Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

In-progress Railway Systems & Work / Re: ITA-CAM: Napoli

« Last post by si404 on Today at 07:01:54 am »

Quote from: michih on October 03, 2024, 11:51:13 am

Furnicular A is actually "Funicolare Centrale" (Augusteo - Piazza Fuga)
Furnicular B is actually "Funicolare di Chiaia" (Parco Margherita -Cimarosa)
Furnicular C is actually "Funicolare di Montesanto" (Montesanto -Morghen)
Furnicular D is actually "Funicolare di Mergellina" (Mergellina - Manzoni)
I've only seen A-D on the ÖPNV tile. I traveled "Centrale". That name is signed anywhere.
https://www.anm.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=100

The names of all the Neapolitan lines (not just the funiculars) are already in the browser: https://tmrail.teresco.org/hb/index.php?units=miles&sys=null&rg=ITA-CAM

The ANM use the letters on full-network maps: https://www.anm.it/images/stories/2204_anm_mappa_web.pdf
The EAV too: https://www.eavsrl.it/download/rete-ferroviaria-regionale/?wpdmdl=2094&refresh=6701174d097401728124749

It's part of the integration of all the disparate railways into one network and it's still ongoing, I guess.

Looking into the trams, it seems that it's basically a clockwise and an anticlockwise around the Ʇ-shaped network, rather than the ⅃, L and _ lines that . They use a combination of the same numbers, and it's temporary, so I'm going to keep the linear lines rather than the circles that serve every stop twice as that is really messy in the browser.

1 = north <-> west
2 = north <-> east
4 = west <-> east
412 = east -> north -> west -> east
421 = east -> west -> north -> east

In-progress Railway Systems & Work / Re: ITA-CAM: Napoli

« Last post by si404 on Today at 05:31:16 am »

Quote from: michih on October 03, 2024, 11:51:13 am

I don't like how we applied the "one-point-per-interchange" approach for rail systems.

The ones here are me over-doing it, because I'd found nonsense NMPs that you had created breaking interchanges for no reason (There was definitely one in Warsaw, where the exit from the metro is on the tram platforms but my 1ppi had been undone by you when you had a look at your travels. I reunited the points when +DIV/+SKIPing the network) and was annoyed at such nonsense.

3 is a past and future line, and like 1 and 11, is under-construction and I, when drafting it, expected it to be years before the rail site was going to happen.

I'll remove the U/C stuff as well as deal with overzealous 1ppiing.

General Web Design Discussion / Re: mapview: rail & self-concurrencies

« Last post by Duke87 on Yesterday at 06:19:49 pm »

Quote from: yakra on October 02, 2024, 08:22:47 pm

This raises another question -- Highway is one thing, but should users automatically get credited for concurrencies in rail? I can see arguments for & against. Maybe this discussion has already happened somewhere on the forum.

It definitely has. It's worth noting that among railfans generally the preference is towards tracking completion of riding down the tracks, not riding individual services over the tracks. And indeed, this is how other means of tracking rail "clinches" out there have generally been set to work.

It is admittedly awkward with TM's structure of classifying different rail operators as different "systems" though, because of how for example marking a clinch of Amtrak will through concurrency detection give you mileage on potentially multiple commuter rail systems you may never have actually ridden a train belonging to.
A Trainlog coverage map, on the other hand, will only show you a binary "has the user clinched this" for all clinchable lines in a given region. It will not distinguish between different systems in that region on the map, nor will it do so on stats pages either - indeed, the very concept of "systems" does not exist on the site. This avoids the "I got credit for clinching Metro-North mileage when I've never been on a Metro-North train" problem and tends to be more standard for how things work in the rail "clinching" world.

I don't really support flipping TMRail over to this model though because it ultimately represents removing functionality and granularity, and why do that?

In-progress Railway Systems & Work / Re: NYC area notes (mostly broken concurrencies)

« Last post by Duke87 on Yesterday at 05:48:09 pm »

Ah yes, the R train stopping at 2 unrelated stations both named "36 Street". A less-noticed sibling to the B train stopping at 2 unrelated and both fairly prominent stations both named "7 Avenue".

https://github.com/TravelMapping/RailwayData/pull/215

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: itass: Italy Strade Statali

« Last post by michih on Yesterday at 02:23:33 pm »

Should SS205 in Orvieto be extended to SS71 as indicated on OSM and GM? The last km posts are at the A1 ramp here and here. I couldn't see anything within the town today nor find anything on 2023 GSV. Do we have any official map to clarify it?

Edit: If we get evidence that SS205 does not extend to SS71, we need to rename SS71's SS205 wp.

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: itass: Italy Strade Statali

« Last post by michih on Yesterday at 02:12:50 pm »

I drove SS71 around Orvieto today. Our routing via the "NW bypass" is wrong according to signs in the field. It's routed through the town, e.g. here. I've updated the route in HB but I'm not sure via what streets its routed through the historic center. The last km post west of the center is 27.8. The first km post east of the center is 29.8. That means, exactly 2.0km. The direct route through the center is 1.7km though. The southern route is 2.2km.

Affected users: cinx panda80 spinoza

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usams: Mississippi State Highways

« Last post by neroute2 on Yesterday at 12:35:33 am »

The 161/322 overlap in Clarksdale is broken.

6-Month+ Highway Data Outlook / Re: California outlook

« Last post by cl94 on October 03, 2024, 07:24:24 pm »

US 395's realignment south of Owens Lake will open to southbound traffic on October 7, per a Caltrans news release. The NB side is expected to open in November. Assuming the project page map is still correct, the old alignment will become US 395 Business, with CA 190 being extended along the southern part of the old alignment to meet realigned US 395.