Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: neroute2 on February 02, 2020, 12:50:52 pm
-
US 52: reverse since it's signed north-south
US 52: unhide +HitPostRd
US 52: CRA34 -> CRW20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3173261,-91.8141901,3a,34.6y,27.04h,78.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-h5FASrRQYrjfsGHLE6tBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 52: add TownLineRd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2552009,-91.838498,3a,16.1y,53.07h,88.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sr9xubTXctlidgJpwicgKRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) to stay within tolerance
US 52: move CRW42_S east one block (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1466312,-91.7675693,3a,49.5y,141.72h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEDKB0-xDGqJgMs1_lFw_Rg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)
US 52: +X05 -> 130thAve
US 18/US 52: OldUS18 -> 115thSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0572346,-91.4947736,3a,15y,159.21h,88.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTP4BmTRmFOX0AKQC1w97Gw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 18/US 52: add CRW70 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.054216,-91.4873595,3a,15.4y,321.49h,84.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2HiEXey4b1WG37TwDWhmCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 18/US 52: CRB45 -> PleRidRd (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0506415,-91.4112238,3a,17.2y,158.99h,84.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scm_-0sceLF2JdLjtOC3eTA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 18/US 52: add CRB56 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0224721,-91.3724174,3a,42.9y,345.19h,81.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spSIXf055z4SRIAaUGNj3qA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 18/US 52: add CRX32 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0088664,-91.3294653,3a,23.4y,21.17h,86.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srdLIgXhW21QwPe3VX4jF9Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 52: add CRB60 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9488437,-91.2887722,3a,23.7y,372.15h,88.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soCeehiuglcKcQ6lMkuZPQw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 52: add CRB65 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9272372,-91.2747184,3a,28.8y,375.09h,86.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGjQ2FYvCGxC7MvbiB9E1cg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 52: add CRX50 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.8901461,-91.2484429,3a,48.4y,21.05h,87.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3J6gbUJ5k4aRhp_cixHBMw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 52: CRX56 -> HaySt (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7912772,-91.1056538,3a,17.1y,11.97h,85.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTm1yHv7iIMScPRxnRjYHSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and move south a block
US 52: DekSt -> DeKSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.7726658,-91.1005254,3a,20.6y,62.47h,84.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8RgSxIt5G8EGQOwF3B-Yew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)?
US 52: add CRC53 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.705113,-91.0758791,3a,30.5y,22.87h,83.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spxBSFoF4na2grZXxDpbcPA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 52: IA136 -> IA3/136
US 52/3: CRX71 -> CleCreRd? I can't find any shields, but GSV is old and low quality
US 52/3: +BanParkRd -> MidRd or move west to the actual BanParkRd (and unhide)
US 52/3: CRY21 -> ParkHolRd? I can't find any shields, but GSV is old and low quality
US 52/3: +X13 -> ClayHillRd and move west
US 52: CRC9Y_Sag -> CRC9Y_S, CRC9Y_Mil -> CRC9Y_N
3: CRC9Y_Sag -> CRC9Y
US 52/3: 10thSt -> 9thSt_W and move one block south, since both directions use 9th Street
US 52: +CryLakeCave -> CryLakeRd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4329489,-90.6312641,3a,15y,39.27h,89.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6nPWpkHUqKMZvWNV23-fWg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 52: CRD41 -> SchHeiRd (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4186478,-90.628258,3a,16.1y,221.17h,86.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sI9MJRajUNxqkpgHAnYlQRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 52: unhide +StCatRd, +370thSt
US 52: +X15 -> 395thAve
US 52: add a shaping point at Twin Springs to keep within tolerance
US 52/64: BroSt -> BroSt_S
US 61/218: CRJ82 -> 340thSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.4649486,-91.444536,3a,34.5y,40.47h,83.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFUUSrISH4PT8JM7MKXkOVw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61: CRJ72_E -> CRJ72 and shift southwest
US 61: +X01 -> 280thSt
US 61: add CRX23 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6028714,-91.4226633,3a,15y,97.63h,83.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZcmWEsyW6k42ioFwNrlqow!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61: GSJ at 233rdSt
US 61: delete *CRX53 since it's not in use and I can't find evidence of any CR X53 there (was it a typo for X23?)
