Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: Markkos1992 on September 27, 2021, 06:38:03 pm
-
AR 11: I-40(193)>-I-40.
US 70: A point should be added between AR 357 and US 79 to keep the line south of I-40.
-
US 70: A point should be added between AR 357 and US 79 to keep the line south of I-40.
It really wants to be here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.132663&lon=-90.436350) unless I move the existing shaper on I-40. Doesn't seem to be a name for it though. Hidden point added.
AR 11: I-40(193)>-I-40.
Oh man. I wrote a couple shell (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=62.msg20712#msg20712) scripts (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=62.msg20713#msg20713) and opened a bunch (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4277) of (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4278) pull (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4279) requests (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4281)... like 8 weeks before (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=42.msg21458#msg21458) mapcat signed over AR. I'll run them again and see what I come up with...
extraneous_suffix.log1 AR/usaar/ar.ar011.wpt:I-40(193) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.819053&lon=-91.566753
2 AR/usaar/ar.ar018.wpt:I-555(45) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.808939&lon=-90.720162
3 AR/usaar/ar.ar077.wpt:I-555(2) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.411333&lon=-90.282683
4 AR/usaar/ar.ar089may.wpt:I-40(135) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.970626&lon=-92.419058
5 AR/usaar/ar.ar091.wpt:US63(49) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.857248&lon=-90.777583
6 AR/usaar/ar.ar229.wpt:I-30(114) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.545007&lon=-92.631011
7 AR/usaus/ar.us063.wpt:I-555(45) +I-40(265) +I-40(276) +AR463_N +US49/1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.808939&lon=-90.720162
The AR11 point loses the exit number suffix.
For I-555(45) on AR18 & US63, rather than change that now & then change it back when I-555 is eventually extended in the field, I'll kick the can down the road.
AR77 is FP due to a multiplex.
AR89May is FP: disambiguates an unnumbered entrance-only ramp labeled plain I-40.
Similarly, AR91's points will eventually become I-555/63 and plain US63, so going no-build until then.
On AR229, SouSt_E -> I-30(116).
UNIQUE_SLASH_SUFFIX.log1 AR/usaar/ar.ar007.wpt:US63/167_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.136222&lon=-92.631912
2 AR/usaar/ar.ar175.wpt:US62/412_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.309307&lon=-91.504301
AR7: Suffix removed.
AR175: Ack, a little indigestion here. I mean, US62/63 is also technically a US62/412 split, right? ... ...US62/412_W -> US62_W. ;)
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5145
-
I wonder if your script may be useful whenever mapcat is ready to review his states again. It may lower the list of point concerns I find a little bit in and of itself.
-
Certainly would be, yes.
Long-term, these items could become a datacheck. That'd be way faster than these bash scripts, and we could build in better guards against FPs.
Got a bunch of similar (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=62.msg15554#msg15554) chicken (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=62.msg16459#msg16459) scratches (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3245) littered around. I come up with ideas faster than I can implement`em... :D
Trying these two out in DE & PA...
DE:
No UNIQUE_SLASH_SUFFIX results.
