Author Topic: freeways missing from usasf  (Read 1554 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vdeane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 06:09:31 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2020, 09:51:30 pm »
CR 215 is almost an exception that proves the rule.  I could potentially see Central Westchester Parkway if we were going to include country freeways, but IMO the Suffolk County ones are debatable if they're even freeways.  CR 97 in particular would be hard to define endpoints for.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:01:22 pm
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2020, 09:55:20 pm »
These seem like the perfect selections: freeways that are state maintained but have no signed numbers.
We do have precedent in Alabama: http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=al.al152

Maybe not. AL 152 was once signed, even if it isn't now, and may have been signed when it was added to usansf (not usasf) in CHM's early years.

Correct.  It was signed at the time (several years ago now).

Quote
Should AL 152 be removed from usansf? Will it transfer to usaal when that system is activated, if it remains unsigned?

Following with past precedent, AL 152 was to be removed from usansf once usaal gets activated.  I'll need to double-check its signage (pretty sure it was still signed at US 231 recently, but not 100% on that).

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:56:13 pm
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2020, 11:24:25 am »
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=tn.samcooblvd (former I-40) is another that clearly belongs despite being locally maintained.

Here are some from the list that stand out for whatever reason:

exit numbers
AZ Fain Road
AZ Northern Parkway
CA 259
NY JFK Expressway

length
CA Alfred Harrell Highway (4.5 mi)
FL Nocatee Parkway (5 mi)
GA Sugarloaf Parkway (6 mi)
OK Chickasaw Turnpike (11 mi)
TX PA 1502 (10 mi)
TX PR 22 (5 mi)

number of interchanges
CO Academy Boulevard (6 interchanges, but a couple at-grades in the middle)
NC Bryan Boulevard (5 interchanges)

other reasons
CT Whitehead Highway (former I-484)
MA Plimoth Plantation Highway (former MA 3)
OK LL Tisdale Parkway (special shields)

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 939
  • Last Login:Today at 02:06:54 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2020, 11:40:16 am »
number of interchanges
CO Academy Boulevard (6 interchanges, but a couple at-grades in the middle)4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAbppAvJB9sLZ7sH6FFkM7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]special shields[/url])

When I tried to add Alaska's Johansen Expressway to usasf, the one at-grade in the middle was fatal.

It didn't help that the Johansen had the only exit numbers anywhere in Alaska. None on Alaska's four other freeways, including one (Hickel Parkway in Anchorage) that did get into usasf.

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1606
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:56:10 pm
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2020, 01:51:05 pm »
My own interest here is that systems like this should include routes that don't fit into our comprehensive systems but for which TM users would most likely be interested in mapping their travels.  I'm opposed to the rigid rules we inherited from CHM, but developing an updated set of guidelines to help decide what should qualify would be useful.  There is the matter of finding the balance between wanting to include anything someone wants with trying not to annoy those who see very minor additions as clutter.


Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 345
  • Last Login:Today at 02:46:33 am
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2020, 01:58:41 am »
My own interest here is that systems like this should include routes that don't fit into our comprehensive systems but for which TM users would most likely be interested in mapping their travels.  I'm opposed to the rigid rules we inherited from CHM, but developing an updated set of guidelines to help decide what should qualify would be useful.  There is the matter of finding the balance between wanting to include anything someone wants with trying not to annoy those who see very minor additions as clutter.

I think the issue on the negative side is more than simply a matter of "clutter".

From my perspective, the issue is thus: like with anything else which can be collected, routes form a "set" which at least some collectors will seek to complete. Whether a particular route should be included, therefore, needs to be evaluated not just on its own individual merit, but also in the context of whether collecting it should be considered necessary to complete the "set".

This is the biggest reason why I am generally defensive regarding additions of more roads to usasf, and why I've also been a critic of other systems that have been added outside the normal trinity of Interstate/US/state routes. By adding these extra things, we are not just providing users with more routes they can clinch- we're also making it such that if someone wants their stats for a state to show 100%, there are more routes they must clinch.

This is especially problematic when you consider the game has already been ongoing for quite some time. I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:50:30 pm
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2020, 04:21:59 am »
I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.

I fully agree!

----------------------------

I think that the only solution is writing a manual (to avoid discussing this again and again). We need to agree on the rules first.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/400

Quote
The description should contain:
  • What we consider as a highway system (how to be distinuished from other systems)
  • What needs to be fulfilled for routes to be added (signed in field, signed on maps, indicated in official documents,...)
  • Which sources are required (likely different depending on the region, country on continent)
Especially "Select" systems need a clear definition (eursf, usansf, usasf, usanp, eurtr, cannf, mexsf,...)
« Last Edit: January 18, 2020, 04:35:34 am by michih »

Offline vdeane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 06:09:31 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2020, 04:12:29 pm »
My own interest here is that systems like this should include routes that don't fit into our comprehensive systems but for which TM users would most likely be interested in mapping their travels.  I'm opposed to the rigid rules we inherited from CHM, but developing an updated set of guidelines to help decide what should qualify would be useful.  There is the matter of finding the balance between wanting to include anything someone wants with trying not to annoy those who see very minor additions as clutter.