US 61: US61Bus/2 -> 18, CRJ40 -> 22, CRX32 -> 24, US61BusFtM_N -> 27
US 61: move CRX62 southwest
US 61: OldUS34 -> MtPleSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8258151,-91.1413151,3a,23.8y,1.7h,88.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLa2VV87ykQiax0yf1xBusQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61: CRH16 -> 40thSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.116754,-91.1782934,3a,15y,308.03h,87.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3txQ-TG6GIepTk5p9uvfkg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61: add CRG56 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2278432,-91.1967724,3a,15y,28.8h,88.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skM1XeFCturfqvORTErTlyg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61: OldUS61_Gra -> 145thSt and move north
US 61: IA92_W -> 74, 170thSt -> 76
US 61: CRG40 -> Hwy305 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3207992,-91.2342635,3a,15y,205.41h,85.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-s1eB_AxDN2UNBZ0_9CaxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61: FruRd -> CRG38 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3552318,-91.1545351,3a,44.8y,56.46h,83.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smCjqrXfhPTLX9vSz4FgxkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61: CRG14 -> 180thSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4791057,-90.9948066,3a,16.1y,165.52h,86.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPYpqeqiBOq5oBgeLSEj9wg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61: OldUS61 -> YorkAve (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5131343,-90.803508,3a,17.9y,314.59h,87.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5FoDPD6WAYlyt-bfgz9k4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
US 61: add CRY36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5121854,-90.7943121,3a,15y,229.97h,84.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shKkWg_HaKI5WNfaL8IFQXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61: OakLn -> 107, MaySt -> 109
US 61: I-80(295) -> 123? (but US 61 uses exit 123B)
US 61: CRF55 -> 124, CRF51 -> 125, CRF45 -> 127, CRF41 -> 129, US30_E -> 137, US30_W -> 139
US 61: move CRY68 northwest
US 61: IA136 -> 153, US61BusMaq_S -> 156, IA64 -> 158
Does US 61busmaq still exist? I can't find any signs. If not, delete it and on 64: US61Bus -> MainSt
US 61/US 151: GSJ at SWArt (https://www.news.iowadot.gov/newsandinfo/2019/10/olde-davenport-road-connection-at-us-61us-151-in-dubuque-to-permanently-close-oct-9.html)
US 52/US 61/US 151: IA946_S -> LocSt, move northeast to the underpass
US 52/US 61/US 151: IA946_N -> toLocSt?
US 52/US 61/US 151: 4thSt -> WhiSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4959222,-90.6630792,3a,40.9y,4.31h,96.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDDnxTFMiyxNUWg0BqkQBZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), move north to the underpass
US 61/US 151: move KerBlvd northeast to the underpass
US 61/US 151: move 16thSt west to the underpass
US 61busdav: +X07 -> ConSt
US 61busdav: SDivSt -> DivSt
US 61busftm: 270thAve -> CRX23 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6246118,-91.3959441,3a,20y,158.37h,86.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIc23trusYY5G0iUa3-3N8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61busftm: OldIA2_E -> ToIL9/96 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6301425,-91.30134,3a,75y,79.81h,80.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srGPjLAmZiqEOqNl353PBgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 61busmus: HerAve -> HerAve_W?
