Author Topic: NJ/NY/CT: Point Concerns After Recent Trips  (Read 270 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
  • Last Login:June 25, 2022, 07:12:04 am
NJ/NY/CT: Point Concerns After Recent Trips
« on: May 10, 2022, 02:37:17 pm »
New Jersey

US 9: LinBlvd should be LinBlvd_W.

NJ 166: Maybe center CR530 more in the middle of both directions.

New York

US 6: 
1.   Consider replacing the shaping point east of NY6N_E with a visible point.
2.   NMainSt>-MicNeuDr and slightly relocated south.  A new bridge was recently built over the railroad that put the turn for US 6 at the MicNeuDr intersection. (OSM already shows the relocation.)

US 6 TRUCK (Fort Montgomery):
1.   Is Fort Montgomery the best name for this route?  (Maybe go Highland Falls instead?)
2.   NY218_W>-NY218_S.  NY218_E>-NY218 or NY218_Hig.

US 9W:  NY218>-NY218_HigS or US6Trk/218 or US6/218…

US 202:  US6_Bre>-US6_BreW

NY 6N:  EMainSt>-MainSt_W?

NY 9A:  Please clarify the US 9 labels are correct.

NY 22:
1.   I would replace OldRte22_Win with a different label with multiple roads intersecting there.  (also affects NY 55)
2.   Is there a more useful point than SasLn in the area?  (also affects NY 55)

NY 42 (South):
1.   NY97_W>-NY97_N
2.   PeeTrl and KingRd should be slightly relocated.
3.   Replace the shaping point south of RubRd with a visible point at Cantrell Rd (CanRd).
4.   WBro>-Bro_W.  EBro>-CR173.
5.   Consider replacing the shaping point south of BigHol with a visible point (maybe at Cypert Rd).

NY 55: 
1.   NY376 (also affects US 44) and CR49 should be slightly relocated.
2.   SHarHillRd could be or could not be considered an essential prefix.
3.   A point should be added at CR21 (though there is already one further west) for consistency as NY 22 has one there.

NY 218:  US9W>-US9W_HigS or US9W/6Trk

NY 299: 
1.   Consider replacing the shaping points west of CR7_S with visible points.
2.   Replace the shaping point west of NRivRd with a visible point at Elting Corners Rd (EltCorRd).
3.   NRivRd could be or could not be considered an essential prefix.

FDR Drive:  I am surprised that 6 was never marked as closed.

Saw Mill River Pkwy: 
1.   Should 7 have a graph connection with NY 9A?
2.   8 seems to just be a slip on-ramp.
3.   I am not convinced that all of the at-grade intersections still have numbers.  (I could not find one for 18 (Cyrus Field Ave) for instance.  Wikipedia states this is also the case for 14 and 15.)
4.   19 definitely functions as a 19 though it seems like a number may be missing.
5.   22 is an interesting case though a graph connection with I-287 is less appealing than NY 9A/NY 100.  The ramps are definitely to the west of the Saw Mill River Parkway so that would require a second point on I-287.
6.   Should there be a graph connection with NY 9A/NY 100 for this slip ramp onto the parkway southbound?

Connecticut

US 6: 
1.   It looks like SawRd should be SawMillRd.  (also affects US 202)
2.   It looks like UniCarRd should be MilRd.  (also affects US 202)
3.   Should there be a graph connection with CT 10? (also clarify that the route is in lateral east of here to FieRd)

US 7/US 202:  Is the A/B/C/D sequence correct here?  Probably nothing can be done other than switch to town names due to in-use labels.

CT 42: 
1.   It may be worthwhile to add 2-3 points between CT 67 and CT 8 for better shaping.
2.   PamMea should be split into multiple points at two locations in the area.

CT 55:  Consider replacing the shaping point west of CT39 with a visible point.

CT 64:  I am indifferent on ParDr.  Heritage Dr nearby is not really a much better point location.

CT 71A/CT 372:  Should there be a concurrency just south of the Willow Brook Connector?

CT 109:  WorRd should be slightly relocated (if not made hidden).

CT 317:
1.   Should this route be flipped?
2.   UppCouRd should be Dorothy Diebold Ln (DorDieLn).

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
  • Last Login:Today at 08:03:56 am
Re: NJ/NY/CT: Point Concerns After Recent Trips
« Reply #1 on: May 10, 2022, 10:33:52 pm »
New Jersey

US 9: LinBlvd should be LinBlvd_W.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5769

NJ 166: Maybe center CR530 more in the middle of both directions.
In use. I'll leave this as-is, and let it be one of those rare cases a route trace follows one half of a couplet rather than split the difference.

