Author Topic: Routes concurrent with themselves  (Read 384 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
  • Last Login:Today at 07:15:53 pm
Re: Routes concurrent with themselves
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2018, 04:04:24 pm »
Quote
both directions do not use the same side of the road
I've thought about that as well. It'd be possible to pull the coordinates of the points at each end of the overlap apart slightly, indicating a different highway segment for each direction of travel, and thus eliminating the self-overlap.

My current thinking:
I tried to think of cases where a user's traveled only one direction, and not the other, and would thus have reason to just want to claim one "direction".
They'd have to leave the "loop" of these routes, and return to the outside world.
UT190: not too easy.
On TourRd, I first saw MelPl and RodDr and thought this was possible.
OTOH, Checking aerial imagery and GMSV, there are actually no connections.
OT3H, sometimes it's wise to anticipate the unanticipated. New roads could be built here, connecting to the outside world. Or a new route could be added to the database in the future, with such a setup.

It may be best to skip my proposed changes to the code (even if it seems better from a programming standpoint), leaving travelers the option of .listing one or both segments.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 03:11:06 pm
Re: Routes concurrent with themselves
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2018, 03:10:58 pm »
This is how things are handled now, if we ignore for a moment the possibility of a self-concurrent route.

If so, everything's fine to me :)

I guess my thinking is, if a 2mi segment is contained twice in a route, and it must be traveled twice to clinch the route, then it should count for 4mi toward the route's overall mileage. And thus, 4mi toward mileage in that region & system.

Sure. For that reason, we have the possiblity to break the concurrency by moving one point 0.000001mi off. I think this should be done here too!

OTOH, I wrote in the past that I'd like to have a better way anywhere done the road so that the "Intersecting/Concurrent Routes" links in the HB still work. But this might also be done in the HB or anywhere else.

As would I. Final question: what if it's a one-way route, like the battlefield tour route? In non-TM parlance this isn't a self-overlap; both directions do not use the same side of the road (since there is only one direction). But I guess in TM there's no distinction between one- and two-way routes, so this would be a self-overlap.

What's the exact definition of a one-way route? Is even a dual-carriageway a one-way route? I there any minimum "median" width? Should mkd.a001 (exit 14-17) could once (as-is) or twice?

Offline neroute2

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Last Login:Today at 07:13:31 am
Re: Routes concurrent with themselves
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2018, 06:27:14 am »
A one-way route is a route that only exists in one direction. If you backtrack from end to start there are no signs.

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
  • Last Login:Today at 07:15:53 pm
Re: Routes concurrent with themselves
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2018, 02:31:16 pm »
Or a route (completely or partially) on one-way roads, allowing travel in only one direction, with no complementary alignment in the other direction.
tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=me.me011bmil
I'd still count mkd.a001 as a two-way route.

Quote
Sure. For that reason, we have the possiblity to break the concurrency by moving one point 0.000001mi off. I think this should be done here too!
I think this is an appropriate solution for MS TourRd (Which may be a moot point soon, as there's been talk of scrapping that route).
UT190 is a bit murkier though IMO...

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 03:11:06 pm
Re: Routes concurrent with themselves
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2018, 03:25:10 pm »
Quote
Sure. For that reason, we have the possiblity to break the concurrency by moving one point 0.000001mi off. I think this should be done here too!
I think this is an appropriate solution for MS TourRd (Which may be a moot point soon, as there's been talk of scrapping that route).
UT190 is a bit murkier though IMO...

I think UT190 is similar. UT190_C should just be moved off by 0.000001mi from UT190_B.

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 284
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:13:28 pm
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
Re: Routes concurrent with themselves
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2018, 09:50:16 pm »
They'd have to leave the "loop" of these routes, and return to the outside world.
UT190: not too easy.
As of right now, the only way to leave the UT 190 loop is what appears to be a narrow private drive that has street signs using Comic Sans. The odds that people would use that to leave Brighton are very slim.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton