1
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: frabfcdXX: Bourgogne-Franche-Comte Routes Départementales
« Last post by cenlaroads on Today at 11:18:50 am »Ok. I'll note any I find just in case you want to add them later.
News:
If you have any trouble registering for the forum, please email travmap@teresco.org for help.
Recent Posts
2
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: chng: China National Expressways
« Last post by Nagamasa on Today at 10:56:31 am »G92 only goes to G1503: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G92_Hangzhou_Bay_Ring_Expressway.@nagamasa you've fixed some open issues for SH with your latest PR. Please let me know when all are fixed. Thanks.I believe they should all be fixed at this point (for both chnsh and chng)
No. Missing implementation (or comment on this thread):G15:
Move JS/SH to the borderline, apply to G4221 and JS's G15
G92:
Does it extend to S20 as indicated on OSM, concurrent with G60? GM does not indicate G92 at all.
G1503:
Add wp south of 132I think that another G1503 in the NE should be added if OSM + GM right that it is in service and signed as such.
You've merged it into main route but removed the short additional G1503 segment between G1503's exit 204 and S20. you should add it again.
The old G1503 segment is no longer signed as such. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1sK411e7gY/?spm_id_from=333.337.search-card.all.click&vd_source=45addfe14efe619bf0f24730196bf14b
3
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: frabfcdXX: Bourgogne-Franche-Comte Routes Départementales
« Last post by michih on Today at 08:01:38 am »Quote from: cenlaroads
Hi, I was wondering how you want to handle multiple routes at the same waypoint.
For example, D1, D1D, and D103 all intersect:
D1's point is D1D/D103
D1D's point is D1/D103
but D103's point is just D1, without D1D
Is this something you would want me to report in the peer review, or is it not important since the manual does not require it?
Thanks for pointing that out. I don't remember where si404 and me agreed on that. I simply dropped the child number if the parent number is already used in the label name throughout France. To avoid making the labels too complicated.
4
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: chnsh: (China) Shanghai Provincial Expressways [Ready for review]
« Last post by michih on Today at 07:56:30 am »(G60) is to indicate where the source of the jump in consecutive naming: https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#noconcZJ S36's 68(G60) should be renamed to G60 or G60/G92.Per signage here, it is actually numbered Exit 68 going towards G60, even though that is the number is actually G60's exit number to S36: 3:07@ https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV16z421i7mD
There is only one interchange 68 on SH's S36 in ZJ region. The rule is a clarification on how to deal with duplicate labels. The rule is not meant to make things complicated.
5
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: chng: China National Expressways
« Last post by michih on Today at 07:54:06 am »@nagamasa you've fixed some open issues for SH with your latest PR. Please let me know when all are fixed. Thanks.I believe they should all be fixed at this point (for both chnsh and chng)
No. Missing implementation (or comment on this thread):
G15:
Move JS/SH to the borderline, apply to G4221 and JS's G15
G92:
Does it extend to S20 as indicated on OSM, concurrent with G60? GM does not indicate G92 at all.
G1503:
Add wp south of 132I think that another G1503 in the NE should be added if OSM + GM right that it is in service and signed as such.
You've merged it into main route but removed the short additional G1503 segment between G1503's exit 204 and S20. you should add it again.
6
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: chng: China National Expressways
« Last post by michih on Today at 07:49:58 am »What's the story behind your 'China Select Provincial Expressways' system you want to introduce today? Shouldn't we have one system per province like you already have in place for two provinces?
There were major changes in 2017 and 2022 that downloaded many freeways from national level to provincial level, and the ones added to chns were just the ones that already in chng in various parts of the country that were previously in chng, rather than leaving them in unprocessed wpts, given that there is already a substantial list of them already. They can be parked there for when we are ready to take a stab at those.
We've reviewed 0.5% of chng and chn**s--there's 180,000km of freeways in China, so chns makes these stragglers a little more documented. Basically usansf with Chinese characteristics.
Fine. Great move
7
Other Discussion / Re: AARoads Forum
« Last post by rickmastfan67 on Yesterday at 08:54:35 pm »AA Roads Forum is back up again. For now.
8
Updates to Highway Data / Re: WA: Decommission of WA 501 (Ridgefield)
« Last post by Bruce on Yesterday at 07:42:52 pm »The northern section of SR 501 has been transferred, while the southern section is intact.
9
Updates to Highway Data / Re: WA: Decommission of WA 501 (Ridgefield)
« Last post by compdude787 on Yesterday at 04:49:10 pm »It looks like AARoads is down (I've been getting a 403 Forbidden error for the past couple days), so I can't view this forum post.
Markkos1992, do you remember what this was about? Is this about the northern section of WA 501 that runs east-west from I-5 to Ridgefield being turned over to the city of Ridgefield?
Markkos1992, do you remember what this was about? Is this about the northern section of WA 501 that runs east-west from I-5 to Ridgefield being turned over to the city of Ridgefield?
10
Updates to Highway Data / Re: WA: WA165 bridge permanently closed
« Last post by compdude787 on Yesterday at 04:43:51 pm »Yeah, until WSDOT decides what to do about this bridge, let's definitely leave things as-is.