Author Topic: canons: Ontario Secondary Highways  (Read 2793 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3935
  • Last Login:Today at 05:54:33 pm
Re: canons: Ontario Secondary Highways
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2021, 01:52:18 pm »
SH587: SH587 & SH587_End -> directional suffixes

SH587_End -> SH587_N
SH587 -> SH587_S

Those new labels look ok to you?  Will submit when my next batch of ONS files are ready.
I'd flip them around actually.
These aren't multiplex splits, but just the southern & northern intersections with... itself.
https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#underscore

Just to add some confusion, the #loopsuffix rule appears from context to be about beltways, and not about a route intersecting just itself & nothing else. Having no specific rule for these cases, they'd be treated as normal intersections with normal rules applying -- in this case, #underscore.

Been getting down into the weeds on this stuff with my recent work on LABEL_UNDERSCORE...
My current thinking is, if a route intersects itself, continue to flag an error if the label just references itself without an underscore or slash afterwards, on the grounds that the route will by necessity have >1 intersection, and need an _ or a / to disambiguate. The LABEL_SELFREF error would provide a gentle reminder to change to one or the other. :)
Example: Right here, AL126_E is good but vanilla AL126 should become AL126_W.
FP potential: This is legit by my understanding of the manual -- no need to disambiguate TD12, with the other point being labeled MR4.

SH548: What's with the SH548_D & SH548_V labels?

Each segment gets it's own 'letter' on that island.  Thought it was easier to just use those letters to ID which segment was which there.  https://goo.gl/maps/oRgf9gswtb72YjFi7

There's also 'U', 'F', 'H', 'M', and a few others.  And some of the segments don't even have cardinal directions posted, just the 'letter' instead.
Yikes, so like, a variation on this theme?
I'd think, no need to get into letter suffixes (other than directional) unless there's 3+ to disambiguate. Signage notwithstanding, no need to confuse matters by adding nonstandard suffixes not in the manual.
With this also being a loop like SH587 & many others, normal intersections, yadda yadda, #underscore.
The question then becomes, is the "relative position ... along the route" the "signed" D & V, or a more intuitive (assumed) S & N based on the overall orientation of points in the rile? "Rile?" I think I was trying to type route & file at the same time; was definitely debating which word to use. LOL.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:08:11 am
Re: canons: Ontario Secondary Highways
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2021, 11:12:16 pm »
SH587: SH587 & SH587_End -> directional suffixes

SH587_End -> SH587_N
SH587 -> SH587_S

Those new labels look ok to you?  Will submit when my next batch of ONS files are ready.
I'd flip them around actually.
These aren't multiplex splits, but just the southern & northern intersections with... itself.
https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#underscore

Then again, maybe just nuke the entire 'loop'?  I honestly can't find any signage on it, but could it be 'implied' since the route down to there is signed?

Either way, flipped 'again' in my local file.

SH548: What's with the SH548_D & SH548_V labels?

Each segment gets it's own 'letter' on that island.  Thought it was easier to just use those letters to ID which segment was which there.  https://goo.gl/maps/oRgf9gswtb72YjFi7

There's also 'U', 'F', 'H', 'M', and a few others.  And most* some of the segments don't even have cardinal directions posted, just the 'letter' instead.
Yikes, so like, a variation on this theme?
I'd think, no need to get into letter suffixes (other than directional) unless there's 3+ to disambiguate. Signage notwithstanding, no need to confuse matters by adding nonstandard suffixes not in the manual.
With this also being a loop like SH587 & many others, normal intersections, yadda yadda, #underscore.
The question then becomes, is the "relative position ... along the route" the "signed" D & V, or a more intuitive (assumed) S & N based on the overall orientation of points in the rile? "Rile?" I think I was trying to type route & file at the same time; was definitely debating which word to use. LOL.

Then again, as far as I understand, those 'letters' are also part of the addresses for each segment of road.  So, I wouldn't say it's like a true variation of your example since yours replaces the cardinal direction, while these don't.

Those letters are easy to spot, and allow people to know which segment they're on, and IMO may sense here.  It's not like they're just hidden on street blades.  They're prominently shown above the shields (normally, in Ontario, the cardinal directions are below the shield).  Just makes sense to mention them here to clear up any confusion to be honest.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:08:11 am
Re: canons: Ontario Secondary Highways
« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2022, 09:07:33 pm »
Just submitted SH602 & SH603 + the fix to SH587 mentioned above to the site.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5480

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 02:20:47 pm
Re: canons: Ontario Secondary Highways
« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2022, 08:59:15 pm »
When you eventually reach SH 661, you'll notice that OSM has a routing that doesn't match what MTO shows, but signage doesn't agree with either of them. In the field it follows Low Ave and Miller St to Pine St to Hazel St, with an End sign posted at the corner of Hazel & Cedar.
Clinched:

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:08:11 am
Re: canons: Ontario Secondary Highways
« Reply #19 on: April 13, 2022, 12:05:34 am »
When you eventually reach SH 661, you'll notice that OSM has a routing that doesn't match what MTO shows, but signage doesn't agree with either of them. In the field it follows Low Ave and Miller St to Pine St to Hazel St, with an End sign posted at the corner of Hazel & Cedar.

Interesting.  Might have to talk the person who I've had contact with @ the MTO about this possibly once I get to it.