US 67: add CRZ36_S (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7500831,-90.3553329,3a,28.8y,282.31h,83.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF6-kQzRjXyl02_i1pmagXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656); CRZ36 -> CRZ36_N and move south
US 67: CRF21 -> 9thSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7864277,-90.2790428,3a,29y,142.74h,83.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRFvrgXF7UzgpjxXcLLUP0w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 30/US 67: S14thSt -> 14thSt
US 67: CRF12 -> 13thAve (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8584443,-90.1850607,3a,28.7y,33.88h,92.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxqFmYe76ek1EY7aTcH5J2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 67/136: unhide +MainAve_E
US 67: CRE62 -> 180thSt (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9176963,-90.1955948,3a,15y,284.52h,89.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sh3MDmZcecQTvvOfx7kr7DQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
US 67: +X08 -> 460thAve
US 67: +X10 -> 110thSt
22: add 190thAve_S or 150thSt_W south of Keswick to stay within tolerance
22: add a shaping point east of CRV67 to stay within tolerance
22: add a shaping point east of CRW15 to stay within tolerance
22: add a shaping point west of IA1 to stay within tolerance
22: add CRW64 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4906126,-91.5405114,3a,21.5y,275.19h,87.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6NY1yBBkWn7RBQYk7ZWidA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
22: add CRX34 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4812931,-91.311703,3a,43y,143.3h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8qY8_t0W1wmmdzKawzP5Sw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
22: HiPraRd -> HighPraRd (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4438346,-91.1660972,3a,16.1y,230.23h,87.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9qjy6TY4MnuMDMhgCd4MzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
22: IA38_S -> US61Bus_S? US 61Bus/38?
22: WilDenSP -> WilDenRd?
22: add CRY48 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4631529,-90.6867933,3a,50.5y,271.87h,86.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSYm-s3JJf7mQlGP5ysgMaA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
22: move US61Bus west, maybe rename US61BusDav?
76: US18_W -> US18_S, US18_E -> US18_N
76: delete +X02, +X03, and +X04
76: EffNatMon -> EffMouNM
76: add CRX36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1414243,-91.2567552,3a,75y,191.38h,85.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLRBt8_aQK39KBylHeuLNCA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)
76: delete +X05
76: add CRX32_S (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1844117,-91.3303646,3a,49.3y,146.26h,76.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn6jX6HmZgXdgh-E7XMzqQQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664), CRX32 -> CRX32_N
76: delete +X06
76: CRX12 -> CRA52/X12 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2697412,-91.4878998,3a,39.5y,202.32h,87.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seahnVfG4kMT8gcrms7RdaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
76: add CRA50 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.2791481,-91.4895838,3a,15y,328.87h,84.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPVfwArQhWmtKqvdcXXZo2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
-
neroute2, please see the linked post below in regard to why US 52 is put in the way it is.
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3347.msg16533#msg16533
-
I have taken your suggestions and resubmitted files, with the following comments.
US 61/218: CRJ82 -> 340thSt
As marked on the Lee County map.
US 61: delete *CRX53 since it's not in use and I can't find evidence of any CR X53 there (was it a typo for X23?)
This is the former north junction with X23 (yes it was a typo) from before the Fort Madison bypass was built. It's needed as a shaping point anyway. The kind-of replacement is the 233rd Street point to add.
US 61: US61Bus/2 -> 18, CRJ40 -> 22, CRX32 -> 24, US61BusFtM_N -> 27
US 61: IA92_W -> 74, 170thSt -> 76
US 61: OakLn -> 107, MaySt -> 109
US 61: CRF55 -> 124, CRF51 -> 125, CRF45 -> 127, CRF41 -> 129, US30_E -> 137, US30_W -> 139
US 61: IA136 -> 153, US61BusMaq_S -> 156, IA64 -> 158
I do not intend to switch to exit numbers on a route that is not all (or almost all) freeway. It creates inconsistency and potential confusion, not to mention that the labels have been the way they are for more than a decade.
US 61: CRH16 -> 40thSt
As marked on the Louisa County map and Google.
US 61: OldUS61_Gra -> 145thSt and move north
In its position as the south end of the bypassed segment (2017). It needs to be marked as a closed point.
US 61: CRG14 -> 180thSt
As marked on the Muscatine County map and Google.