New York
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5770

US 6: 
1.   Consider replacing the shaping point east of NY6N_E with a visible point.
2.   NMainSt>-MicNeuDr and slightly relocated south.  A new bridge was recently built over the railroad that put the turn for US 6 at the MicNeuDr intersection. (OSM already shows the relocation.)
1. +X03, +X08 & +X09 deleted
2. Done. Added another point at Putnam Ave for the other end of a newsworthy relocaton.

US 6 TRUCK (Fort Montgomery):
1.   Is Fort Montgomery the best name for this route?  (Maybe go Highland Falls instead?)
2.   NY218_W>-NY218_S.  NY218_E>-NY218 or NY218_Hig.
1. Renamed for Highland Falls.
2. OK gotcha; NY218_S because of a multiplex split. NY218 follows from there as a plain intersection. Done.

US 202:  US6_Bre>-US6_BreW
Nope. There's no other US6_Bre from which to disambiguate.
https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#over2

US 9W:  NY218>-NY218_HigS or US6Trk/218 or US6/218…
Similarly, no other NY218_Hig from which to disambiguate.
US6Trk does not split from a multiplex here. US6 is not involved at all.
I considered changing all NY218 labels to _A _B _C _D, but decided to leave as-is on wayptlabels.php#suffixless grounds -- when there are 3+ intersections, the usual multiplex labeling conventions inevitably break down. This prevents the buildup of some alt-label cruft.

NY 6N:  EMainSt>-MainSt_W?
Surewhynot. Businesses E of this jct all seem to have E Main St addresses.

NY 9A:  Please clarify the US 9 labels are correct.
These were all redone a couple years back in #3173.
Per https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#over2:
Peekskill
Ossining
Croton-on-Hudson, southern & northern junctions
Cortlandt
Peekskill

NY 22:
1.   I would replace OldRte22_Win with a different label with multiple roads intersecting there.  (also affects NY 55)
2.   Is there a more useful point than SasLn in the area?  (also affects NY 55)
1. Renamed HurCorRd. Also on NY55. OldRte22_Dov no longer needs disambiguation; relabeled OldNY22.
2. Would delete, but in use. Leaving as-is.

NY 42 (South):
1.   NY97_W>-NY97_N
2.   PeeTrl and KingRd should be slightly relocated.
3.   Replace the shaping point south of RubRd with a visible point at Cantrell Rd (CanRd).
4.   WBro>-Bro_W.  EBro>-CR173.
5.   Consider replacing the shaping point south of BigHol with a visible point (maybe at Cypert Rd).
1 & 2. Done.
3. Not needed for keeping tolerance. Deleted instead, along with a few others. +X02 replaced with CR109.
4. EBro changed to CR173. Keeping WBro; this meets the "essential direction specifier" threshold IMO.
5. That's +X05. Deleted; on its own not needed for tolerance. Originally +X04 was replaced with a point at Couzines Rd, but that's a minor dead-end with just a handful of houses, so instead I've consolidated both shaping points here to better preserve shaping.

NY 55: 
1.   NY376 (also affects US 44) and CR49 should be slightly relocated.
2.   SHarHillRd could be or could not be considered an essential prefix.
3.   A point should be added at CR21 (though there is already one further west) for consistency as NY 22 has one there.
1. CR49 moved. NY376 is in the middle of the couplet, equidistant to the two intersections at either half. I'm inclined to leave it.
2. Replaced with HarHillRd :P
3. Normally I wouldn't bother but this may allow dgolub to mark a little more travel on NY55. Existing one renamed CR21_W; CR21_E added.

NY 218:  US9W>-US9W_HigS or US9W/6Trk
Same comment as for US9W.

NY 299: 
1.   Consider replacing the shaping points west of CR7_S with visible points.
2.   Replace the shaping point west of NRivRd with a visible point at Elting Corners Rd (EltCorRd).
3.   NRivRd could be or could not be considered an essential prefix.
1. Replaced with 1 point at Wawarsing Rd
2. Replaced with CR22
3. Deleted.

FDR Drive:  I am surprised that 6 was never marked as closed.
Done.

