Author Topic: Texas systems  (Read 5027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1639
  • Last Login:August 18, 2019, 03:02:34 pm
Re: Texas systems
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2018, 04:11:23 pm »
@Jim, I agree but there is no Select Numbered Freeway system in Canada nor Europe.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:11:49 pm
Re: Texas systems
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2018, 06:58:53 pm »
Quote
I wouldn't mind combining usasf and usansf into a usasr
I wouldn't factor usansf too heavily into such a decision. I prefer to keep it in its current status as a moribund system intended to eventually delete once its routes are shipped out to their respective state systems. Once usaar, usaga, usala, usaps, are promoted preview->active, there'd be a total of 5 routes left, 4 in AL (froggie now has usaal in development) and 1 in MS. Relatively speaking, usansf isn't much longer for this world.

Quote
One could say it opens new cans of worms about what is worthy of inclusion
Yup. I'll say that. :) Hence I hesitate to relax criteria for inclusion from what they already are. That said, though...

Or just put it in usasf; there are other partial freeways like GW Parkway in there.
To quibble on a technicality: VA GeoWasPkwy (the one in the usasf set) Ends at Marina Drive, so the non-freeway portion isn't included in usasf. VA GWMemPkwyCry (the one in the usanp set) goes south of there.
Nonetheless, the point stands: there are other partial freeways in usasf.
TX PA1502 would bend the rules of being a freeway about as much as... the at-grade portion is a bit longer than IN VetMemPkwy, a bit shorter than TN SamCooBlvd. On the downside, there's also a number of private business entrances.
The problem of the disappearing signage (along with a longer section of at-grade hijinks) at the west end is still an issue.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 07:01:10 pm by yakra »

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2076
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:11:49 pm
Re: Texas systems
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2019, 12:12:56 pm »
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2732 will add Texas Recreation Roads as a devel system.
I decided to us TXDOT nomenclature and go with "RE42" style route names & labels.



I took a closer look at Park Roads, and that system doesn't look too practicable.
Some, such as PR46 which Jim mentioned, are pretty straightforward.
Some, such as PR1, go along multiple roads in a given park or parks, so we'd have to split them up into multiple segments. Helpfully for these purposes, shapefiles have these segments listed with letter suffixes, which are sometimes even signed. So far so good?
From here, things quickly descend into chaos. Just take a look at PR29, which includes "the drives in Garner State Park". There are 21 segments in the shapefiles; we'd effectively have to clinch the entire park.
Some segments are gated and don't look too accessible. This example is unsigned, but what if...
• How do we sort out what is and what's not signed? The Google car doesn't seem to make it inside the parks all that often.
PR29A & PR29R are both signed as vanilla PR29. This could complicate things depending on the situation within the park itself.
Taken all together, I don't really want to touch the Park Roads with a ten-foot pole right now.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 11:06:22 am by yakra »