US 61: OldUS61 -> YorkAve
This was designed for the Blue Grass bypass but I can see renaming it.
Does US 61busmaq still exist? I can't find any signs. If not, delete it and on 64: US61Bus -> MainSt
Officially yes, signed no (except for one ancient marker). It is so old, however, that deleting it would not cause harm.
US 61/US 151: GSJ at SWArt
I'm not touching anything Southwest Arterial-related (including US 52 relocation) until the new route opens this year.
US 52/US 61/US 151: IA946_S -> LocSt, move northeast to the underpass
This point is at the location the northbound exit and southbound entrance ramps touch the freeway, since it is only a partial interchange. The name is the Iowa DOT designation for Locust.
US 52/US 61/US 151: 4thSt -> WhiSt, move north to the underpass
This point is at the location the northbound exit and southbound entrance ramps touch the freeway, since it is only a partial interchange. I used 4th instead of White because southbound is Central, and I thought this would accommodate both directions, although the BGS does say White. As this part includes US 52, I can re-evaluate after 52 is rerouted.
US 61/US 151: move KerBlvd northeast to the underpass
This point is at the location the northbound exit and southbound entrance ramps touch the freeway, since it is only a partial interchange.
US 61/US 151: move 16thSt west to the underpass
This point is at the location the southbound exit and northbound entrance ramps touch the freeway, since it is only a partial interchange.
US 61busdav: SDivSt -> DivSt
US 61busmus: HerAve -> HerAve_W?
22: HiPraRd -> HighPraRd
US 30/US 67: S14thSt -> 14thSt
The names are accurate as is.
US 61busftm: OldIA2_E -> ToIL9/96
The existing name is correct, and both this label and its previous of IA2_E are in use.
US 67: add CRZ36_S; CRZ36 -> CRZ36_N and move south
Where would a Z36_S be? Also, the location is to square off the intersection.
US 67: CRF21 -> 9thSt
US 67: CRF12 -> 13thAve
US 67: CRE62 -> 180thSt
As marked on the both the Clinton County map and Google (although the last is a gravel road that arguably shouldn't be marked).
US 67/136: unhide +MainAve_E
It shouldn't be marked as hidden (or if it is, I only unhid it on one of them).
US 67: +X08 -> 460thAve
If this needs to be an active point it should be CRE44.
US 67: +X10 -> 110thSt
Just because a gravel road makes a good shaping point does not mean it needs to be active.
22: WilDenSP -> WilDenRd?
Wildcat Den State Park
22: move US61Bus west,
This is centered at the overpass. I do not understand this.
76: US18_W -> US18_S, US18_E -> US18_N
The names double up with the US 18 Business route.
76: delete +X02, +X03, +X04, +X05, +X06
There is nothing wrong with them.
76: add CRX36
Gravel
-
You seem to be preferring maps (official and unofficial) over actual signs that have been posted or not posted. Why is this?
-
Not everyone is able to drive out to those points to verify.
-
Not everyone is able to drive out to those points to verify.
That's why I showed my work with GSV links.
-
You seem to be preferring maps (official and unofficial) over actual signs that have been posted or not posted. Why is this?
I am trying to think of the best interests of the user. The user is, for the most part, going to be entering their points after consulting a map. The user may have consulted the maps before or after the trip. My method is based on the idea that the user will see the name on the map, or compare it to a GPS track, and know "this is the point I'm looking for."
GPS's, for the most part, often default to using street names in urban areas, e.g. "turn left on Euclid Avenue" rather than "turn left on US 6". That doesn't mean I should rename the US6 point EucAve. This is not a perfect analogy because US routes are well-signed and county roads typically are not, but I am trying to convey that the name remains valid.
-
You seem to be preferring maps (official and unofficial) over actual signs that have been posted or not posted. Why is this?
