Author Topic: usaar: Arkansas state highways  (Read 781 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 853
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:13:33 pm
usaar: Arkansas state highways
« on: June 15, 2018, 10:55:38 pm »
usaar was activated promoted to preview tonight. Ready for peer-review if anyone wants to tackle 787 routes (for now).

Here are some preliminary ideas and observations I made while compiling the set, adapted from the README.md file on GitHub:

Unsigned concurrencies are treated as gaps between separate routes unless the concurrency follows a single route between splits in the same county.

Instead of Alternate, Business, Truck, or Spur banners, auxiliary routes are posted with suffixes (i.e. AR 00 Business = "AR 00B"). Route names for these auxiliary routes follow the same convention (AR00B instead of AR00Bus, with or without city label). Signage for some spurs is "Spur AR 00S": this is treated as a bannerless AR00S (a similar situation exists with at least one truck route).

All 32 AR980 routes have a suffix so that renaming will not be necessary if any change length or are (de)commissioned in the future.

I'm not sure how to deal with AR43 in OK (specifically its westward bend along OK20): AR43 is concurrent with OK20 along state line, but bends west for some distance to be totally within OK, so it probably should have points where it crosses state line, but no corresponding state-line points exist in the OK20 file.

AR75S is signed "Truck AR 75S", but I've avoided using banners anywhere else. It behaves like a truck route (loop starting and ending on AR 75, bypassing a low bridge), but those are typically signed as AR 00T.

AR151 in usaar is longer than the AR151 in usansf and deserves to be free of a suffix, but is correcting this worth the trouble?

AR922-1A is signed AR722-1A on US165, which is the only signage viewable on GMSV.

Hard to believe that we haven't had a new US set since last August. Enjoy!
« Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 11:16:28 pm by mapcat »
Clinched:

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • Last Login:Today at 10:08:03 am
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #1 on: June 15, 2018, 11:07:58 pm »
usaar was activated tonight. Ready for peer-review if anyone wants to tackle 787 routes (for now).

Just to clarify the terminology for everyone, the system was promoted to preview status, not active status.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 672
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:August 15, 2019, 08:31:17 pm
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2018, 01:23:26 am »
US-71 & US-62 are missing the point for AR-612 (I-49 Exit #77).  Thus, those two routes are broken along I-49.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2018, 01:26:07 am by rickmastfan67 »

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:42:58 am
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2018, 02:08:21 am »
Quote
All 32 AR980 routes have a suffix so that renaming will not be necessary if any change length or are (de)commissioned in the future.
This seems appropriate for these airport roads, and I agree with this solution.

Quote
I'm not sure how to deal with AR43 in OK (specifically its westward bend along OK20): AR43 is concurrent with OK20 along state line, but bends west for some distance to be totally within OK, so it probably should have points where it crosses state line, but no corresponding state-line points exist in the OK20 file.
OK20 on its own, if we ignore the concurrency, I'd think is comparabe to ME NH153. There's a bit that dips unambiguously into one state, and another bit that follows the state line, that we've got to include in one state or the other (See also: TX US71).
The state line portion is in the Okladot, but not AHTD shapefiles. (But OTOH, it *is* in the Benton county map -- even the clearly-within-OK portion. So, it's... something of importance, I guess?) I'd say then that this portion should be considered within OK, and thus the state line points are already included: OK OK20 AR43_S OK/AR.
Rather than include this section as part of AR AR43Sil, IMO it'd be better off as part of an OK AR43 route.
OTOH, there's no AR43 sign here, just a MO43 sign. Should we just consider AR43 an unsigned route here and leave it out?
On the 3rd hand, it's a bit early for Missouri, innit? It's not like MO43 continues anywhere south of here. Sign-o for AR43, perhaps? How close are we to craIG county?
I don't see any pressing need for shaping point(s) at the dip into OK, even if I did otherwise for AB17 along the SK border.

Quote
AR75S is signed "Truck AR 75S", but I've avoided using banners anywhere else. It behaves like a truck route (loop starting and ending on AR 75, bypassing a low bridge), but those are typically signed as AR 00T.
Looks fine to me; I'd have handled this the same way.

Quote
AR151 in usaar is longer than the AR151 in usansf and deserves to be free of a suffix, but is correcting this worth the trouble?
Not worth the trouble; we don't wanna break .list files. There's precedent in MO110 vs. MO110Han on the CKC corridor.

Quote
AR922-1A is signed AR722-1A on US165, which is the only signage viewable on GMSV.
>:(

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 464
  • Last Login:Today at 09:53:14 am
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2018, 07:57:38 am »
Quote
Unsigned concurrencies are treated as gaps between separate routes unless the concurrency follows a single route between splits in the same county.

Given how ARDOT has done things for decades, unless you have conclusive proof (whether the rare signage or it appears on maps or in route logs) that a concurrency exists, leave it out entirely.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 853
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:13:33 pm
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2018, 09:46:37 am »
Quote
Unsigned concurrencies are treated as gaps between separate routes unless the concurrency follows a single route between splits in the same county.

Given how ARDOT has done things for decades, unless you have conclusive proof (whether the rare signage or it appears on maps or in route logs) that a concurrency exists, leave it out entirely.

Do that, and the number of routes included would probably increase by 50%.
Clinched:

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 853
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:13:33 pm
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2018, 09:48:26 am »
US-71 & US-62 are missing the point for AR-612 (I-49 Exit #77).  Thus, those two routes are broken along I-49.

Thanks. Fixed in my copy.
Clinched:

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 464
  • Last Login:Today at 09:53:14 am
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2018, 10:20:56 am »
Quote
Unsigned concurrencies are treated as gaps between separate routes unless the concurrency follows a single route between splits in the same county.

Given how ARDOT has done things for decades, unless you have conclusive proof (whether the rare signage or it appears on maps or in route logs) that a concurrency exists, leave it out entirely.

Do that, and the number of routes included would probably increase by 50%.

Wouldn't be the first region with lots of route lists.  And since ARDOT doesn't actually consider these concurrencies, it would also be the proper/correct way to do it.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 853
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:13:33 pm
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2018, 10:49:05 am »
Wouldn't be the first region with lots of route lists.  And since ARDOT doesn't actually consider these concurrencies, it would also be the proper/correct way to do it.
True, but all they would all be suffixed routes, making it much less user-friendly than usaky or usapr, whose route numbers are almost all unique.
Clinched:

Offline neroute2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Last Login:Today at 11:31:56 am
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2018, 11:27:51 am »
They're obviously intended to be one continuous route. Except 159. F that route.

edit: obviously a few others are separate routes too.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2018, 08:41:33 pm by neroute2 »

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 853
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:13:33 pm
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2018, 12:02:49 pm »
They're obviously intended to be one continuous route. Except 159. F that route.
Yeah, that one was my personal unfavorite.

43 makes very little sense as a continuous route. There has to be a story behind it.
Clinched:

Offline neroute2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Last Login:Today at 11:31:56 am
Re: usaar: Arkansas state highways
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2018, 08:38:24 pm »
43 makes very little sense as a continuous route. There has to be a story behind it.
The west piece was designated in 1971 (replacing AR 99) to match Missouri, but the east piece was not renumbered. A similar thing happened with AR 37 in 1976 (replacing AR 47).