User Discussions > How To?

A route follows a one-way pair, each half of which also has its own number

<< < (2/3) > >>

Bickendan:
I'd recommend Michih's solution as probably the simplest.

bhemphill:
That's kind of similar to Amarillo, Texas where US60, US87, and US287.  US60 uses a one-way pair with US287 northbound vs US87 southbound through that stretch of town.

yakra:

--- Quote from: bhemphill on March 21, 2020, 01:21:38 pm ---That's kind of similar to Amarillo, Texas where US60, US87, and US287.  US60 uses a one-way pair with US287 northbound vs US87 southbound through that stretch of town.

--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: Jim on March 19, 2020, 02:47:06 pm ---I'm thinking a wrinkle here from the data processing and stats points of view are that a traveler who lists either 20 or 22 should get credit for that segment of 40, but if they list both, should only get credit for 40 once, not twice.

There's probably not a good solution without changes to the data processing/stats/maps infrastructure.

--- End quote ---
Someone who's driven US60 in Amarillo has also driven... something else, but we don't know what.
Eastbound on Buchanan, it's US287 north.
Westbound on Pierce, it's US87 south.
Here, there's no multiplex to be detected, as 87 & 287's traces fall between their respective couplets a block west. Users will need to also .list their section of US87 or US287 as appropriate.
Travelers on US87 or US287 may not have also traveled US60: US87 NB on Fillmore & US287 SB on Taylor.


--- Quote from: Jim on March 19, 2020, 09:07:05 am ---- A traveler who lists 40 should not get credit through concurrency detection for 20 or 22, since we can't know which one they meant.

--- End quote ---
Amarillo & Fall River are like the OP in this regard...
- A traveler who lists US60 should not get credit through concurrency detection for US87 or US287, since we can't know which one they meant.
- A traveler who lists MA138 should not get credit through concurrency detection for US6 or MA79, since we can't know which one they meant.


--- Quote from: Jim on March 19, 2020, 09:07:05 am ---- A traveler who lists 20 should also get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping 40.
- A traveler who lists 22 should also get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping 40.

--- End quote ---
Amarillo & Fall River are un like the OP in this regard:
- A traveler who lists TX US87 should not get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping US60, because it may have been NB on Fillmore.
- A traveler who lists TX US287 should not get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping US60, because it may have been SB on Taylor.
- A traveler who lists MA US6 should not get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping MA138, because it may have been SB on the western frontage road.
- A traveler who lists MA79 should not get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping MA138, because it may have been NB on the inner roadway.

This makes the OP really unique. I'm not aware of anything else quite like it.


Don't think I'm on board with michih's solution.
IMO, the greater good is to keep routes' traces & points close to the centerline where practicable; to plot routes faithfully, and this outweighs the desire to get multiplexes nailed down in more places. I say give users the option.
Thus so far I'm leaning to more of an Amarillo-style solution, where each route has a trace along its own center.
While each route would still have its own correct mileage, the downside is that the system & region would have slightly inflated mileage, as we see in Amarillo & Fall River. (But hey, that'll happen sometimes.)
Michih's solution wouldn't add more mileage to the system & region, but in a way, it does to a route. Or group of routes if you will; MEX40 + another MEX40 (even if it's something we can't filter for on the maps & stat pages.)

But most importantly,

--- Quote from: Jim on March 19, 2020, 02:47:06 pm ---if they list both, should only get credit for 40 once, not twice.

--- End quote ---
In my view, that's what would in effect be happening.

This would create an extra fake MEX40 route that's already part of MEX40 proper, really.
There's no ME5 (Saco) to overlap I-195 & US1.
I left out NH4 Trk (Dover), because it overlaps what's already half of NH4 proper.
There's of course nothing in Amarillo for an alternate direction of 60, 87 or 287.
Nothing in Watertown NY. Or Holyoke MA for US202.
This idea of creating an alternate route file for just an alternate direction of a single route is a slippery slopy, one hell of a Pandora's Box to open.


Looking at the situation in Monterrey some more, ugh, what a mess. It may or may not help me to have a clearer understanding of what 20 & 22 do here. Are these one-way routes? Is something else going on? I may check out neroute2's drafts of these and see what I can see. Not right this moment though.

neroute2:
I've put the Monterrey routes in preview, so you can see what's going on in https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rg=MEX-NL . I'm leaning towards putting MEX40 down the middle of the river; the only issue is that it won't have graph connections with intersecting routes.

There's also a similar issue with 85, where northbound is signed using 22 west-15 north-17 north while southbound appears to use 210 east-25 south. In this case, signs are missing on 210, so it might make sense to use the northbound route, but the southbound route is signed on 25.

michih:

--- Quote from: michih on March 19, 2020, 01:38:12 am ---I've not checked our rules on that but I'd draft MEX40 concurrent to M20 eastbound (because that's the waypoint order of MEX40) and draft a MEX40 (Monterrey) route concurrent to M22 westbound.

--- End quote ---

This.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page