Web Design Discussion > General Web Design Discussion

Non-connected related routes - definition discussion

(1/5) > >>

si404:

--- Quote from: Jim on June 21, 2020, 07:42:06 am ---If we want to have some sense of what routes are "related" to each other when not in the same connected route, I think we need to augment the data with information about what we mean by that.
--- End quote ---
So what do we mean by that?

Obviously there's a few reasons why routes that are part of the same single route, but cannot be connected as one route due to discontinuity caused by:
* taking a ferry
* crossing over a border where its a differently numbered route
* sections are not yet constructed
* cases like the E68 at the Romanian/Hungarian border - same route, lack of international communication as to where it should run (or rather, Romania's dislike of signing E roads on A roads)
And then we have stuff like I-35 with W/E routings and same-numbered (no directional suffix) spurs/loops (eg the E55 is signed both ways around Berlin). The route isn't quite the same single route, but they clearly are one route. Likewise bannered routes - it's very clear that they are part of the same route as the vanilla highway.

Then there's more debatable stuff...

Various places give routes a number, but use different shields/prefixes to reflect to standard/status - eg Australia M/A/N/B/C1, Poland A2/S2/DK2, Ireland M3/N3, or Israel F4/H4. I'd say these are related routes.

There's the question of whether parent-child relationships would be related enough - Interstates, sure, but US routes? There's also, say, parent/child stuff in France - N1xxx is typically future Nxxx (with zero-padding), but sometimes it's former Nxxx, and D Roads sometimes are similar. There's a bit of a can of worms here.

Further to that N1xxx - the former Routes Nationales in France are obviously meant to be a continuous route but different departments' different methods of numbering means they change numbers a lot, but they are all numbered related to the original route D1xxx, D6xx, D9xx, etc.

And, perhaps at the extreme end, are collections of routes that don't share numbers or names - eg the routes in Yellowstone NP, or the Mourne Coastal Route in N Ireland + the 'scenic loops' off it.

michih:
For me, all routes of the same system which are signed the same way (shield + numbering) should count as ONE ROUTE for stats.


--- Quote from: si404 on June 21, 2020, 12:23:40 pm ---Obviously there's a few reasons why routes that are part of the same single route, but cannot be connected as one route due to discontinuity caused by:
* taking a ferry
* crossing over a border where its a differently numbered route
* sections are not yet constructed
* cases like the E68 at the Romanian/Hungarian border - same route, lack of international communication as to where it should run (or rather, Romania's dislike of signing E roads on A roads)
--- End quote ---

These are "interrupted connected routes" and should count as ONE ROUTE for stats.


--- Quote from: si404 on June 21, 2020, 12:23:40 pm ---And then we have stuff like I-35 with W/E routings and same-numbered (no directional suffix) spurs/loops (eg the E55 is signed both ways around Berlin). The route isn't quite the same single route, but they clearly are one route. Likewise bannered routes - it's very clear that they are part of the same route as the vanilla highway
--- End quote ---

I've not checked I-35 E/W but I guess it should also be count as ONE ROUTE for stats.. E55 should also be ONE ROUTE for stats because it is only split for technical reason by us.

And I'd just like to have the possibility to open HB for all segments of THE ROUTE.

It is relevant for:

* Stats
* HB
* Clinched / Traveled shield pages
HB: add direct link to interrupted connected routes
Shield page should only show one shield if there is more than one route
Processing interrupted connected routes

si404:

--- Quote from: michih on June 21, 2020, 01:03:21 pm ---For me, all routes of the same system which are signed the same way (shield + numbering) should count as ONE ROUTE for stats.
--- End quote ---
How about the E31 in Italy vs the E31 in Netherlands-Germany? The former is officially E33, but the signs didn't change when these two DIFFERENT routes (pointlessly) swapped numbers due to grid anal-retentiveness. Or the two different E401s - the official East-West one in Brittany and Normandy, and the unofficial North-South one between Amiens and Paris created because the owners of the concession of the A16 wanted to sign it as an E road?

And the exemplar examples that are why the 'related routes' feature is broken - the 5 pairs of duplicate numbered Interstates: 76, 84, 86, 87 and 88 - these are not related routes, but routes that happen to be numbered the same due to the vagaries of the system.

The 7 (and one future) I-295s are very clearly DIFFERENT routes (Jacksonville belt, future Fayetteville belt, Richmond-Petersburg bypass, spur into Anacostia, Philadelphia bypass+Trenton belt, Bronx-Queens link, Providence belt, Portland-Augusta free route) and the numbering system encourages such duplicate numbering with 3dis.

And this is before we get to Great Britain, with it's rather a lot of accidental duplicates due to poor management of road lists: A479, A594, A1042, A1056, A1114, A1199, A4102, A5028, A5152, A5271, B198, B454, B1140, B1172, B3153, B3206, B3330, B3440, B4065, B4082, B4100, B4104, B4118, B4587, B5192, B5207, B5210, B5320, B5444, B5477, B6322, B6374, B6452, B6481. And it would be remiss of me to not point out that Northern Ireland has 3 dating back to the original numbering lists nearly 100 years ago - while the B52 and B53 are probably clerical errors (there's no B51 or B54), they were obvious errors when you see the published list, and that doesn't explain the two A37s!

michih:
Thanks! All examples are clearly ONE ROUTE for me. Same shield and same numbering.

I have clinched the whole A27 in NI! I have clinched the whole I76 in USA! Yep. I can only claim this when I really traveled all these segments. Period :)

Jim:
I mostly echo @si404's points here.

There are multiple ideas intertwined here. 

What should be a connected route for the purposes of claiming a 100% clinch? 

What should be a connectedsingle route for the purposes of multi-region .list entries?

What routes should be considered related routes?

Sorry to rehash the same examples, but I think they do help.  Especially the duplicate I-76/84/86/87/88 and the duplicate number 3dis, to me these are absolutely distinct routes and should have no more relation to each other than other separate highways in usai with different numbers.  But then the routes that are currently not connected in TM but are a single route in some meaningful sense, like those interrupted by ferry crossings, incomplete construction (the I-69s), and I'd argue cases like US 20 across Yellowstone, I'd like to see us find a way to call those things single routes.  This could be either by a generalization of the "connected" idea or some new concept/term.  But we do need to keep in mind that we have some assumptions built into both the data processing and now more than ever the web side that a connected route is in fact connected with matching points at region boundaries.  Not that we couldn't break it by allowing datacheck FPs and handling those cases in the code, but it's not as simple as slapping all of the US 20 segments into a single connected route at this point.  And even that doesn't handle the I-35E/W cases that I'd like to see count as part of a single I-35 "unit" (similarly with US 11, US 25, US 70...).  CHM, if I recall, just picked one of the branches to count as mainline and treated the other as a 3di/3dus.  We elected to break I-35 into three distinct units.

Then there's what should be related routes?   You could make the case that 3dis and all usaib routes are related to their parent routes, but I-184 would be related to western I-84 only and I-384 and I-684 to the eastern I-84 only.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page