I am trying to think of the best interests of the user. The user is, for the most part, going to be entering their points after consulting a map. The user may have consulted the maps before or after the trip. My method is based on the idea that the user will see the name on the map, or compare it to a GPS track, and know "this is the point I'm looking for."
GPS's, for the most part, often default to using street names in urban areas, e.g. "turn left on Euclid Avenue" rather than "turn left on US 6". That doesn't mean I should rename the US6 point EucAve. This is not a perfect analogy because US routes are well-signed and county roads typically are not, but I am trying to convey that the name remains valid.
seconded!
-
You seem to be preferring maps (official and unofficial) over actual signs that have been posted or not posted. Why is this?
I am trying to think of the best interests of the user. The user is, for the most part, going to be entering their points after consulting a map. The user may have consulted the maps before or after the trip. My method is based on the idea that the user will see the name on the map, or compare it to a GPS track, and know "this is the point I'm looking for."
GPS's, for the most part, often default to using street names in urban areas, e.g. "turn left on Euclid Avenue" rather than "turn left on US 6". That doesn't mean I should rename the US6 point EucAve. This is not a perfect analogy because US routes are well-signed and county roads typically are not, but I am trying to convey that the name remains valid.
seconded!
These are the times when I wish there were a way to "like" comments.
I frequently refer to the HB before a trip, sometimes printing out maps to help me know where there are route segments I might want to drive. I don't care so much how the point is labeled as long as I can figure out at which corner I should turn. The method Highway63 mentioned works exactly as he intends (at least in my case).
-
Welcome to bizarro TM. Sorry I tried to help.
-
I do see neroute2's point, though. Everywhere else on Travel Mapping, signs trump everything else. Why is that not the case here?
Do note that I am a firm believer that what the DOT and maps say should trump signs, but that is not the law of Travel Mappin.
-
I do see neroute2's point, though. Everywhere else on Travel Mapping, signs trump everything else. Why is that not the case here?
Do note that I am a firm believer that what the DOT and maps say should trump signs, but that is not the law of Travel Mappin.
This might overstate the role of signage a bit. especially in the jurisdictions I manage, which include some where the signage is often weak/non-existent, outdated. and/or a joke (looking at you, New Mexico). For route definitions (where routes begin and end, for example), I stick closely to what official sources say. For waypoint labeling (which what we're talking about here), I tend to default to maps/official sources, but I'm open to comments on conforming labels to signage in the field (if any -- often there is none, especially in my Arctic jurisdictions).
But I'm not convinced that mislabeled waypoints really confuse users, trying to retrace their travels. I've not had much trouble using the maps in the Highway Browser (which we tell users to consult when composing their list files) to figure out more or less where I went, and which waypoints I should put in my list file, even if it doesn't quite match up with any signage I remember seeing.
-
As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.
I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.
-
As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.
I have to second this philosophically. When it comes to the names of side roads that are not routes included in the project, it is interesting from a data integrity perspective if what the street sign blade says and what the official county map says don't match... but for our purposes as to which should govern in the waypoint label, my attitude is - what difference does it make really?
The HB tells the user what label to use. Whether it matches the name on paper or the name as signed doesn't materially impact its usability. I say let it be so long as the point is in the correct location and isn't named something totally out of whack.
-
As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.
I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.
I did not realize Highway63 had this intention when I started looking at exit numbers for WI. Having stated that, considering that we are going this direction in other states (most specifically NC with routes such as US 17 and US 70), we should be doing it here as well.
US 61: US61Bus/2 -> 18, CRJ40 -> 22, CRX32 -> 24, US61BusFtM_N -> 27
US 61: IA92_W -> 74, 170thSt -> 76
US 61: OakLn -> 107, MaySt -> 109
US 61: CRF55 -> 124, CRF51 -> 125, CRF45 -> 127, CRF41 -> 129, US30_E -> 137, US30_W -> 139
US 61: IA136 -> 153, US61BusMaq_S -> 156, IA64 -> 158
The ones north of I-80 for instance (from CRF55 to US30_W) are a enough of a cluster for me to think that they should be done for sure.
