Author Topic: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways  (Read 4274 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
  • Last Login:Today at 02:13:21 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2016, 08:27:10 pm »
As someone who likes (but doesn't always practice) simpler waypoint labels, I have no objection.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Last Login:Today at 01:21:24 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2016, 11:38:16 am »
Datacheck
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/987
6 10 20 39 44 60

FPs:
mb.mb006;513Rd;LongPtRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;61.21
mb.mb006;MB60;ManRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.06
mb.mb006;StuGillRd;DavLogRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.86
mb.mb006;*OldMB6_D;*OldMB6_E;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;44.57
mb.mb006;MB373;FleDr;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.67

mb.mb010;DawBay;OveRivPP;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.91
mb.mb010;OveRivPP;MB60;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.53
mb.mb010;MB60;MB282;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;25.53
mb.mb010;MB287;RocLakeRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.27

mb.mb020;206N;127W;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.52

mb.mb039;GylPark;Isk;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.39
mb.mb039;Isk;ReedLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.46
mb.mb039;ReedLake;MB392;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;24.25
mb.mb039;MB596;MB6;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;28.13

mb.mb044;TamRd;WildGooPl;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.38


Edited:
mb.mb006;MB328;513Rd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;22.42
  Add Gyp
  New FP entry: mb.mb006;Gyp;513Rd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;20.36
mb.mb006;NorCroBay;StuGillRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.94
  Add BufLake
  New FP entry: mb.mb006;NorCroBay;BufLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.62
mb.mb006;DavLogRd;WilLakeRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.70
  SegDump: LitLimLake is 77% 12175-5, 23% 12175-4
mb.mb006;MB39;MB373;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;18.82
  Add Man
  New FP entry: mb.mb006;MB39;Man;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.03
mb.mb006;FleDr;SasRapPP;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;18.14
  Add SetLake
  Replace +X97 with Rd2
  New FP entry: mb.mb006;FleDr;SetLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.42
mb.mb006;PisFalPP;MB375;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;26.53
  Add JoeyLake_S
  Replace +X108 with JoeyLake_N
  New FP entry: mb.mb006;PisFalPP;JoeyLake_S;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;16.16
mb.mb006;MB375;SealRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.61
  Replace +x112 with OspLake
  Relocate +x115; GISplunge
  Replace +x116 & SealRd with BirMine
  New FP entry: mb.mb006;OspLake;BirMine;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.06

mb.mb010;MoonLake;137N;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.21
  BeaRid added (coords from QGIS)
  New FP entry: mb.mb010;MoonLake;BeaRid;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.34

mb.mb060;MB10;MB327;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;68.31
  +X967153 replaced with *OldMB60_A & *OldMB60_B
  +X243811 replaced with *OldMB60_C & *OldMB60_D
  +X241599 replaced with OscPtRd
  EastMosPor added
mb.mb060;MB327;MB6;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;27.00
  DenPt added (coords from QGIS)
  KawLake added (coords from QGIS)
  reposition & splunge +X761260
6 new FP entries:
mb.mb060;MB10;*OldMB60_A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.34
mb.mb060;*OldMB60_D;OscPtRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.83
mb.mb060;OscPtRd;EastMosPor;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.04
mb.mb060;EastMosPor;MB327;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;19.50
mb.mb060;DenPt;KawLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.09
mb.mb060;KawLake;MB6;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.74
« Last Edit: December 10, 2016, 10:58:04 am by yakra »

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Last Login:Today at 01:21:24 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2016, 01:07:48 pm »
canmb is ready for peer review.

