board with this line of thinking now.
It can be done now, the way the site's already set up.
I've backed off from the "include points off by 0.000001°" proposal michih & I suggested earlier, now that I can conceive of a situation where it'd be a Bad Thing:
Consider US87 & US287 in Amarillo TX as a reason against my proposal.
To dive deeper into this...
Suppose that between TXLp279 and I-40BL/60 there were a point at 3rd Avenue. The two routes don't directly intersect here (It's a bit of a different animal from the main/frontage/sliproad in the TX130/US183 example above); instead they're indirectly connected by very short connecting road.

Reality is a bit murkier, though...
The only points on this section are where other routes in the HB connect.
In a One-Point-Per-Interchange sense, TXLp395 (same for TXLp279) needs to connect to US87, and to US287. Thus US87 and US287 must connect. I can live with this, I suppose. As we Yankees say, you can get theyah from heyah. I can just break the multiplexes with shaping points.

So yeah, while there are no such points currently in these files, I can see wanting to separate points by 0.000001°, and not list another route as intersecting.

However, I don't start replacing NMPs by shaping points right now because I still hope to get a software solution :)
No longer seeing a software solution on-site as feasible, I've started lining up NMPs and adding shaping points. >:-D

If the two edges, PointA <-> PointB and PointA <-> +x5haper <-> PointB differ visibly from one another in Mapview or the HDX, I can see that as being distracting/ugly; I prefer the clean look of overlaying one polyline over the other with as little deviation as possible.
CUZ I'M A HUGE NERD, I wrote a program that, given a list of WPT segments, will find the coordinates between existing adjacent points that, at the usual 6 decimal places' precision, deviate the least possible amount from the line directly connecting those points on a Mercator map, and then add a new shaping point to the file.
The Intersecting Routes feature works, Mapview overlays look as they do with the current "off-by-0.000001°" method, and the only difference the average site user should see is that concurrencies aren't inappropriately detected and added to their stats.
You can see the resulting shaping points here (for now).
Thoughts? Comments?