I think the manual supports adding exit numbers for US Routes and state routes wherever possible. I know there are exceptions where I do not support exit numbers (see US 460 in VA along Corridor Q), but that oddity is few and far between.
🔗 Desired waypoints.
🔗 Border points: These points often begin and end files. If a required intersection coincides with a border point, use a border point and skip the intersection point. The only border points in use are international boundaries (all countries) and subdivisional boundaries (for only countries we subdivide in this project).
🔗 Exit numbers: If the highway has interchanges with exit numbers for itself.
🔗 Visibly numbered cross road designation: US 42, A17, I-40 Business Loop, etc.
🔗 Truncated, visible cross road name: Magothy Bridge Road, etc.
US 61busdav: SDivSt -> DivSt
US 61busmus: HerAve -> HerAve_W?
22: HiPraRd -> HighPraRd
US 30/US 67: S14thSt -> 14thSt
While the HerAve->HerAve_W points can go either way (I prefer this route), and there can be leeway if High, Church, etc. is spelled out or not, the prefixes should definitely go.
From the manual: https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#dropdirection
Of course, if there are intersections with NDivSt and SDivSt, the labels would be fine.
-
The HB tells the user what label to use. Whether it matches the name on paper or the name as signed doesn't materially impact its usability. I say let it be so long as the point is in the correct location and isn't named something totally out of whack.
Seconded. Please end the "minor point concern" posts that seem to be taking over the forum.
I'm all for doing a cleanup from time to time to rename points that might not be 100% "by the book." Likewise, I support fixing point locations when they move to due to construction or some other reason.
In general, I don't care what the points are named and I suspect most users feel the same. Can we stop with all the suggestions to rename points that won't materially improve anything?
-
I'm all for doing a cleanup from time to time to rename points that might not be 100% "by the book." Likewise, I support fixing point locations when they move to due to construction or some other reason.
In general, I don't care what the points are named and I suspect most users feel the same. Can we stop with all the suggestions to rename points that won't materially improve anything?
I don't see myself doing anything different beyond this with the exception of shaping points and some intersection points, and even with that I am fine with someone not wanting visible shaping points at insignificant roads that do not connect to anything. WIth states such as NC and WI, adding exit numbers pretty much can lead to a review of the entire route with the simple fact of exit numbers appearing anywhere (such as US 17, US 70, and US 74).
When I relooked through PA a couple years ago, I personally saw items that I doubt would have ever been caught had I not relooked at those files. (such as this thread: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3168.0)
-
As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.
I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.
I did not realize Highway63 had this intention when I started looking at exit numbers for WI. Having stated that, considering that we are going this direction in other states (most specifically NC with routes such as US 17 and US 70), we should be doing it here as well.
FWIW, I'm with Highway63 regarding exit numbers on routes that are not full freeway. I can see it as an option (and obviously whomever is doing NC and other states is following that), but I don't agree with it being a requirement and I have no intention of mixing things in my states either.
Exit numbers have a certain connotation with the Interstate system and toll roads. Much less so for state/U.S. highways.
-
As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.
I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.
I did not realize Highway63 had this intention when I started looking at exit numbers for WI. Having stated that, considering that we are going this direction in other states (most specifically NC with routes such as US 17 and US 70), we should be doing it here as well.
FWIW, I'm with Highway63 regarding exit numbers on routes that are not full freeway. I can see it as an option (and obviously whomever is doing NC and other states is following that), but I don't agree with it being a requirement and I have no intention of mixing things in my states either.
Exit numbers have a certain connotation with the Interstate system and toll roads. Much less so for state/U.S. highways.
I think there is a difference between having an exit number show up once versus an entire freeway/expressway section. For instance, US 23 in KY only has three exit numbers (15, 23, and 24) so doing them for that route is definitely not very useful.