A couple notes:
• MB1, MB16, and their children are carbon copies of TCHMai, TCHYel, and their children. I'm saving adding these files till just before activation, so any edits to these routes needn't be done in two files. To that end, you can consider this a call for peer review of the TCH in Manitoba too. :)
• Winnipeg has a system of numbered city routes. (These could possibly become their own small Tier 5 system in the future.) I've followed Bickendan's original labeling convention from the TCH and cansph routes, and used "Rte42" style labels. I'm perfectly fine with this nomenclature (vice, say, Win42 or something); "Route 42" seems to be how these are referred to, and the word "Route" is even included in reassurance shields. So yeah, I'll go ahead with this labeling convention unless there's some strong pushback; just thought I would bring it to the group's attention.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Last Login:Today at 01:21:24 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #18 on: December 11, 2016, 03:58:14 am »
TCHMai:
Rte85 -> Rte85_E
Rte135 -> Rte135_W or Rte135/150
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 02:51:17 pm by yakra »

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Last Login:Today at 01:21:24 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2017, 12:44:02 pm »
Putting out another call for peer review here.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:32:54 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2017, 03:46:03 pm »
It's the first time I have a detailed look on Canadian systems and I'm surprised about some wp labels, e.g.

67N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.991364&lon=-97.341183

The road seems to have number 236 according to OSM and GM but I couldn't find signs on GSV. However, I also couldn't find anything signed "67N". What's the source for "67N" and what's the story behind using name like this?



MB4:
Shouldn't MB9 be called MB9/9A? The same wp @M9 is called MB4/9A. It's called MB9_N at MB9 which should be MB9/9A too.


MB5A:
Shouldn't MB5_N and MB5_S be called MB5/10_N and MB5/10_S?


MB6:
Exceeds limits just north of 513Rd according to OSM which is our source, isn't it?
Exceeds limits north of MB60 according to OSM/GM/GS

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 205
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:22:05 pm
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2017, 08:16:13 pm »
It's the first time I have a detailed look on Canadian systems and I'm surprised about some wp labels, e.g.

67N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.991364&lon=-97.341183

The road seems to have number 236 according to OSM and GM but I couldn't find signs on GSV. However, I also couldn't find anything signed "67N". What's the source for "67N" and what's the story behind using name like this?



MB4:
Shouldn't MB9 be called MB9/9A? The same wp @M9 is called MB4/9A. It's called MB9_N at MB9 which should be MB9/9A too.


Quote
MB5A:
Shouldn't MB5_N and MB5_S be called MB5/10_N and MB5/10_S?



MB6:
Exceeds limits just north of 513Rd according to OSM which is our source, isn't it?
Exceeds limits north of MB60 according to OSM/GM/GS
Those odd labels and waypoints reflect when GM, not OSM, was our primary source drafting our datasets, and very clear that back then, GM's data was incomplete and the fidelity has increased quite a bit since then.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:22:31 pm
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2017, 08:58:40 pm »
67N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.991364&lon=-97.341183

The road seems to have number 236 according to OSM and GM but I couldn't find signs on GSV. However, I also couldn't find anything signed "67N". What's the source for "67N" and what's the story behind using name like this?

Sure looks like it's signed "Road 67N" to me.

However this tells me it should probably be labelled "MB236_W".
« Last Edit: January 04, 2017, 09:03:27 pm by mapcat »
Clinched:

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Last Login:Today at 01:21:24 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2017, 12:52:23 am »
67N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.991364&lon=-97.341183

The road seems to have number 236 according to OSM and GM but I couldn't find signs on GSV. However,
I noticed that too. Checking provincial maps from the ministry of transportation, that section of MB236 appears to have been decommissioned. Historic GMSV imagery shows MB236 signage removed between July 2014 and July 2016.


