Author Topic: TX: I-20 relocation at Ranger Hill  (Read 317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3824
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:51:01 am
TX: I-20 relocation at Ranger Hill
« on: January 15, 2022, 06:49:25 pm »
I-20 was realigned between exits 358 and 361 a while back... not super recent at this point?
This didn't result in any change to the highway data (hence not putting the topic on that board), because:
• The new alignment leaves & rejoins the old within the footprint of the two interchanges, so there's little point in making separate points for such, per the One Point Per Interchange rule.
• The new alignment is still within lateral tolerance between the two exits, so no shaping points were added in between them.

It didn't seem quite right to make an updates entry if nothing was really updated. :)
Those who want to mark this segment as unclinched are free to do so.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3479
  • Last Login:May 26, 2022, 02:51:53 pm
Re: TX: I-20 relocation at Ranger Hill
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2022, 01:44:16 am »
This didn't result in any change to the highway data (hence not putting the topic on that board), because:

Well, it is an update to an highway. You checked our TM highway data but didn't change it because you think it is not necessary. I'd move it to the "highway data" board.....

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 652
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:51:04 pm
Re: TX: I-20 relocation at Ranger Hill
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2022, 11:59:42 am »
I looked at the relocation. I'm not considering it a declinch, however I would add *OldI-20 points for the benefit of anyone who does. We've added such points for less...

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
  • Last Login:May 22, 2022, 06:06:45 pm
Re: TX: I-20 relocation at Ranger Hill
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2022, 12:51:35 pm »
I looked at the relocation. I'm not considering it a declinch, however I would add *OldI-20 points for the benefit of anyone who does. We've added such points for less...

Agreed. I drove that segment last year, making the change irrelevant to my bookkeeping, but I would have marked it reclinchable if I hadn't been there recently.
Clinched:

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3824
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:51:01 am
Re: TX: I-20 relocation at Ranger Hill
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2022, 04:07:39 pm »
Again: 1PPI.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:13:45 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: TX: I-20 relocation at Ranger Hill
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2022, 05:09:14 pm »
I suggest an Updates entry, saying I-20 was relocated (or "slightly relocated") between waypoints 358 and 361, to alert users that there was a change that they might want reflected in their list files, even if there is no change to the route file. People who want to view the change as declinching (not me) can use those points to indicate the part of the route they've no longer clinched. If the old and new alignments split within the footprints of the existing interchanges, that's close enough, never mind 1PPI. No need to add new points, or relabel existing points (the Updates entry will take care of that).

When I-80 in California was rerouted to the new eastern span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, I inserted new points at each end of the old alignment/new alignment split. The western split is so close to an existing interchange that I had to mark the resulting NMP as a false positive. Since that point is in use, I'd leave that alone, even though I didn't consider the bridge replacement as a de-clinch. Later, I traveled the new bridge, planning my trip to do that in the toll-free direction.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 652
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:51:04 pm
Re: TX: I-20 relocation at Ranger Hill
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2022, 12:08:22 am »
Again: 1PPI.

The new alignment doesn't deviate from the old until about half a mile west of exit 361 and well over a mile east of exit 358.

As of this writing Goog's satellite view shows this quite clearly: the new alignment is mapped but the old is on the satellite image. Select edit with iD on OSM and similar can be seen (for an open source).
« Last Edit: January 20, 2022, 12:12:48 am by Duke87 »

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3824
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:51:01 am
Re: TX: I-20 relocation at Ranger Hill
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2022, 01:25:27 am »
old alignment data ripped from shapefiles:
Code: [Select]
495365-1827 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.487083&lon=-98.562736
495365-1826 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.488715&lon=-98.553823
495365-1825 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.488987&lon=-98.552408
495365-1824 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.489150&lon=-98.551719
495365-1823 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.489555&lon=-98.550462
495365-1822 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.489913&lon=-98.549549
495365-1821 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.490280&lon=-98.548786
495365-1820 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.490498&lon=-98.548410
495365-1819 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.490901&lon=-98.547748
495365-1818 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.491230&lon=-98.547309
495365-1817 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.491677&lon=-98.546757
495365-1816 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.491939&lon=-98.546450
495365-1815 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.494803&lon=-98.543430
495365-1814 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.495758&lon=-98.542426
495365-1813 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.496501&lon=-98.541588
495365-1812 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.497048&lon=-98.540802
495365-1811 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.497517&lon=-98.539877
495365-1810 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.497815&lon=-98.539015
495365-1809 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.497938&lon=-98.538539
495365-1808 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.498043&lon=-98.538012
495365-1807 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.498122&lon=-98.537436
495365-1806 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.498214&lon=-98.536466
495365-1805 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.498377&lon=-98.534093
495365-1804 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.498621&lon=-98.530870
495365-1803 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.498688&lon=-98.529801
495365-1802 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.498742&lon=-98.528689
495365-1801 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.498958&lon=-98.523561
495365-1800 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.499236&lon=-98.516673
Use ESRI WorldImagery in wptedit.
The western divergence is just about exactly at existing point 358.
The eastern divergence is at about the 495365-1801 point. This is past the ramp gore, within the interchange footprint, and thus gets collapsed into 361.
I'm not looking at the distance to the center-point of the interchanges, but rather the interchange footprint as a whole.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2022, 01:28:42 am by yakra »
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 652
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:51:04 pm
Re: TX: I-20 relocation at Ranger Hill
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2022, 07:42:54 pm »
*blink*

I was looking at interchange footprint and not just point location too. I think the reason I'm coming up with a different answer here is that I'm looking the point where the new roadway footprint and the old roadway footprint cease having any overlap as being where the new alignment diverges from the old. If you're looking at where the centerline begins to shift then... yes this is basically at the gore point of the exit at both ends. The alignment shift is so gradual here that you get a very different point of divergence depending on which definition you use.

So, we could go down the rabbit hole of asking which definition of old alignment diverging from new is more correct, but... no, it's not worth it. There is a definition of things by which what you've done is defensible so I'm content to let it be.