Author Topic: usatr: United States select tourist routes  (Read 85542 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:10:43 pm
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #30 on: April 05, 2024, 12:28:04 am »
The LHCT where it leaves I-75 in the Upper Peninsula is sometimes signed as a spur, and I-75 has LHCT signs all the way.

Offline osu-lsu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
  • Last Login:December 02, 2024, 11:51:54 pm
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #31 on: April 05, 2024, 01:00:00 am »
What source was used for the Lincoln Hwy in PA?  It's ends to me are odd considering how the name still exists on much of US 30 and even some of US 1 BUS east of Gettysburg.

There's the Lincoln Highway Heritage corridor that has LH shields from Greensburg to New Holland.
But, east into York, Lancaster, Downingtown, Philadelphia, and Morrisville, you won't find a LH shield till you reach the Delaware River.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:46:04 pm
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #32 on: April 05, 2024, 04:44:08 am »
Welp.  There goes my 100% of NY for a long, long while.
40-50 days is a long, long while?
Quote
either my roadtrip schedule or TravelMapping map will be messed up for a long while.
6-7 weeks is sooooo long!

Quote
Is this your attempt to sneak in stuff that wouldn't have otherwise been added?
if it wasn't for spoilsports like you ranting about goalposts moving (like this is a game) and maps not looking good (like this is an art project), these routes would have been added long ago.

People have been asking for the Great River Road and Lincoln Highway, etc as they want to map their travels on them for a good few years now and the reason they haven't been added is because we want to be able to hide stuff before we add them permanently so that the game players and map artists are appeased when the travel mappers finally get what they want.

As you can see from this thread, I'm the cautious one here wanting a short glimpse now and then nothing until we fix the issue, while others want the system to simply not disappear. I'm the one being considerate to your point of view here - why are you targeting me with your rant?

I very much want you to be able to play whatever games you want and make whatever art you want with the data. I just wanted to give the many many people who want this a short period where they can look at such routes without your veto while we wait for a solution that pleases all users.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4863
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:15:00 pm

Offline charliezeb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Last Login:June 02, 2024, 10:13:18 am
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #34 on: April 05, 2024, 11:33:47 am »
Apparent point error in Oregon. OR US30 has an "OldUS30_E" in Knappa but OR LCTrl doesn't. That creates an inconsistency. If Old US 30 is supposed to be part of the trail (and I don't recall because I'm thousands of miles away), the point needs to be introduced, as the next point, "ValCrLn_W", is in both files. OR LCTrl seems to follow US30 through Svensen; if it's consistent, it should follow through Knappa as well. (Or if the trail follows Old Route 30, additional points need to be added to take it off existing US 30.)

Anyway, count my vote toward keeping this as a preview system and improving it. Thanks for the Easter egg.

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 07:46:49 pm
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #35 on: April 05, 2024, 12:45:24 pm »
I have a question that may be on the minds of others.

Is this systems likely to stick around?

If so, I want to update my .list file to include segments I've driven that aren't already covered by existing routes. If not, I'd rather not take the time and effort.

I don't really have a preference for either option, but it would be nice to know before adding quite a few lines to my list.

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Last Login:November 27, 2024, 06:24:52 am
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #36 on: April 05, 2024, 03:47:07 pm »
Check for duplications of waypoints across the board.  I've seen 2 "US61_N"s in the Minnesota portion as an example.

Code: [Select]
MN: duplicate label US61_N in mn.grrwin.
  Please report this error in the Travel Mapping forum.
  Unable to parse line: IA GRR IA92 MN GRRWin US61_N
MN: duplicate label US61_N in mn.grrwin.
  Please report this error in the Travel Mapping forum.
  Unable to parse line: MN GRRWin US61_S MN GRRWin US61_N
Completed:
* Systems: DC, WI
* by US State: AK: I; AZ: I; AR: I; DE: I; DC: I, US, DC; HI: I; IL: I; IN: I*; IA: I, KS: I; MD: I, MA: I, MI: I; MN: I; MO: I; NE: I; NJ, I; ND: I; OH: I; OK: I; PA: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WV: I; WI: I,US,WI;

*Previously completed

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Last Login:November 27, 2024, 06:24:52 am
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #37 on: April 05, 2024, 03:50:55 pm »
Is this system here to stay? If so, I'm suddenly tracking my travels on the Seaway Trail :D
the intention was that it would stay for long, but it was also not the intention that these routes would disappear and never come back. The last Easter egg was railways.

There's no reason why such routes couldn't become permanent, providing that there's mechanisms in place to deal with the purist's objections towards systems they have no interest in clinching mucking up their scores in the game of 'gotta clinch them all' that they are not playing as they don't play games affecting their stats.

If people want it, they should have it.
And did Railways drop off the map?
Completed:
* Systems: DC, WI
* by US State: AK: I; AZ: I; AR: I; DE: I; DC: I, US, DC; HI: I; IL: I; IN: I*; IA: I, KS: I; MD: I, MA: I, MI: I; MN: I; MO: I; NE: I; NJ, I; ND: I; OH: I; OK: I; PA: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WV: I; WI: I,US,WI;

*Previously completed

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:46:04 pm
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #38 on: April 05, 2024, 03:55:30 pm »
Is this system here to stay? If so, I'm suddenly tracking my travels on the Seaway Trail :D
the intention was that it would stay for long, but it was also not the intention that these routes would disappear and never come back. The last Easter egg was railways.

