Author Topic: TX: Amarillo route splits  (Read 160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 223
  • Last Login:September 13, 2019, 02:02:16 am
TX: Amarillo route splits
« on: August 30, 2019, 02:11:17 am »
(You might be able to tell I traveled a lot of 66 lately. Map update to come. :))

Based on all the overhead signs, 87 uses Fillmore (NB)/Taylor (SB) while 287 is Buchanan (NB) and Pierce (SB). US 287 should use 60's points in downtown with a new segment from 60 (BL 40) north to the existing US87_S point. I think the 87 and 287 lines should be moved to split the difference on those one-way pairs (that is, 87's points moved a block west of present). The US 60 point I-40BL_W should be I-40BL/287.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 06:47:10 pm
Re: TX: Amarillo route splits
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2019, 04:31:57 am »
They've changed the signs since April?

Those signs on GMSV have the following:
60 Buchanan (eb) and Pierce (wb)
87 Fillmore (nb) and Pierce (sb)
287 Buchanan (nb) and Taylor (sb)
(Hist 66 is barely marked, with turns off Taylor and Pierce onto 6th, and 6th onto Buchanan signed. I need to change it to put it on US60, ie Pierce and Buchanan - done locally)

This is what is mapped - 60 east of the other two, which are along the same line but with one having a concurrency breaking hidden point. Though the US60/287/His66 concurrency on Buchanan and the US60/87/Hist66 concurrency on Pierce aren't mapped.

From I-40BL westbound:
60/87 on Pierce, 287 on Buchanan
60/87 on Pierce, 87 on Fillmore
87 on Fillmore, 287 on Taylor (this is Dec imagery)
287 on Taylor (Dec imagery)

From I-40BL eastbound:
287 Taylor, 87 Fillmore (Dec imagery)
87 Fillmore, 60/87 Pierce (Dec imagery)
60/87 Pierce, 287 Buchanan
287 Buchanan

From north end of 4-road split:
87 Pierce, 287 Taylor

From south end of 4-road split:
87 Fillmore, 60/287 Buchanan

Offline Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 223
  • Last Login:September 13, 2019, 02:02:16 am
Re: TX: Amarillo route splits
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2019, 01:06:35 pm »
I am going to admit error on my end. I appear to have messed something up.

Where I was trying to get, or at least I think I was trying to get, was that it didn't appear there was a separate line for 287 from 60 northward. But if you have put those as hidden points along the same axis, then that would account for that.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 995
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 06:47:10 pm
Re: TX: Amarillo route splits
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2019, 01:17:18 pm »
The whole thing is rather a mess, and impractical to map properly. No worries - and the label(s) used is a valid point. The hidden points are hard to see (well they are hidden!)

There was at least one long discussion in the past with how to map it (no idea who did originally - Tim? - definitely not me). I remember that. And I also remembered that I hadn't accounted for it (just assuming that the three US highways were all concurrent) when drafting US66 Historic (Amarillo) yesterday, so rushed to check it all out when I saw your post.

As for getting messed up with street names, I was struggling to remember them in the time it took to change tab from GMSV to the compose box! ;D

PS: yakra - should Lp279 be extended to intersect with US60?

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
  • Last Login:Today at 02:01:56 am
Re: TX: Amarillo route splits
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2019, 01:46:47 pm »
The whole thing is rather a mess, and impractical to map properly.
The truth.
There's plenty worse, though. Buffalo; Watertown, NY...

The US 60 point I-40BL_W should be I-40BL/287.
No worries - and the label(s) used is a valid point.
I guess though that the slash-style label would get the nod here with two multiplexes going their separate ways.
Ask loud enough and I'll make the change. :)

it didn't appear there was a separate line for 287 from 60 northward. But if you have put those as hidden points along the same axis, then that would account for that.
No separate line north from the point on US60, right. This is because 287 is centered in the middle of the Buchanan/Taylor couplet -- the same location as the middle of the middle of the Fillmore/Pierce couplet.  ;D US287 has hidden points to break false-positive concurrencies.
The hidden points are hard to see (well they are hidden!)
By design. :D I wanted to get the smallest visual difference attainable between the US87 & US287 traces.
You can check out TX's simple graph here and see how it's done. Recommend using mouse wheel to zoom in & than a double-click to center. Zoom in a bunch more, near the shaping points, and you can eventually see the traces start to deviate.

(click to embiggen)

There was at least one long discussion in the past with how to map it (no idea who did originally - Tim? - definitely not me). I remember that.
TX's US routes were originally a team effort. Back in the day, before WPTedit, we viewed that large-ish number of long-ish routes as a daunting task (whereas today, we'd probably not bat an eye). AndyTom was the ringleader, and several of us would pick routes to work on and then send them in to him. I've long forgotten who among us did US60, 87, or 287 then. Later on, 2012-sh, I took on maintenance of TX and embarked on a marathon cleanup session. Memory's a little fuzzy here, but it seems Amarillo came into play at the later stages of this. At/near the very end of the CHM days. (The only change here since the move to TM has been ditching intentional NMPs in favor of graph connections, and using these hidden points to break concurrencies instead.) Seems I mighta put a blurb (probably only readable by me?) about what I was doing in the TX cleanup thread on the old forum. I do remember making a spreadsheet about all the intersections to sort out what went where, deciding on what Si posted above. Don't think I posted about that, in terribly great detail though. It there was another thread about this back in the dark ages when the US routes first got going, that I no longer remember.
Well. Anyway...

PS: yakra - should Lp279 be extended to intersect with US60?
I'm pretty confident I got it right, having to rehash all this in me'ead when drafting the Tier-4 TX systems. I'll give it another look though, along with TXLp395.
279: Designation file lists end as US87, mentioning Fillmore specifically, which historic topos seem to suggest was the (single?) main drag at the time. Shapefiles have it ending at Fillmore. Leaving as-is.
395: Designation file lists end as US87. Shapefiles have the end at Fillmore. Leaving as-is.

Offline bhemphill

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
  • Last Login:September 11, 2019, 09:05:31 pm
Re: TX: Amarillo route splits
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2019, 02:16:00 pm »
Amarillo was originally set up with all routes marked as concurrent when the US highways went live on CHM.  In 2010, I mentioned that they were not quite concurrent after a trip through there and my mappings gave me credit for a highway I didn't travel through there.  The routes were set as best as they could be with the odd multiplex situation via the NMPs after a fair bit of discussion about what to do about it.  The road situation through there has been mentioned and reviewed a few times since then as other travelers have gone through and mapped their travels and made comments about it.

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2129
  • Last Login:Today at 02:01:56 am
Re: TX: Amarillo route splits
« Reply #6 on: September 02, 2019, 06:18:27 pm »
Ah, yes. I'd only the vaguest memory of there being some other discussion. It certainly helps if you're the one who started the thread. :)

I'm going to keep the original I-40BL_W point, due to my distaste for including multiple numbers in a point label, and the existing label having fewer characters. Acceptable per my reading of the manual.
Nothing else to do here, so marking solved.

Offline Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 223
  • Last Login:September 13, 2019, 02:02:16 am
Re: TX: Amarillo route splits
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2019, 12:47:38 am »
TX's US routes were originally a team effort. Back in the day, before WPTedit, we viewed that large-ish number of long-ish routes as a daunting task (whereas today, we'd probably not bat an eye). AndyTom was the ringleader, and several of us would pick routes to work on and then send them in to him. I've long forgotten who among us did US60, 87, or 287 then.
Yo.  :)

(So I suppose, in an extreme roundabout way, I brought this on myself.)