US 61 in IA is definitely not full freeway, but it has a decent freeway length section around the Quad Cities heading north of I-80 to DeWitt. Doing them in this section, but omitting them in sections where there is only one exit, but not many numbers for miles I think are different situations.
I wonder if it would be useful to have a recommended minimum length of freeway (at least 10-15 miles) to cover this. Of course, that does not really help routes such as US 12 (mostly freeway but some expressway) around Madison, WI, and WI 29. The latter is practically ADHS Corridor-like from I-94 to Green Bay.
For PA, the only route I do not plan to add exit numbers at the moment to is PA 309 on the Cross Valley Expressway (sequential starting at 1 farther north in the route similar to what I have seen on US 460 (ADHS Corridor Q)). If I saw mileage-exit numbers on US 30 or PA 283 tomorrow, they would be added here.
-
Seconded. Please end the "minor point concern" posts that seem to be taking over the forum.
Suggest combining posts by region to reduce clutter:
New York minor point issues
Massachusetts minor point issues
Etc., rather than split up by individual route.
-
Is there a reason "minor point concerns" need to be in the forum at all? A PM to the collaborator seems more appropriate, since typically these aren't items up for discussion.
-
Is there a reason "minor point concerns" need to be in the forum at all? A PM to the collaborator seems more appropriate, since typically these aren't items up for discussion.
Apparently in cases like this the collaborator has their own nonsensical rules about how things should be.
-
I have been wondering if a subforum would be useful for items (whether minor or not) that the collaborators consider low priority.
-
I have been wondering if a subforum would be useful for items (whether minor or not) that the collaborators consider low priority.
Possibly, although speaking for myself, it would be okay if these posts didn't happen at all except when specifically requested.
-
Is there a reason "minor point concerns" need to be in the forum at all? A PM to the collaborator seems more appropriate, since typically these aren't items up for discussion.
Apparently in cases like this the collaborator has his own nonsensical rules about how things should be.
There was a point in time on CHM where there were some US highways that had exit numbers and I believe Tim said they had to be changed to the crossroad names instead. So I can understand that some are not really wanting to go through to rename the points again.
-
Wasn't there some guidance against making significant changes to 'active' systems to prevent breaking user list files? My recollection was that making changes for 'preview' systems need not consider how point label changes affected users. This allows for peer review to happen unimpeded.
Once a system is activated, I thought users could/should report errors or make point requests, but that other changes were at the discretion of the collaborator who maintains a particular region. I've noticed a few cleanup operations (TX and AR come to mind) from time to time. Seems like a good practice to continue. Personally, I'd like to see an end of the unsolicited peer reviews on active systems. If a maintainer wants someone to perform a review as part of a future 'Operation Cleanup' I have no doubt the request would be made.
-
WI 29 and the US Routes in WI have the same structure as US 61 here. I see no need to change to exit numbers here. Essentially you're breaking list files
Remember the golden rule...
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
The ones in the minor point threads are not broken!
-
WI 29 and the US Routes in WI have the same structure as US 61 here. I see no need to change to exit numbers here. Essentially you're breaking list files
Remember the golden rule...
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
The ones in the minor point threads are not broken!
Actually, you are not breaking list files by changing to mileage exit numbers. All of the in-use labels can easily become alternate labels here. Yes, this can cause an influx of unused alternate labels down the road, but that is a minor issue.
The reason that there have been broken list files in MA is that the exit numbers are changing from sequential to mileage-based (meaning that some of the sequential numbers are being reused in other places).
-
Wasn't there some guidance against making significant changes to 'active' systems to prevent breaking user list files?
These "minor label changes" are not significant changes, and that's the primary objection to them - that they aren't that important.
The guidance is to take care when making changes to not needlessly break stuff, rather than not to break lists:
Care must be taken to ensure that changes do not "break" a user's list file.
If a waypoint label is in use by current TM users we should add alternative labels if possible.
If a .list name label is in use by current TM users we should add alternative route names if possible.
