Author Topic: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986  (Read 5353 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:57:14 pm
Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
« Reply #30 on: July 19, 2018, 01:07:37 pm »
Is there a reason the [AB 742] file doesn't end here, 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 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 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..."
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 10:11:41 pm by yakra »

Offline julmac

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 14, 2019, 12:22:09 am
Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
« Reply #31 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").

Offline julmac

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 14, 2019, 12:22:09 am
Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
« Reply #32 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).

Offline julmac

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 14, 2019, 12:22:09 am
Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2018, 08:10:02 pm »
Is there a reason the [AB 742] file doesn't end here, 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 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 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.

Offline julmac

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 14, 2019, 12:22:09 am
Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
« Reply #34 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)

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:57:14 pm
Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
« Reply #35 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 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 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
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 10:10:14 pm by yakra »

Offline julmac

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 14, 2019, 12:22:09 am
Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
« Reply #36 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).

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2143
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:57:14 pm
Re: canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2019, 09:09:13 am »
Added AB686 (Fort McMurray). Somehow missed this when originally drafting the system.
julmac, thanks for the continued review; I hope to get back to this soon.