The one EXTRANEOUS_EXIT result is a perfect example of why marking FPs should be allowed if this were a datacheck:
1 DE/usaus/de.us202.wpt:DE141(1) +US40 +US13/40 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.680441&lon=-75.590417
PA:
UNIQUE_SLASH_SUFFIX1 PA/usapa/pa.pa982trkder.wpt:US22/119_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.398578&lon=-79.422159
2 PA/usaus/pa.us019.wpt:US6/322_W +US6_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.622615&lon=-80.203578
EXTRANEOUS_EXIT1 PA/usapa/pa.pa028trkbro.wpt:I-80(78) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.170544&lon=-79.097979
2 PA/usapa/pa.pa390trkhaw.wpt:I-84(30) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.366680&lon=-75.127602
3 PA/usapa/pa.pa402trkhaw.wpt:I-84(34) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.358016&lon=-75.055504
4 PA/usapa/pa.pa420alttrkpro.wpt:I-95(8) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.870980&lon=-75.323312
5 PA/usapa/pa.pa423trkpoc.wpt:I-380(3) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.106083&lon=-75.397754
6 PA/usapa/pa.pa435.wpt:I-380(13) +I-380 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.230500&lon=-75.498012
7 PA/usapa/pa.pa715trksta.wpt:I-80(302) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.997909&lon=-75.269694
8 PA/usapa/pa.pa940.wpt:I-80(273) +I-80 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.055161&lon=-75.775999
9 PA/usausb/pa.us220altmil.wpt:I-80(158) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.955854&lon=-77.769599
10 PA/usausb/pa.us220busbed.wpt:I-99(1) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.056178&lon=-78.511104
11 PA/usaus/pa.us019.wpt:I-76(28) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.678138&lon=-80.099666
12 PA/usaus/pa.us040.wpt:I-70(15) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.162118&lon=-80.278097
13 PA/usaus/pa.us209.wpt:I-84(53) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.357222&lon=-74.714059
14 PA/usaus/pa.us522.wpt:I-70(168) +I-70_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.757037&lon=-78.189228
A lot of these could be FPs; I haven't looked at them in the HB. Only checked out the one Delaware example.
-
I changed up the EXTRANEOUS_EXIT script to exclude false positives like in the AR77 example -- it now attempts to account for multiplexes jumping from one Interstate to another, by looking forward & backward one line for another label containing parentheses.
This yields a false negative: PA US19 I-76(28) drops off the list of results because I-79(76) is adjacent, even though it's the only junction with I-76 on the route.
This could become either I-76 or I-76/79...
-
Yeah, I am definitely considering the DE one as a FP.
I made the following changes in PA:
UNIQUE_SLASH_SUFFIX
pa.pa982trkder.wpt: US22/119_W>-US22/119
pa.us019.wpt: US6/322_W>-US6/98 (I liked including PA 98 in the label over going plain US6_W or debating whether I should go with US6/322 or consider US6/322 a FP.)
EXTRANEOUS_EXIT
pa.us019.wpt: I-76(28)>-I-76/79 (to match I-80/476 on PA 940)
pa.us040.wpt: I-70(15)>-I-70 (It is hard for me to believe that I-70 and US 40 only have one direct interchange with each other in PA. The I-70 Exit 6 interchange is actually with Old National Pike.)
pa.us209.wpt: I-84(53)>-I-84 (probably used I-84(53) copied over from US 6)
The rest of these are FPs. Most of them are due to concurrencies with interstates minus the following two exceptions:
pa.pa435.wpt:I-380(13) (PA 435 has two interchanges with I-380.)
pa.pa940.wpt:I-80(273) (PA 940 more or less has two interchanges with I-80. The second involves a connector road that connects to I-476 to the north and I-80 to the south without a name. I think it is best to leave this as-is.)
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5151
EDIT: I went with I-76/79 on US 19 before the last post was made.
-
UNIQUE_SLASH_SUFFIX
pa.pa982trkder.wpt: US22/119_W>-US22/119
Yup, that's what to do in these cases usually.
pa.us019.wpt: US6/322_W>-US6/98 (I liked including PA 98 in the label over going plain US6_W or debating whether I should go with US6/322 or consider US6/322 a FP.)
State route over a US route?
6 & 322 split together; this is the one place they do so. Recommend plain US6/322:
https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#avoidsuffix
https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#identicalmultiplex
https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#plexnosuffix
EXTRANEOUS_EXIT
pa.us019.wpt: I-76(28)>-I-76/79 (to match I-80/476 on PA 940)
pa.us040.wpt: I-70(15)>-I-70 (It is hard for me to believe that I-70 and US 40 only have one direct interchange with each other in PA. The I-70 Exit 6 interchange is actually with Old National Pike.)
pa.us209.wpt: I-84(53)>-I-84 (probably used I-84(53) copied over from US 6)
Thumbs up
The rest of these are FPs. Most of them are due to concurrencies with interstates minus the following two exceptions:
*Takes a look at the rest* Agreed, although...