I think the issue on the negative side is more than simply a matter of "clutter".

From my perspective, the issue is thus: like with anything else which can be collected, routes form a "set" which at least some collectors will seek to complete. Whether a particular route should be included, therefore, needs to be evaluated not just on its own individual merit, but also in the context of whether collecting it should be considered necessary to complete the "set".

This is the biggest reason why I am generally defensive regarding additions of more roads to usasf, and why I've also been a critic of other systems that have been added outside the normal trinity of Interstate/US/state routes. By adding these extra things, we are not just providing users with more routes they can clinch- we're also making it such that if someone wants their stats for a state to show 100%, there are more routes they must clinch.

This is especially problematic when you consider the game has already been ongoing for quite some time. I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.
Agreed.  Though this is still subjective, one question to look at when considering routes to add is "is it major/significant enough that someone familiar with the state aiming to clinch everything would likely clinch it even though it's not currently in TM?".
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline US 89

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Last Login:March 27, 2020, 12:33:42 am
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2020, 04:20:48 pm »
This is especially problematic when you consider the game has already been ongoing for quite some time. I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.

I disagree with this simply because the goalposts move on their own. State routes and even US Highways get moved, truncated, decommissioned, etc...

Personally, I think there's way more interest among the general route-clinching population in non-numbered freeways than there is in, say, historic US highway alignments and national park scenic drives.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:50:30 pm
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2020, 10:42:36 am »
I disagree with this simply because the goalposts move on their own. State routes and even US Highways get moved, truncated, decommissioned, etc...

This happens when the road authority makes a change but adding a route just because a TM highway data manager feels like this, is something different.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 345
  • Last Login:Today at 02:46:33 am
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2020, 08:18:47 pm »
I disagree with this simply because the goalposts move on their own. State routes and even US Highways get moved, truncated, decommissioned, etc...

This happens when the road authority makes a change but adding a route just because a TM highway data manager feels like this, is something different.

This. It's one thing to need to go back to clinch a route which simply didn't exist at the time I was last in the area. It's another to need to go back to clinch a route which was physically there but which was just not included on TM at the time.

It's also worth noting that the degree to which the goalposts "move on their own" varies greatly from state to state. Within the last decade, there has only been one change each to the signed state/US/interstate highway networks of NJ (the first section of US 206 Bypass opening) and CT (truncation of CT 34). RI has had two (reroute of US 1 onto I-95 in Pawtucket, realignment of I-195), and MA has had none unless you count the creation of the two "historic" US route segments.

And then you have states like PA, where truck routes blink in and out of existence like quantum particles and you're chasing a constantly moving target if you're trying to clinch all of them.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 829
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 05:30:11 pm
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2020, 06:28:42 am »
Quote
And then you have states like PA, where truck routes blink in and out of existence like quantum particles and you're chasing a constantly moving target if you're trying to clinch all of them.

As you state this, I am about to check out one that may have recently formed for PA 73 near Schwenksville today.

I personally try to avoid going to insane about clinching the truck routes, but as vdeane and I talked about at Newburyport, it gets very easy to want to clinch everything to make the map look good.

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:01:22 pm
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #28 on: January 22, 2020, 08:54:01 am »
Can also have goalposts "move back and forth" multiple times.

Case in point:  I had a segment of former MN 101 on my initial drafts of the MN state system, despite it being unsigned MN 801, because it was an important link between two major routes (US 169 and MN 13).  Tim took it out at some point because Tim, but it's something I wouldn't mind putting back in, especially now that it is effectively all-freeway.

Offline formulanone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Last Login:March 25, 2020, 09:58:10 pm
Re: freeways missing from usasf
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2020, 11:19:52 am »
Some quick reactions for CA and NV:

-- I don't like the idea of adding to usasf routes that would belong in usaca (CA 259) or usanv (NV 171) if their route numbers were signed. For CA 259, there's the added complication that the highway not only doesn't have a signed route number, but also AFAIK doesn't even have a name (signed or otherwise) by which we could call it in usasf.
These seem like the perfect selections: freeways that are state maintained but have no signed numbers.
We do have precedent in Alabama: http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=al.al152

Maybe not. AL 152 was once signed, even if it isn't now, and may have been signed when it was added to usansf (not usasf) in CHM's early years.

Haven't been down there since mid-2016, but eastbound AL 152 was signed then. (Sorry, no photo.)

A lot of NE2's suggestions are airport connectors, some of which are signed with mile/reference markers. As there's some other airport access routes included in TM, the ones which at least have an entry in state logs or have supporting signage should be counted.

Where to draw the line, though?
« Last Edit: January 29, 2020, 11:25:12 am by formulanone »