Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: Jim on June 12, 2022, 10:38:40 pm
-
Do we care that the single instances of I-785 and I-885 that exist in NC are given a "groupName" of "North Carolina" while most (all?) other examples of 3dis that exist in only one place leave that blank? I'm happy to make the quick edits in the usai_con.csv file if the "North Carolina"s should be removed.
-
Is this like bannered routes where the norm is for something in that field as stuff is allowed to repeat.
Even when there wasn't an abbreviation (though almost all have them even if the abbrev isn't needed for disambiguation - in fact it's the rule that they should have abbreviations), there was a city/group name, eg ky.i066fut had Bowling Green in the city field even though it was the only FI-66. Ditto ca.i905futota has Otay Mesa, CA - it doesn't need the abbrev or the city/group name field but has both because we default to that for routes with banners.
Therefore could this be turned around to "why don't these 3di routes have state names as a group name?"
-
I think it would be useful for the 3dis to all have state names. You never know when another state will use that designation (especially with how NC is adding interstates all the time).
-
You never know when another state will use that designation (especially with how NC is adding interstates all the time).
https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/issues/338
-
What problem are we solving?
Are there 3di numbers used more than once in the same state?
-
What problem are we solving?
Extraneous group names/city, even though we happily have them on bannered route systems - enough that the norm is extraneous abbreviations making .list names longer - not just city/groupname fields - even when the route name is unique (eg CA I-5TrkNew (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=si404&r=ca.i005trknew), which is the only interstate truck route we have, but gets a city field, group name and abbreviation even though I-5Trk would be unique on TM even without the state bit). Nothing wrong with that - that's the consensus (albeit one that I removed from gbnam, even after I moved the M bit to be a banner...).
Are there 3di numbers used more than once in the same state?
No, but the group name is necessary when there's multiples of the same number as the connected routes don't give state names. How are you going to tell what I-295 is what without the group names? (https://travelmapping.net/user/system.php?sys=usai)
Often, on other sites (eg interstate-guide.com), states are given for 3dis, even if its unnecessarily as the number is unique. This is because they, like the bannered routes that have almost-manditory abbreviations (let alone city/groupname descriptions) here, can happen multiple times and are only guarenteed to be unique in a state. On this webpage (https://www.interstate-guide.com/81-84/) every reference to a 3di is to a 3di with a unique number - however, states are given for all the the 3dis. Therefore is the 'North Carolina' wrong, or just a different way, a way that is consistent with our TMI when it comes to bannered routes, whereby the leaving group names blank is wrong for 3dis even if its unique?
-
I'd rather leave the group name blank if the number only used once. Adds unnecessary clutter and confusion to the stats page having it there. And I like how it being absent when not needed calls specific attention to cases where there are multiple not-connected sections of road with the same designation.
Besides, if always including it, why limit this to only 3-digit routes? They're shown in the same table as 2-digit routes and some of those by necessity have group names.
-
I'd rather leave the group name blank if the number only used once. Adds unnecessary clutter and confusion to the stats page having it there. And I like how it being absent when not needed calls specific attention to cases where there are multiple not-connected sections of road with the same designation.
Besides, if always including it, why limit this to only 3-digit routes? They're shown in the same table as 2-digit routes and some of those by necessity have group names.
Would it be a huge ordeal beyond adding new lines in the CSV files name-wise if, for instance, an I-385 was added in NC? I guess we could use an alternate name if needed, but is it even needed?
-
Would it be a huge ordeal beyond adding new lines in the CSV files name-wise if, for instance, an I-385 was added in NC? I guess we could use an alternate name if needed, but is it even needed?
No. In this scenario, the only change necessary beyond what is otherwise necessary to add the NC route would be to change this line in usai_con.csv
usai;I-385;;;sc.i385
to this
usai;I-385;;South Carolina;sc.i385
-
Would it be a huge ordeal beyond adding new lines in the CSV files name-wise if, for instance, an I-385 was added in NC? I guess we could use an alternate name if needed, but is it even needed?
No. In this scenario, the only change necessary beyond what is otherwise necessary to add the NC route would be to change this line in usai_con.csv
usai;I-385;;;sc.i385
to this
usai;I-385;;South Carolina;sc.i385
Yeah, it is better to leave it as the status quo then since no one's list files are affected.
-
None of this discussion affects user lists, just how things are presented on the site.
For now, I'm going to remove the unnecessary "North Carolina" entries from I-785 and I-885 for consistency with how we've been handling this. The only other one I found (and removed) was for I-269.
We can discuss whether we would want to add the state(s) for all 3dis or even all usai routes, but I doubt that would gather widespread support.
-
Besides, if always including it, why limit this to only 3-digit routes? They're shown in the same table as 2-digit routes and some of those by necessity have group names.
Because 2dis are meant to be unique, whereas 3dis can repeat on a state-by-state basis. I explained that upthread, and even gave interstate-guide.com as an example of a website that puts state stuff on all 3dis (a further example to the one already given as to how they do that is that https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-381 redirects to https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-381-va/ - there's only one I-381, but all 3dis have what state(s) they are in attached to them in the url and in text, other than some exceptions that have other disambiguation), but nothing on 2dis unless needed.
Bannered routes, because they are not designed to be unique designations, but can repeat from city-city, all have to have abbreviations and city names (not just group names) even when the designation is unique. Similar principles apply to 3dis (which can repeat from state-to-state), but not to 2dis (which are meant to be unique, though obviously there's exceptions).
For consistency with the stupid rule demanding (list name extending) unnecessary detail for bannered routes, surely we need group names on 3dis? Or is it that the stupid rule about unnecessary detail for bannered routes is so arcane we need to add group names to everything for consistency?
I think we've reached an overwhelming consensus that stupid rules adding unnecessary detail are stupid and, therefore, we can have a more logical approach to bannered routes.
-
For now, I'm going to remove the unnecessary "North Carolina" entries from I-785 and I-885 for consistency with how we've been handling this. The only other one I found (and removed) was for I-269.
Thanks: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/db9be88343f70472fd6c99f1714f3f395a6ef542
We can discuss whether we would want to add the state(s) for all 3dis or even all usai routes, but I doubt that would gather widespread support.
Since no one raised his hand, I think that we can mark the topic solved.
-
The only other one I found (and removed) was for I-269.
Why would we want to remove it from I-269? Sure, there's only 'one' of it, but it does exist in 2 states. I-785 (for now) & I-885 are only in one.
-
The only other one I found (and removed) was for I-269.
Why would we want to remove it from I-269? Sure, there's only 'one' of it, but it does exist in 2 states. I-785 (for now) & I-885 are only in one.
Looks like we are currently handling it consistently with other unique 3di numbers that exist in multiple states (I-255, I-287, I-435, I-471, I-520, I-535).
-
I'm also going to go ahead and remove "Maryland" from I-895 seeing as there is no longer another one.