Author Topic: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa  (Read 5257 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • Last Login:Today at 07:32:16 am
Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2021, 08:56:35 am »
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.
Quote
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.

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:35:08 pm
Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Reply #31 on: May 02, 2021, 09:41:48 am »
I could certainly help with the alt points, but Highway63 does not use GitHub so it will create copies.  Therefore I won't
Completed:
* Systems: DC, WI
* by US State: AR: I&; AZ: I; DE: I; DC: I, US, DC; IL: I; IN: I*; IA: I, KS: I; MD: I, MA: I, MI: I; MN: I; MO: I*; NE: I; NJ, I; OH: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WV: I; WI: I,US,WI; (AR, IN pending expansions.)

*Previously completed

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3075
  • Last Login:Today at 06:35:18 am
Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Reply #32 on: May 02, 2021, 10:44:28 am »
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 that can be removed.  I am unsure if you know that this exists.

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:35:08 pm
Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Reply #33 on: May 02, 2021, 10:50:55 pm »
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 that can be removed.  I am unsure if you know that this exists.
I do now. 🙃
Completed:
* Systems: DC, WI
* by US State: AR: I&; AZ: I; DE: I; DC: I, US, DC; IL: I; IN: I*; IA: I, KS: I; MD: I, MA: I, MI: I; MN: I; MO: I*; NE: I; NJ, I; OH: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WV: I; WI: I,US,WI; (AR, IN pending expansions.)

*Previously completed

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
  • Last Login:March 26, 2024, 02:31:28 pm
Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Reply #34 on: May 03, 2021, 07:43:05 am »
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.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4555
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:04:16 pm
Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Reply #35 on: May 03, 2021, 01:23:56 pm »
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)!

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3075
  • Last Login:Today at 06:35:18 am
Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2021, 08:00:08 am »
Since exit numbers have been sent for US 52 and US 61, I see not further reason to keep this thread unmarked.