Author Topic: Mexico: Revision of Federal and State Expressway systems (mexdn + mexedn)  (Read 12511 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4618
  • Last Login:Today at 03:23:12 pm
the only one I couldn't was from changing MEX15D to MEX15DCha (since the obvious longer route became MEX15D).

It's fine if the route had no traveler since the alt route name would not be necessary at all. If there was a traveler, you should undo it since it is an active system!

Offline shiggins

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Last Login:Today at 10:49:06 am
There's a concurrency on MEX15DMex where I don't think there's supposed to be one. MEX15DMex's western terminus is correctly placed at the point where the central toll lanes separate from the free lanes (MEX15), but then the westernmost segment of MEX15DMex is shown to be concurrent with MEX15.

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
  • Last Login:Today at 05:54:33 pm
the only one I couldn't was from changing MEX15D to MEX15DCha (since the obvious longer route became MEX15D).

It's fine if the route had no traveler since the alt route name would not be necessary at all. If there was a traveler, you should undo it since it is an active system!
Look at the route and tell me why the short spur should be 15D and the long trunk should have a suffix.

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
  • Last Login:Today at 05:54:33 pm
There's a concurrency on MEX15DMex where I don't think there's supposed to be one. MEX15DMex's western terminus is correctly placed at the point where the central toll lanes separate from the free lanes (MEX15), but then the westernmost segment of MEX15DMex is shown to be concurrent with MEX15.
Fixed. Thanks.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4618
  • Last Login:Today at 03:23:12 pm
the only one I couldn't was from changing MEX15D to MEX15DCha (since the obvious longer route became MEX15D).

It's fine if the route had no traveler since the alt route name would not be necessary at all. If there was a traveler, you should undo it since it is an active system!
Look at the route and tell me why the short spur should be 15D and the long trunk should have a suffix.

To avoid breaking user list file entries!

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1079
  • Last Login:Today at 05:54:33 pm
the only one I couldn't was from changing MEX15D to MEX15DCha (since the obvious longer route became MEX15D).

It's fine if the route had no traveler since the alt route name would not be necessary at all. If there was a traveler, you should undo it since it is an active system!
Look at the route and tell me why the short spur should be 15D and the long trunk should have a suffix.

To avoid breaking user list file entries!

There are occasionally reasons to break them, including this. It's not going to give anyone a highway they haven't driven; it will simply not give them a short piece until they update.

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2773
  • Last Login:Today at 08:29:30 am
Best I can tell, it affects only ua747sp.list.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4618
  • Last Login:Today at 03:23:12 pm
the only one I couldn't was from changing MEX15D to MEX15DCha (since the obvious longer route became MEX15D).

It's fine if the route had no traveler since the alt route name would not be necessary at all. If there was a traveler, you should undo it since it is an active system!
Look at the route and tell me why the short spur should be 15D and the long trunk should have a suffix.

To avoid breaking user list file entries!

There are occasionally reasons to break them, including this. It's not going to give anyone a highway they haven't driven; it will simply not give them a short piece until they update.

We have a rule: https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/maintenance.php#break Our users are more important than any man-made route name.
You could simply add a suffix for both routes. Once the user - it seems that only ua747sp is affected in this case - noticed the log entry, the vanilla route name w/o suffix would be free. This way, no user would lose any mileage.