User Discussions > Other Discussion
Merits of grab bag systems overlapping other systems
vdeane:
--- Quote from: compdude787 on June 24, 2021, 05:36:26 pm ---I understand the reasons why this practice is done, but personally, I'm not sure how useful it is to duplicate routes in a grab bag freeway system that are already in a numbered route system. In the US we don't have separate freeway route files for sections of freeway that are part of state or US routes, even in places like California that have named freeways. Personally, if I was maintaining Australia, I'd find it annoying to have to update two wpt files whenever there is a change to the route.
--- End quote ---
Every US jurisdiction with freeways has interstates, though not necessarily signed interstates. That's not true with Western Australia and Tasmania. Especially with Western Australia, the absence of motorways likely has more to do with the fact that they haven't converted to alphanumeric than anything else. In fact, if the unsigned interstates discussion flares up again, I'd hope I remember to reference this thread with respect to Puerto Rico.
Markkos1992:
--- Quote from: vdeane on June 24, 2021, 09:43:32 pm ---
--- Quote from: compdude787 on June 24, 2021, 05:36:26 pm ---I understand the reasons why this practice is done, but personally, I'm not sure how useful it is to duplicate routes in a grab bag freeway system that are already in a numbered route system. In the US we don't have separate freeway route files for sections of freeway that are part of state or US routes, even in places like California that have named freeways. Personally, if I was maintaining Australia, I'd find it annoying to have to update two wpt files whenever there is a change to the route.
--- End quote ---
Every US jurisdiction with freeways has interstates, though not necessarily signed interstates. That's not true with Western Australia and Tasmania. Especially with Western Australia, the absence of motorways likely has more to do with the fact that they haven't converted to alphanumeric than anything else. In fact, if the unsigned interstates discussion flares up again, I'd hope I remember to reference this thread with respect to Puerto Rico.
--- End quote ---
My restart of the peer review for Puerto Rico is way past the interstates at this point. I am waiting on mapcat to find time to go through my comments before continuing it.
Was this an issue with Alaska at some point?
si404:
--- Quote from: compdude787 on June 24, 2021, 05:36:26 pm ---Personally, if I was maintaining Australia, I'd find it annoying to have to update two wpt files whenever there is a change to the route.
--- End quote ---
But you don't maintain Australia. Personally if I maintained NY, I'd want to have the NYST as its a signed, clinchable route. But I lost that argument years ago and accept that.
I'm often having to update two .wpt files whenever there's a change in a route due to concurrencies anyway (eure doesn't help here). And when I was maintaining US states like WY and MT, the concurrencies were so plentiful that more often or not a label change or point reposition required changing two or more files to deal with one roadway and that was before I added the state highways!
It's really little more burden.
Duke87:
This originally came up in the Australia thread.
Basic question is this: you have a route with a recognized, signed name, possibly in some cases even a unique shield. The named route is entirely concurrent with one or more numbered routes that are accounted for in other systems. Is it worth including the named route in a grab bag system, potentially for the sake of bumping it into a higher tier and adding more color to the map, or allowing greater detail of user stat tracking, in spite of this representing a net addition of zero clinchable mileage to the database?
Within North America (usasf, cansf) the answer as currently implemented is "no". Routes in these systems that are partially concurrent with numbered routes in other systems exist, but all have at least some independent mileage.
Outside of North America, however (aussf as aforementioned, some other places as well), we have named routes in grab bag systems that are 100% concurrent with numbered routes.
So this raises the ancillary question of: do we want to globally harmonize standards on this, or is it okay if it's different in different parts of the world depending on the differing preferences of people drafting and maintaining different regions?
And if we globally harmonize, which option is preferred?
Below are quotes of partial posts relevant from the Australia thread.
--- Quote from: si404 on June 24, 2021, 01:37:27 pm ---
--- Quote from: Duke87 on June 24, 2021, 12:52:19 am ---all the TAS and WA routes are entirely redundant with routes in ausn, ausa, ausb, or auswa and should be removed
--- End quote ---
The rules are, AFAICS:
* if the region has a stand-alone tier 1 system, then anything concurrent with other active systems shouldn't be part of the grabbag system.
* if the region doesn't have a stand-alone tier 1 system (unlike any region in USA), then relevant freeways/motorways/whatever that form part of another system can be in a relevant select system. The Nordic Countries and (parts of) the former USSR have seen such an approach. Ditto North Macedonia and New Zealand.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Duke87 on June 24, 2021, 10:42:12 pm ---Regarding the inclusion of the WA and TAS routes despite their redundancy in order to show the freeway/motorway sections in a higher tier... I mean, I can see the logic there. But I'm still not a fan from the "reduce unnecessary clutter" perspective. Remember how we were gearing up to kill usaif until we realized it contained a couple short segments not part of other routes.
Still, this is an issue worth letting others chime in on if it's never been broadly properly discussed before.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: si404 on June 25, 2021, 05:45:53 am ---
--- Quote from: Duke87 on June 24, 2021, 10:42:12 pm ---Remember how we were gearing up to kill usaif until we realized it contained a couple short segments not part of other routes.
--- End quote ---
Most of that was the whole unsigned thing for a lot of the routes (not the case here), and there's the factor that usaif is a psuedo-grab-bag-esque system in regions with a tier 1 system already.
And the 'we' was 'some contributors' not the entire we. There wasn't agreement on killing the system even before we saw a couple of segments that weren't concurrent with other routes - there was an agreement for getting rid of a lot of the routes due to being unsigned and for not adding more routes, but there remained questions over getting rid of the well signed routes like I-26Fut.
--- Quote ---Still, this is an issue worth letting others chime in on if it's never been broadly properly discussed before.
--- End quote ---
Absolutely.
--- End quote ---
michih:
--- Quote from: si404 on June 24, 2021, 01:37:27 pm ---The rules are, AFAICS:
* if the region has a stand-alone tier 1 system, then anything concurrent with other active systems shouldn't be part of the grabbag system.
* if the region doesn't have a stand-alone tier 1 system (unlike any region in USA), then relevant freeways/motorways/whatever that form part of another system can be in a relevant select system. The Nordic Countries and (parts of) the former USSR have seen such an approach. Ditto North Macedonia and New Zealand.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Duke87 on June 25, 2021, 06:16:37 pm ---Outside of North America, however (aussf as aforementioned, some other places as well), we have named routes in grab bag systems that are 100% concurrent with numbered routes.
--- End quote ---
What are grab bag systems?
* "Select" freeway systems: aussf, cannf, chlsf, eursf, mexsf, usansf, usasf
* Other "Select" systems: eurtr, usanp
* Named systems which are (mostly) concurrent to numbered routes, e.g. dnkmot, finmt, ltuaut, mkdap, normot, nzlmot, swemot,...
Which systems are in question now?
In the specific Australian case, I'd consider Australia "as one" and would not put freeway / motorway sections to aussf which are fully concurrent to numbered routes (in HB) just because they are in an (Australian) region where we don't have a numbered motorway.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version