Saw Mill River Pkwy: 
1.   Should 7 have a graph connection with NY 9A?
2.   8 seems to just be a slip on-ramp.
3.   I am not convinced that all of the at-grade intersections still have numbers.  (I could not find one for 18 (Cyrus Field Ave) for instance.  Wikipedia states this is also the case for 14 and 15.)
4.   19 definitely functions as a 19 though it seems like a number may be missing.
5.   22 is an interesting case though a graph connection with I-287 is less appealing than NY 9A/NY 100.  The ramps are definitely to the west of the Saw Mill River Parkway so that would require a second point on I-287.
6.   Should there be a graph connection with NY 9A/NY 100 for this slip ramp onto the parkway southbound?
1. Leaving as-is.
2. Renamed NepAve. And thus we lose that nice unbroken sequence of exit-numbered labels! ;)
3. Keeping 10-13. 14 -> ClaAve. Keeping 15 until we can get field confirmation this sign is gone. Keeping 16. 18 -> CyrFieRd. 19 -> GreHunPark. Keeping 27, 30, 33.

Connecticut
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5771

US 6: 
1.   It looks like SawRd should be SawMillRd.  (also affects US 202)
2.   It looks like UniCarRd should be MilRd.  (also affects US 202)
3.   Should there be a graph connection with CT 10? (also clarify that the route is in lateral east of here to FieRd)
Changed, changed, leaving.

US 7/US 202:  Is the A/B/C/D sequence correct here?  Probably nothing can be done other than switch to town names due to in-use labels.
A/B/C predate the Brookfield Bypass. _D was added when US7 was relocated on CHM.

CT 42: 
1.   It may be worthwhile to add 2-3 points between CT 67 and CT 8 for better shaping.
2.   PamMea should be split into multiple points at two locations in the area.
Within tolerance. Leaving.

CT 55:  Consider replacing the shaping point west of CT39 with a visible point.
Going no-build for the sake of the commit history. Only pretty minor roads nearby, and this does a better job of shaping.

CT 109:  WorRd should be slightly relocated (if not made hidden).
Done. Also replaced +X0029 with WooRd.

CT 317:
1.   Should this route be flipped?
2.   UppCouRd should be Dorothy Diebold Ln (DorDieLn).
1. Done.
2. Replaced with a point at (paved) Painter Hill Rd for better shaping.

CT 71A/CT 372:  Should there be a concurrency just south of the Willow Brook Connector?
Hm. If I were doing this from scratch now, I'd go from one end of the couplet to the other, tracing the CT372 along Farmington Ave.
GIS shows the N leg of the triangle as part of State Hwy 571, so WilBroCon could be extended a bit to keep this segment mappable. People would lose their WilBroCon clinches though; that's kind of a drag.
It gets a little rocky when it comes to removing CT71A_N from CT372. 4 people use it as the E end of a traveled segment, 1 as the W end, so I can't make it an AltLabel of CT71A_S or a new WilBroCon point 100% clean.
https://travelmapping.net//user/mapview.php?units=miles&rg=CT&u=chaddean
https://travelmapping.net//user/mapview.php?units=miles&rg=CT&u=charliezeb
https://travelmapping.net//user/mapview.php?units=miles&rg=CT&u=dave1693
https://travelmapping.net//user/mapview.php?units=miles&rg=CT&u=johninkingwood
https://travelmapping.net//user/mapview.php?units=miles&rg=CT&u=mariethefoxy
I'm reluctant to go & break .list files either. Can't have it both ways though.
I don't really remember, but it may be that keeping points as they were, linking up the graph at an existing point, and avoiding ambiguity over "Is this bit part of CT371 or the Willow Brook Connector?" informed including the route as I did & leaving the existing ones alone.
Leaving this alone for the moment. Thoughts?
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
  • Last Login:June 25, 2022, 07:12:04 am
Re: NJ/NY/CT: Point Concerns After Recent Trips
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2022, 05:50:34 am »
Quote
Nope. There's no other US6_Bre from which to disambiguate.
https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#over2

I always assumed that we needed the suffix either way.  I still need to think whether I prefer letters or town names as I keep going back and forth about this.

I still support changing PamMea on CT 42 if possible because PamMea is such a minor route.

For CT 71A/CT 372: 
Quote
Hm. If I were doing this from scratch now, I'd go from one end of the couplet to the other, tracing the CT372 along Farmington Ave.

I am fine with either that or putting CT 372 at the intersection (which would require another point on CT 71A). 

Ironically, I did not even come over here on the Meriden meet.  I noticed this while skimming CT 9 (which is not really worth editing at the moment anyway even if I found something due to exit number changes).


Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
  • Last Login:Today at 08:03:56 am
Re: NJ/NY/CT: Point Concerns After Recent Trips
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2022, 12:25:03 pm »
I still need to think whether I prefer letters or town names as I keep going back and forth about this.
I don't really have a preference, and will use either as situations arise. Letters are nice & clean & compact, and useful when there's no clear city to name something after. I tend to use them when intersections are clustered more closely together. There's a lot of them in Texas. Town names can help avoid ugly _A _B _D _C cases like US7/202, and can be useful for messy mass renamings like US9 & NY9A. I wanna say I've used these pretty heavily in New England. Take US1 & ME9, with several junctions widely spaced out all along the coast.