I also couldn't find anything signed "67N". What's the source for "67N" and what's the story behind using name like this?
A good question to ask, yes. I should have thought to put this in the notes upthread...
Manitoba has a province-wide numbering pattern for its survey section line roads. #E or #W is for a north-south road's position relative to Meridian Road. #N is for an east-west road's position relative to the 49th parallel.
The local jurisdictions responsible for signing these aren't consistent in how they sign them. I've seen signage such as 131W, RD 100 W, ROAD 70 WEST, MILE 54 E, ROAD 26, ROAD 86E, 152 W, 75N Rd, RD 136N, etc. Accordingly, the first drafts of the WPTs had quite a mishmash of label styles. I decided to use a consistent labeling format for these province-wide, and after thinking about it a bit decided on using the "67N" style. It gets the most information across (relative to the grid numbering pattern) in the fewest characters.
The good thing about this system is that if I can find a road's position in the grid relative to something else I do see marked or signed, I have a visible waypoint label if I need one.

Compare section line roads in Oklahoma.

MB4:
Shouldn't MB9 be called MB9/9A? The same wp @M9 is called MB4/9A.
Two route numbers in a label are permitted, but not required. I find that sometimes it makes sense to include two of them, and sometimes not. I generally, but not always, trend toward more simple (fewer characters) labels. I don't like to include both parent and child route numbers together in a label; IMO it's just kinda ugly, a bit redundant/extraneous; not really adding needed info at that point. MB9 trumps MB9A.

It's called MB9_N at MB9 which should be MB9/9A too.
I assume you meant "at MB9A" (MB9ASel).
As MB9A is a child route of MB9, I'm following the usual convention of child routes, bannered routes, etc., and having the waypoints at both termini just list the parent route, and a cardinal direction.

MB5A:
Shouldn't MB5_N and MB5_S be called MB5/10_N and MB5/10_S?
I don't like to include both a slash (ie, two route numbers) and a directional suffix together in a waypoint label; I prefer to keep labels shorter/cleaner. So, in situations like this where two routes leave together at both ends of a multiplex (and a directional suffix is thus required) I'll just list the primary route. Thus, MB5_N & MB5_S.
Edit: DERP! I read your post too fast, and didn't notice that this was for MB5A. So, in this case, the point labeling is a simple case of following the convention for labeling endpoints of child routes.

MB6:
Exceeds limits just north of 513Rd according to OSM which is our source, isn't it?
If I zoom all the way in in WPTedit, I see that this is still within tolerance. *Tightly* within tolerance, but it's in there.
However: canmb isn't based on coords from OSM, but rather, from the GeoBase shapefiles.
Here's a trace dumped from the shapefiles. It more closely matches Google and Bing:
Code: [Select]
51259-29 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.039730&lon=-98.828502
51259-28 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.040197&lon=-98.828325
51259-27 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.040763&lon=-98.828031
51259-26 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.047296&lon=-98.825513
51259-25 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.047754&lon=-98.825424
51259-24 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.047952&lon=-98.825277
51259-23 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.048177&lon=-98.825262
51259-22 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.049084&lon=-98.824937
51259-21 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.049830&lon=-98.824788
51259-20 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.050235&lon=-98.824758
51259-19 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.051089&lon=-98.824798
51259-18 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.051980&lon=-98.825013
51259-17 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.052897&lon=-98.825360
51259-16 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.053374&lon=-98.825489
51259-15 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.054813&lon=-98.826038
51259-14 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.055290&lon=-98.826240
51259-13 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.055767&lon=-98.826501
51259-12 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.056253&lon=-98.826630
51259-11 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.058736&lon=-98.827598
51259-10 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.059752&lon=-98.828002
51259-9 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.060256&lon=-98.828278
51259-8 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.069315&lon=-98.831832
51259-7 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.069729&lon=-98.831991
51259-6 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.070133&lon=-98.832062
51259-5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.070790&lon=-98.832308
51259-4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.071051&lon=-98.832467
51259-3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.071573&lon=-98.832655
51259-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.071951&lon=-98.832858
51259-1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.072589&lon=-98.833103

Exceeds limits north of MB60 according to OSM/GM/GS
Visibly within the highlight line in WPTedit with OSM imagery, with even more wiggle room.

Sure looks like it's signed "Road 67N" to me.

