Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: rickmastfan67 on June 11, 2020, 07:51:43 am

Title: MI: US-12 fixes
Post by: rickmastfan67 on June 11, 2020, 07:51:43 am: Found some minor issues for the route that need to be addressed.

1) Found a missing interchange @ Greenfield Road. It's between the 'MI39' & 'I-94(210A)' points.
2) EcoRd, WilRunAir, & WiaRd need to be re-centered, as US-12 shrunk in that area from a dual-carriageway to just use the 'former' EB alignment. Also the 'WilRunAir' point will need to be marked as 'closed'.
3) Would add a point @ Brooklyn Highway (just to the West of 'MI50'). Reason is because of the big NASCAR track there of Michigan International Speedway. ;) The 'MI50' point could also use a recenter too.
Title: Re: MI: US-12 fixes
Post by: mapcat on July 04, 2020, 02:15:49 pm: Thanks. https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4025 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4025)
Title: Re: MI: US-12 fixes
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 04, 2020, 10:26:36 pm: I wouldn't have deleted the 'WilRunAir' point, as that was a full interchange. Should just be marked as closed.
Title: Re: MI: US-12 fixes
Post by: mapcat on July 05, 2020, 08:32:13 am: Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 04, 2020, 10:26:36 pm
I wouldn't have deleted the 'WilRunAir' point, as that was a full interchange. Should just be marked as closed.
No one was using it, and it was less than a mile from the points on either side of it. What am I missing?
Title: Re: MI: US-12 fixes
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 05, 2020, 09:10:01 am: Quote from: mapcat on July 05, 2020, 08:32:13 am
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 04, 2020, 10:26:36 pm
I wouldn't have deleted the 'WilRunAir' point, as that was a full interchange. Should just be marked as closed.
No one was using it, and it was less than a mile from the points on either side of it. What am I missing?

We always mark closed interchanges if they were in the file to begin with as long as there wasn't a reroute. I'm sure others would back me up on this.
Title: Re: MI: US-12 fixes
Post by: mapcat on July 05, 2020, 05:50:08 pm: Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 05, 2020, 09:10:01 am
We always mark closed interchanges if they were in the file to begin with as long as there wasn't a reroute. I'm sure others would back me up on this.

Is it in the manual? Regardless, I think this is a good candidate for an exception to the precedent/rule. It was an interchange that only served a factory that shut down years ago. Evidently there is or soon will be a museum there, which is accessed via Wiard Rd. If someone who once worked at or toured that factory signs up for an account and needs that point, I'll reconsider.
Title: Re: MI: US-12 fixes
Post by: michih on August 06, 2020, 01:10:48 pm: Quote from: mapcat on July 05, 2020, 05:50:08 pm
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 05, 2020, 09:10:01 am
We always mark closed interchanges if they were in the file to begin with as long as there wasn't a reroute. I'm sure others would back me up on this.

Is it in the manual?

Yes, it is: https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/maintenance.php#closed

Quote
Add an asterisk(*) at the beginning of the waypoint and leave it otherwise unchanged.

I don' think that we need an exception, do we?

Not (yet) marking solved.
Title: Re: MI: US-12 fixes
Post by: mapcat on September 28, 2020, 03:06:21 pm: I still see preserving that point as unnecessary. The only reason to keep it is because of an arbitrary guideline that may not have anticipated unimportant interchanges.
Title: Re: MI: US-12 fixes
Post by: Markkos1992 on February 15, 2021, 08:38:10 pm: Quote from: mapcat on September 28, 2020, 03:06:21 pm
I still see preserving that point as unnecessary. The only reason to keep it is because of an arbitrary guideline that may not have anticipated unimportant interchanges.

I agree with you on this one based on the cirumstances. I recently suggested that mapmikey remove a point on VA 28 (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3984.msg21233#msg21233) due to a wrong point label with other interchanges nearby.