Author Topic: usaca: California State Highways  (Read 135168 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2732
  • Last Login:Today at 10:27:44 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #405 on: August 24, 2022, 09:17:55 am »
I'm thinking the point here is related to the fact that changes to a preview system do not result in updates entries.   Many users are tracking travels in usaca (it's been in preview for 5 years and 4 months), and this makes it difficult for people to keep their lists up-to-date.

My opinion is that preview status in most cases should reserved for a short time (ideally no more than a few months) to allow a good peer review.  If something's still not perfect, so be it, we fix and provide an updates entry.

Offline IMGoph

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:41:57 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #406 on: August 24, 2022, 11:09:30 am »
I'm thinking the point here is related to the fact that changes to a preview system do not result in updates entries.   Many users are tracking travels in usaca (it's been in preview for 5 years and 4 months), and this makes it difficult for people to keep their lists up-to-date.

My opinion is that preview status in most cases should reserved for a short time (ideally no more than a few months) to allow a good peer review.  If something's still not perfect, so be it, we fix and provide an updates entry.

Is that a vote to flip the switch, then?

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2732
  • Last Login:Today at 10:27:44 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #407 on: August 24, 2022, 01:03:24 pm »
I'm thinking the point here is related to the fact that changes to a preview system do not result in updates entries.   Many users are tracking travels in usaca (it's been in preview for 5 years and 4 months), and this makes it difficult for people to keep their lists up-to-date.

My opinion is that preview status in most cases should reserved for a short time (ideally no more than a few months) to allow a good peer review.  If something's still not perfect, so be it, we fix and provide an updates entry.

Is that a vote to flip the switch, then?

Not necessarily immediately, but it's a nudge to take care of any known issues in the short term, activate, then treat it like all of the other active systems as they require changes.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4555
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:04:16 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #408 on: August 24, 2022, 01:09:07 pm »
activate, then treat it like all of the other active systems as they require changes.

Seconded!

Offline charliezeb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • Last Login:January 25, 2024, 07:15:30 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #409 on: September 06, 2022, 01:49:11 pm »
This could be an anomaly, but I see something weird with CA 20 and US 101 south of Willits. I saw that I got a log error with CA 20 because MuirCanRd was changed to MuirMillRd; I've decided to drop the small segment between there and US 101 from my log as I'm not even sure I really drove it. But for some reason, even though I have US 101 clinched, I'm not credited with CA 20 between exit 557 and Black Bart Drive (BlaBartDr) even though they're consecutive waypoints on both roadways and acknowledged as concurrent (and have the same lat/long data). Usually that seems to work, but not in this case for some reason. I don't want that segment to be double-counted in total mileage when usaca goes active. (And I'm all for having it go active, by the way.) Thanks.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Last Login:Today at 09:24:33 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #410 on: September 06, 2022, 02:46:49 pm »
^ Thanks for pointing this out. I've edited both US 101 and CA 20, as part of getting usaca ready to activate and also I cleaned up the 101 route file together with changes needed in downtown Los Angeles.

Your problem seems to be with a hidden shaping point between the 557 and BlaBartDr waypoints in the 101 route file, that is missing from the 20 route file. That point breaks the concurrency between the two routes.

I've added the missing shaping point, and also MuirCanRd as an alternate label for MuirMillRd, to my local copy of the CA 20 route file. These should fix your issues tonight, when I pull the updated route file into the master copy on TM's server.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2022, 04:37:18 pm by oscar »

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 11:44:25 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #411 on: September 09, 2022, 11:03:26 pm »
I was looking through the system and there's a broken concurrency along SRs 36/89 between Lassen NP and SR 172. 36 has an extra waypoint at LitRVTie.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Last Login:Today at 09:24:33 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #412 on: September 11, 2022, 04:08:40 pm »
^ Thanks. CA 89 was cleaned up in the last few days, while CA 36 will be cleaned up shortly.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 232
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 11:44:25 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #413 on: September 11, 2022, 10:37:33 pm »
Same issue north of Lassen NP with the 44/89 concurrency as well; discovered that when putting in today's travels. I assume CA 44 is on the list to be cleaned up.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Last Login:Today at 09:24:33 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #414 on: September 11, 2022, 11:41:54 pm »
Same issue north of Lassen NP with the 44/89 concurrency as well; discovered that when putting in today's travels. I assume CA 44 is on the list to be cleaned up.

