Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: Markkos1992 on October 12, 2021, 12:51:22 pm

Title: NJ: US 9 and NJ 35
Post by: Markkos1992 on October 12, 2021, 12:51:22 pm: US 9:
1.   It does not look like we need town suffixes for the NJ 35 Concurrency meaning that NJ35_S and NJ35_N should suffice. It is probably not needed for NJ35_Woo either.
2.    I see suffixed labels EGraAve, SBroSt, and EGraSt along the US 1 Concurrency. (also affects US 1)

NJ 35:
1.   It does not look like we need town suffixes for the US 9 Concurrency meaning that NJ35_S and NJ35_N should suffice.
2.   AmbAve should be AmbAve_S.
Title: Re: NJ: US 9 and NJ 35
Post by: yakra on October 13, 2021, 12:03:40 pm: Quote from: Markkos1992 on October 12, 2021, 12:51:22 pm
US 9:
1.   It does not look like we need town suffixes for the NJ 35 Concurrency meaning that NJ35_S and NJ35_N should suffice. It is probably not needed for NJ35_Woo either.
Hm. A close one. Interestingly, NJ35_S and NJ35_N are already AltLabels.
If I were drafting NJ now from scratch, I'd definitely do that. It's the cleanest labeling option.
The manual first outlines how to handle multiplex splits (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#split), then goes on to explicitly allow a third, suffixless label (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#suffixless). City suffixes can be used in combination with or ignoring the previous options for pairs of identical labels. (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#over2) First glance, it seems OK, but then OTOH if I observe the other guidelines it doesn't quite rise to the level of otherwise identical (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#disambiguation) waypoints, does it? :)
Changed to NJ35_S, NJ35_N & NJ35 locally.

Quote from: Markkos1992 on October 12, 2021, 12:51:22 pm
2.    I see suffixed labels EGraAve, SBroSt, and EGraSt along the US 1 Concurrency. (also affects US 1)
Yowch, I thought I fixed way more of these than I actually ended up doing. (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=62.msg15512#msg15512)
I can speed up the process by converting OSM->HB URLs, and xargs (http://)ing them info firefox. And opening up the.wpt in a text editor. Like in this post. (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4617.msg25548#msg25548)

Quote from: Markkos1992 on October 12, 2021, 12:51:22 pm
NJ 35:
1.   It does not look like we need town suffixes for the US 9 Concurrency meaning that NJ35_S and NJ35_N should suffice.
2.   AmbAve should be AmbAve_S.
Also changed.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5207
Title: Re: NJ: US 9 and NJ 35
Post by: yakra on October 13, 2021, 12:44:36 pm: Forgot to add:
What do y'all think of, rather than renaming WasRd -> WasAve, simply folding it into the US9_S/NJ35_S point per 1PPI?
The exit ramp departs inna cloverleaf stylee just about exactly where the onramp joins, and that exit movement is missing at Upper Main St itself.
Also note FWIW how NJ35 lacks the onramp point at Bordentown Ave.
Title: Re: NJ: US 9 and NJ 35
Post by: Markkos1992 on October 13, 2021, 01:08:37 pm: Quote from: yakra on October 13, 2021, 12:44:36 pm
Forgot to add:
What do y'all think of, rather than renaming WasRd -> WasAve, simply folding it into the US9_S/NJ35_S point per 1PPI?
The exit ramp departs inna cloverleaf stylee just about exactly where the onramp joins, and that exit movement is missing at Upper Main St itself.
Also note FWIW how NJ35 lacks the onramp point at Bordentown Ave.

I think that WasAve should stay as a separate interchange and that BorAve should be added to NJ 35. That is how I would do it.
Title: Re: NJ: US 9 and NJ 35
Post by: yakra on October 13, 2021, 02:25:11 pm: Flyswatter Interchange... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3207.0)