I still support changing PamMea on CT 42 if possible because PamMea is such a minor route.
Meh, it wasn't included as an important road that traffic was likely to use, but just as a shaping point. It does the job.

For CT 71A/CT 372: 
Quote
Hm. If I were doing this from scratch now, I'd go from one end of the couplet to the other, tracing the CT372 along Farmington Ave.
I am fine with either that or putting CT 372 at the intersection (which would require another point on CT 71A). 
I don't understand what you mean by this.

Forgot to add before...
As it stands now it's another case of a route specifically following one direction of a couplet. Sub-optimal to be sure, though not necessarily... wrong?
Perhaps the closest analogue -- on a larger scale -- is MA US202 via US5 in Holyoke.
I could be OK with going no-build, not messing with people's stats/maps, or taking away people's WilBroCon clinches.

Another option would be to make CT CT372 CT71A_N an AltLabel for WilBroCon, which probably does the right thing for 4 of 5 travelers... mariethefoxy has been active on the forum in the past; we could drop a PM to say Hey heads up this thing has changed. People would still lose their WilBroCon clinches though.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
  • Last Login:June 25, 2022, 07:12:04 am
Re: NJ/NY/CT: Point Concerns After Recent Trips
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2022, 01:27:25 pm »
Quote
I don't understand what you mean by this.

I just meant putting the CT 372 point at CT 71A in between Farmington Ave and the Wilkes Brook Connector instead of CT 372 following purely Farmington Ave and then leaving WilBroCon as-is.  That is all.

My eyes are so itchy from the allergies that I may not be looking at things quite right at the moment.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • Last Login:Today at 01:30:46 am
Re: NJ/NY/CT: Point Concerns After Recent Trips
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2022, 08:02:28 pm »
Re: CT 372/71A/WilBroCon, what I would do is:
- have 372 and 71A meet at a single point, in the middle of the one-way couplet.
- leave WilBroCon alone

It doesn't make sense to map 372 and WilBroCon separately west of 71A since in the westbound direction they are one in the same.
But it also doesn't make sense to plot a 372/71A concurrency since this concurrency does not exist eastbound.

Could also have all 3 routes meet at one point (1PPI) but that seems a little extreme.


Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
  • Last Login:June 25, 2022, 07:12:04 am
Re: NJ/NY/CT: Point Concerns After Recent Trips
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2022, 12:02:58 am »
I am in agreement with Duke87.  I think he is putting it better what I would have liked to have stated.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3846
  • Last Login:Today at 08:03:56 am
Re: NJ/NY/CT: Point Concerns After Recent Trips
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2022, 06:19:49 pm »
Re: CT 372/71A/WilBroCon, what I would do is:
- have 372 and 71A meet at a single point, in the middle of the one-way couplet.
- leave WilBroCon alone
A bit rich for my blood. We'd still need the existing southern point (CT71A_S/CT372_E in the graph) for the 71A/372 junction. Would still need the northern point for the 71A/WilBroCon jct.
If I'm interpreting this right, it sounds like adding a 3rd point along 71A (unless you meant somewhere else), which just seems like overdoing it in this context.

It doesn't make sense to map 372 and WilBroCon separately west of 71A since in the westbound direction they are one in the same.
But it also doesn't make sense to plot a 372/71A concurrency since this concurrency does not exist eastbound.
What it comes down to is that whatever solution is adopted will have to be imperfect in some regard.
To that end, what we have now is just as serviceable as some of the other solutions. With the added bonus that it doesn't mess with people's .lists.

It's possible that another factor (again, fuzzy memory) in my leaving 372 alone when adding WilBroCon was that EB 372 on the SW leg of the triangle via Farmington Ave kinda functions as a glorified right-turn ramp (even though it continues straight on thru on Farmington instead of completing the right turn, but hey).

I'm leaning toward just leaving this alone now.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 658
  • Last Login:Today at 01:30:46 am
Re: NJ/NY/CT: Point Concerns After Recent Trips
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2022, 05:08:54 pm »
If I'm interpreting this right, it sounds like adding a 3rd point along 71A (unless you meant somewhere else), which just seems like overdoing it in this context.

No, my intent was to have 71A and 372 meet at a single point, with no mapped concurrency.

Ultimately I'm fine with leaving it alone, too.