However this tells me it should probably be labelled "MB236_W".
I see that particular shot doesn't have imagery from 2016 available. Look around the area from some other angles, and you'll see signage was removed between 2014 & 2016. The provincial map from the MOT also indicates it was decommissioned. I had MB236 labels in an earlier draft, but determind that route number is gonzo at this location.

Those odd labels and waypoints reflect when GM, not OSM, was our primary source drafting our datasets, and very clear that back then, GM's data was incomplete and the fidelity has increased quite a bit since then.
Not quite -- The labels, I've explained above. I've gone thru everything with a fine-tooth comb and given it all a pretty big reworking.
As far as waypoint coords, that's all based off of the shapefiles.
I wrote a program, "GISplunge", that takes an input WPT file, compares each point against an input shapefile, and outputs a WPT with new coords for each point, using the closest point coords contained in the shapefile. (This came in handy back in 2010 when working on cannb, back when OSM coverage was inaccurate, out-of-date, or just plain nonexistent -- I used it to "scrub" WPTs full of coords from Google Maps, and replace them with coords from a free source.) Thus, there's no more Google in canmb.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2017, 03:52:24 am by yakra »

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:32:54 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2017, 01:53:21 pm »
Exceeds limits north of MB60 according to OSM/GM/GS
Visibly within the highlight line in WPTedit with OSM imagery, with even more wiggle room.

Code: [Select]
MB60 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.917656&lon=-99.181728
+X55 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.002398&lon=-99.164812

Sure?

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Last Login:Today at 01:21:24 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2017, 02:40:13 pm »
Visibly within the highlight line in WPTedit with OSM imagery, with even more wiggle room.

Code: [Select]
MB60 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.917656&lon=-99.181728
+X55 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.002398&lon=-99.164812

Sure?
I'm NOT sure! It looks like I loaded mb.mb006.wpt from my draft/ folder into WPTedit. The one in my final/ folder was last accessed 2016-12-07 19:00:00.
+x53 & +x54 added.
datacheckfps.csv: mb.mb006;MB60;ManRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.06


Edit: See, sometimes GISplunge can introduce tiny little changes like this that are just enough for me to have to add more shaping points. :)
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 10:13:57 pm by yakra »

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:32:54 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2017, 03:27:15 pm »
from my draft/ folder into WPTedit. The one in my final/ folder

:) I think you should check that all of your final folder data is on GitHub before any kind of peer-review continues...

What the hell is GISplunge?

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Last Login:Today at 01:21:24 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2017, 04:15:18 pm »
:) I think you should check that all of your final folder data is on GitHub before any kind of peer-review continues...
It is. I uploaded them, drap-n-drop via the GitHub web interface, 5 batches of roughly 10 files each, from the final/ folder, which until all routes were uploaded contained only the batch I was working on at the time, as I finished my post-GISplunge review & edits for each batch.
I didn't load mb.mb006.wpt from GitHub into WPTedit, but rather my local file -- the wrong local file.
What I should do is make a .tar.lzma archive out of the draft/ folder so I don't go inadvertently referencing it again.

What the hell is GISplunge?

I wrote a program, "GISplunge", that takes an input WPT file, compares each point against an input shapefile, and outputs a WPT with new coords for each point, using the closest point coords contained in the shapefile. (This came in handy back in 2010 when working on cannb, back when OSM coverage was inaccurate, out-of-date, or just plain nonexistent -- I used it to "scrub" WPTs full of coords from Google Maps, and replace them with coords from a free source.) Thus, there's no more Google in canmb.
I also used it to dump the WPT code block in that post upthread.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:32:54 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2017, 04:36:53 pm »
Sorry, I meant, what's the meaning of GIS, Genius Internet Software? ;)

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
  • Last Login:Today at 01:21:24 am
Re: canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways
« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2017, 02:34:34 pm »
As for the "Splunge" bit, I needed something to name splunge.ini when first writing the program...