User Discussions > Other Discussion
Routes concurrent with themselves
yakra:
Split from PA: US 19 Truck (Pittsburgh)
While testing some changes to the concurrency detection code, I came across:
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ut.ut190
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ms.tourrd
Like PA US19TrkPit, these routes are concurrent with themselves.
Unlike PA US19TrkPit, these routes are not concurrent with any other routes.
I have no big objections to the way these are plotted, but...
Comments? Thoughts?
yakra:
Some changes I'm proposing to the concurrency detection code would change how these routes' self-concurrent segments are counted toward user stats.
Right now, a traveler must manually .list both segments to get credit for both.
Under my proposal, if a traveler claims only one, they'll receive credit for the other.
FWIW:
ms.tourrd:
* Of 7 travelers on MS TourRd, 6 have travelled the self-concurrent bit. All 6 .list files have a line that explicitly contains both concurrent segments.
ut.ut190:
* 4 travelers have UT UT190 I-215 BriRes in their .lists, BriRes being the old label for UT190_C:
bobcobb, crosboro7, osu97gp, the_spui_ninja
As things are now, these four travelers have the concurrent segment counted toward their mileage only once.
* 2 travelers have clinched UT UT190: Based8 & roadguy2.
* norheim hasn't travelled the extension to Guardsman Pass, but has UT UT190 I-215 UT190_D .listed, and thus has the concurrent segment counted twice for mileage.
the_spui_ninja:
As I said in the Utah thread, I'm all for this.
Jim:
Looking a bit at the UT 190 situation, I don't see how it makes sense to credit people twice for taking the same road both directions here. But maybe I'm not understanding something, not having looked into it nearly as closely as those who have been discussing this. Here are my thoughts, apologies if I missed something in this or another thread..
1) Is it possible to travel up to Guardsman Pass without dipping down to Brighton and taking that loop?
2) If any traveler gets to UT190_B and continues on at all, they have no choice but to continue all the way around the loop, and unless they are staying at Brighton permanently, eventually will get back out to UT190_D. Doesn't this make NorTraLn pointless?'
I feel like it makes the most sense to have the main line dip down to Brighton ending at UT190_C. Then a separate file for the part that continues up into the pass.
yakra:
--- Quote from: Jim on December 02, 2018, 05:28:20 pm ---1) Is it possible to travel up to Guardsman Pass without dipping down to Brighton and taking that loop?
--- End quote ---
Yes.
--- Quote from: Jim on December 02, 2018, 05:28:20 pm ---2) If any traveler gets to UT190_B and continues on at all, they have no choice but to continue all the way around the loop, and unless they are staying at Brighton permanently, eventually will get back out to UT190_D. Doesn't this make NorTraLn pointless?'
--- End quote ---
Looks like there's a connection via Nordic Trail Lane, Brighton Lake Lane, and Silver Aspen Lane back to north to UT190 north of the loop (however "Hi-Standard" or "Top Ho and Spiffing" this connection may or may not be). ESRI WorldImagery looks newer than MapBox, and agrees with Google and Bing. It looks possible to clinch UT UT190 UT190_B NorTraLn and not UT UT190 NorTraLn UT190_C, or vice versa.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version