PA390TrkHaw: PA390_S -> PA390
PA715TrkSTa: Gott im Himmel PENNDOT WUT
US220BusBed: The only non-plex here. A special case that happens sometimes. What would otherwise be I-99(3) becomes US220_N because parent route, arguably eliminating the need to disambiguate plain I-99 from anything else. Rather similar to the next examples; moving on to those...
pa.pa435.wpt:I-380(13) (PA 435 has two interchanges with I-380.)
pa.pa940.wpt:I-80(273) (PA 940 more or less has two interchanges with I-80. The second involves a connector road that connects to I-476 to the north and I-80 to the south without a name. I think it is best to leave this as-is.)
435: One interchange is with two concurrent interstates: 84/380. I-84/380 is appropriate here.
940: One interchange... (two trumpets? a double trumpet?) touch down at one point. I-80/476 is appropriate here.
So what of the other points, then? They could be plain I-## labels, with no other points at just that route to disambiguate from.
Less with Interstates & exit numbers and more with US/state routes & directional suffixes that I can remember, this was a convention Tim was pushing by the late days of CHM -- if KS666 intersects solo US37 at one point and US37/38 at another, they could be labeled US37 and US37/38, no need for directional suffixes. Not sure how widely this caught on though.
So yes, it's an option for Interstates, though as you may recall, one I find ugly enough to have avoided on MA12. ;)
Don't know what I'd do if PA were my state, but it's possible I'd decide it's OK as-is, same as you've done.
-
US 19: I went with US6/322 over US6/98 as I should have before. I also changed I-70(19) to I-70/79 in the meantime as it may have (or should have been) originally. I think that I had gone with I-70(19) to try to prevent confusion with I-79(19) for some reason.
The PA 715 Truck Routes are different for both directions (SB (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=pa.pa715trksta) and NB (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=pa.pa715trknta)), hence the insanity. I made the PA390TrkHaw change.
Otherwise, I think am sticking with no build for PA 435, PA 940, and US 220 BUS (Bedford) for now, but I am always willing to change my mind. I am more leaning on not using a single label like I-99 if the route intersects it more than once because I think it may cause confusion, but that is just me.
-
US 19: ... I also changed I-70(19)
Weird. How did the script not flag this one? Worth noting that there's also a (19) in I-79(19), but that shouldn't matter... right?
Mumble mumble...
Edit: Oh OK I get it, it's working (imperfectly) as intended. Both the bits before and within the parens must be unique. If the bit within is not, that flags a bunch of 127(80) style labels. This gets complicated quickly... 8)
to I-70/79 in the meantime as it may have (or should have been) originally. I think that I had gone with I-70(19) to try to prevent confusion with I-79(19) for some reason.
The I-79(19) label (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/d987dca931ad103fd1db57b75d130fe841ed70ae) dates (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blame/696fb600789b9d68392d24f0c59d82952596d4eb/hwy_data/PA/usaus/pa.us019.wpt) back (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/9bbaf40e82ecd69d017cb4106933d42c114c02f0) to (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blame/12a7c837de24eb05394c23ae601104d88cbe8450/hwy_data/PA/usaus/pa.us019.wpt) CHM (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/496f238cee9daadcdd3e02325712684605dd6a1d). :D
The PA 715 Truck Routes are different for both directions (SB (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=pa.pa715trksta) and NB (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=pa.pa715trknta)), hence the insanity.
LOL wow, I didn't even notice there was another one!
Otherwise, I think am sticking with no build for PA 435, PA 940, and US 220 BUS (Bedford) for now, but I am always willing to change my mind. I am more leaning on not using a single label like I-99 if the route intersects it more than once because I think it may cause confusion, but that is just me.
Yep. I've felt that way historically, and so won't try to change your mind on this one. But I do love getting hung up (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK4tLJLJVA8&list=PL5BFEE776011A4689&index=6) pondering all the possibilities...