In many cases, however, the changes needed will break user lists. In those and other situations, changes are newsworthy and require an updates entry for active systems. (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/maintenance.php#break)
Not that any of the proposed changes would break lists - as long as in-use labels get alt labels, so as not to break lists, it's explicitly not a newsworthy change to fix an erroneous label. (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/maintenance.php#labelwrong)
edited again, so it's clear what's being applauded
-
Actually, you are not breaking list files by changing to mileage exit numbers. All of the in-use labels can easily become alternate labels here.
The guidance is to take care when making changes to not needlessly break stuff, rather than not to break lists:
Care must be taken to ensure that changes do not "break" a user's list file.
If a waypoint label is in use by current TM users we should add alternative labels if possible.
If a .list name label is in use by current TM users we should add alternative route names if possible.
In many cases, however, the changes needed will break user lists. In those and other situations, changes are newsworthy and require an updates entry for active systems. (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/maintenance.php#break)
Not that any of the proposed changes would break lists - as long as in-use labels get alt labels, so as not to break lists, it's explicitly not a newsworthy change to fix an erroneous label. (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/maintenance.php#labelwrong)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/applause.gif)
edited again, so it's clear what's being applauded
editing my own post in turn, for the same reason :D
-
was part of my post above, but added before the applause
As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.
Indeed. And that's how it's always been. I remember drafting gbna, and Tim getting annoyed that at intersections with two or more other A roads I'd use one as a the label, and then alt labels for the others, so people could go "I took the A4 between the A321 and the A456, so ENG A4 A321 A456" without needing to check the A4 and see if they were the right labels (for instance the A321 junction might also be the junction with the A322 and the label A321/A322). The response was they have to look at the route in the browser whatever.
The browser is the primary guide of how to map, and what you can map, travel-wise. It's the source for labels to use, what routes there are, and where those routes go. Therefore, as long as the names are reasonable, it doesn't matter that much what they are. But, at the same time, it's nice to have some sort of consistent rules that they follow so that they are consistent throughout the site - which we have in the manual.
I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.
Indeed. I can understand some collaborators not changing it now because it feels a bit like busy work, but I never understood why state/US routes had them forbidden in the first place.
We use junction numbers on A roads far less in the UK - this isn't a cultural thing (there's a few long distance should-be-motorways, and a handful of city centre ring roads that are mostly recent) where I'm being baffled by US stuff. Many freeway (or thereabouts) roads in the UK don't have exit numbers because they aren't motorways, but I don't get not using exit numbers that are there simply as the road isn't an interstate/toll road.
-
I could certainly help with the alt points, but Highway63 does not use GitHub so it will create copies. Therefore I won't
-
I could certainly help with the alt points, but Highway63 does not use GitHub so it will create copies. Therefore I won't
Personally, there is no reason to be concerned about it. Note that we already have a log of unused alternate labels (https://travelmapping.net/logs/unusedaltlabels.log) that can be removed. I am unsure if you know that this exists.
-
I could certainly help with the alt points, but Highway63 does not use GitHub so it will create copies. Therefore I won't
Personally, there is no reason to be concerned about it. Note that we already have a log of unused alternate labels (https://travelmapping.net/logs/unusedaltlabels.log) that can be removed. I am unsure if you know that this exists.
I do now. 🙃
-
It's clear some collaborators feel my comments don't have the same value as those of other users. A few replies have come across as openly hostile.
Going forward, I'll keep my opinions to myself and only post actual route/waypoint errors so I'm not subjected to further ridicule.
-
I'm all for doing a cleanup from time to time to rename points that might not be 100% "by the book." Likewise, I support fixing point locations when they move to due to construction or some other reason.
In general, I don't care what the points are named and I suspect most users feel the same. Can we stop with all the suggestions to rename points that won't materially improve anything?
Seconded (for active systems)!
-
Since exit numbers have been sent for US 52 and US 61, I see not further reason to keep this thread unmarked.