Actually, I thought I'd taken care of CA 44 already. I guess not.

UPDATE: These broken concurrencies seem to be fixed. Will need to hunt for others, including any new ones as I finish my usaca cleanup.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2022, 11:34:34 pm by oscar »

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3075
  • Last Login:Today at 11:05:07 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #415 on: September 18, 2022, 08:39:10 pm »
Looking at your latest pull request oscar, it looked like you included everything, but the new CA 132 alignment.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23234.msg2770857#msg2770857)

I assumed that you already knew about it, but I guess I have again fallen back into the answer to the question of "What happens when you assume?".

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Last Login:Today at 09:24:33 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #416 on: September 18, 2022, 09:17:26 pm »
Looking at your latest pull request oscar, it looked like you included everything, but the new CA 132 alignment.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23234.msg2770857#msg2770857)

I assumed that you already knew about it, but I guess I have again fallen back into the answer to the question of "What happens when you assume?".

Actually, I've temporarily held back that change (the revised route file is already drafted), and a few other changes that in active systems would go into the Updates table, for now. I'll soon post separately about how best to handle them, since this is not yet an active system.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2022, 09:43:40 pm by oscar »

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Last Login:Today at 09:24:33 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #417 on: September 19, 2022, 05:22:29 am »
My latest usaca pull request completes most of the work needed on that preview system. This included changes recommended in neroute2's thorough and helpful peer review, that I hadn't already implemented. I'll have to go back and check for any "near-miss points"/broken graph connections and broken concurrencies I might have created, as well as Datacheck errors that need to be fixed or marked as false positives. My quick read there aren't many NMPs or Datacheck errors, just some stray NMPs for preview usaush routes fallen out of synch with usaca and active CA routes, and sharp angle errors typical in mountain areas (plus unavoidable visible distance errors, that would be "washed away" when usaca is activated), though I need to prowl through Mapview to check for broken concurrencies I've missed.

All the changes made in my recent pulls are non-"newsworthy" changes that should not break any list files. But there are a few that I've held back for now:

-- route truncations (such as from relinquishments at route ends) and extensions, non-trivial but none more than a few miles long

-- routes moved onto new alignments, including the one Markkos1992 mentioned which was opened last Thursday

-- a route split needed in San Jacinto, where part of CA 79 was relinquished to local control, and there is almost no signage to help travelers follow the old route's several turns through the city to the unrelinquished parts of the route both north and south of the city (other mid-route relinquishments that don't require route splits don't have turns and/or continuation signage is better)

-- an exit number correction that couldn't be fixed with alternate labels, so whoever is using that number would need to amend their list files

We could notify affected users of these changes by one or more posts in this thread. But there's some been some frustration with that kind of notification, rather than the usual and more effective system for active systems of posting changes in Updates to Highway Data, and then in our Highway Data Updates table. Activating usaca, then quickly pulling in the changes noted above with Updates table entries, might be one approach.

Also, additional relinquishment changes might be needed to other routes, mostly in southern California, including at least CA 19, a long urban surface route that has been mostly relinquished to local maintenance, shrinking from about 27 miles to less than 4 miles. That's a moving target, and a headache I still need to work through, though I've already pulled some annoying possible route splits off my to-do list. I would be comfortable with making any additional relinquishment changes post-activation, with notice to our users through the Highway Data Updates table, etc.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2022, 05:47:23 pm by oscar »

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1627
  • Last Login:Today at 10:09:32 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #418 on: September 19, 2022, 08:03:29 am »
Activating usaca, then quickly pulling in the changes noted above with Updates table entries, might be one approach.

I support this.

BTW that lack of signage on CA 79 in San Jacinto caught me off guard a few weeks ago.
Clinched:

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2732
  • Last Login:Today at 10:27:44 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #419 on: September 19, 2022, 02:45:23 pm »
Activating usaca, then quickly pulling in the changes noted above with Updates table entries, might be one approach.

I support this.

Agreed, we normally wouldn't worry about preview updates but it's a nice service to the many users who have usaca travels tracked already to let them know what changes they might want to be aware of.