There's no reason why such routes couldn't become permanent, providing that there's mechanisms in place to deal with the purist's objections towards systems they have no interest in clinching mucking up their scores in the game of 'gotta clinch them all' that they are not playing as they don't play games affecting their stats.

If people want it, they should have it.
And did Railways drop off the map?
yes.

They came back (though still not fully for reasons that don't apply here) a couple of years later after the issues around them being on the map, messing up people stats, etc were dealt with.

I'm still for something similar happening to this system - that it goes away until issues with having it are sorted, but it seems like I am in a minority on that.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4863
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:15:00 pm
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #39 on: April 05, 2024, 04:03:38 pm »
I'm still for something similar happening to this system - that it goes away until issues with having it are sorted, but it seems like I am in a minority on that.

Seconded! The concurrency issues should be fixed first.

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Last Login:November 27, 2024, 06:24:52 am
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #40 on: April 05, 2024, 04:27:36 pm »
If there is interest in railways - including updating systems.  I noticed that dropped off (except for Si's) - I also noticed there were no boards for helping review them - too alpha?
Completed:
* Systems: DC, WI
* by US State: AK: I; AZ: I; AR: I; DE: I; DC: I, US, DC; HI: I; IL: I; IN: I*; IA: I, KS: I; MD: I, MA: I, MI: I; MN: I; MO: I; NE: I; NJ, I; ND: I; OH: I; OK: I; PA: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WV: I; WI: I,US,WI;

*Previously completed

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1227
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:33:45 pm
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #41 on: April 05, 2024, 04:32:33 pm »
still don't understand the controversy...

As long as there are separately named systems, people can ignore the ones they don't care about and go for 100% in the ones they do.  This would be the compromise for adding non/underposted state routes - they would get a separate system from the state highways system.

Having 100% on TM for a state overall has zero meaning.  Unless every road in the state is in TM, it displaying somebody has driven 100% of that state is inaccurate and arbitrary to whatever somebody includes in that state's mappable travels.

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:10:43 pm
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2024, 06:56:55 pm »
LMCT uses M-120.

M-109 is signed as an LMCT loop.

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:18:04 pm
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2024, 10:27:07 pm »
I would far prefer that usatr fall back to devel status, rather than going away, until the questions about it can be discussed and decisions made.

Offline vdeane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 425
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:23:44 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Reply #44 on: April 05, 2024, 10:47:35 pm »
Another issue with the Seaway Trail - it doesn't follow NY 5 west of Hamburg.  Unfortunately, signage isn't entirely clear west of that point.  It appears to follow the route in this map around there, but there are locations where it doesn't follow the route in that map (like around I-190, the LaSalle, and NY 384).  I expect each turn will need to be verified to get the correct route.

And for others, it may be more than just Ogdensburg; there's over 40 miles between Rochester and Oswego that's off the state route system, plus the two short connections in Niagara Falls. I am fortunate to live close enough to have most of that clinched already, but there's a segment near Wolcott I'll have to grab at some point. I do like the fact that the Seaway Trail connects to NY 250 and NY 14 at their northern termini so they no longer look like dead ends.
I'm missing those as well (well, I'm 95% certain I have everything around Niagara Falls), but at least they're not hard to get (I was actually considering whether I want to go to Chimney Bluffs State Park in one of my trips out this year; I guess I should prioritize that).  Ogdensburg is the one that presents a logistical challenge.  The closest I expect to come this year is Alexandria Bay (well, Blind Bay, actually, but I probably won't be driving for that part, and good luck convincing my parents to go on a 45 mile round-trip detour), but taking 45 minutes to clinch two miles of Seaway Trail and then deadheading back isn't my idea of fun.

Welp.  There goes my 100% of NY for a long, long while.
40-50 days is a long, long while?
Quote
either my roadtrip schedule or TravelMapping map will be messed up for a long while.
6-7 weeks is sooooo long!

Quote
Is this your attempt to sneak in stuff that wouldn't have otherwise been added?
if it wasn't for spoilsports like you ranting about goalposts moving (like this is a game) and maps not looking good (like this is an art project), these routes would have been added long ago.

People have been asking for the Great River Road and Lincoln Highway, etc as they want to map their travels on them for a good few years now and the reason they haven't been added is because we want to be able to hide stuff before we add them permanently so that the game players and map artists are appeased when the travel mappers finally get what they want.

As you can see from this thread, I'm the cautious one here wanting a short glimpse now and then nothing until we fix the issue, while others want the system to simply not disappear. I'm the one being considerate to your point of view here - why are you targeting me with your rant?

I very much want you to be able to play whatever games you want and make whatever art you want with the data. I just wanted to give the many many people who want this a short period where they can look at such routes without your veto while we wait for a solution that pleases all users.
Not sure where you're getting 6-7 weeks/40-50 days from.  My travel for this year is pretty much spoken for already.  The earliest I would expect is winter next year, and that's if nothing dislodges any of my planned fall trips and the weather cooperates (very much not a sure thing in this part of the state; I'm only moderately more willing to go to Region 7 or the Adirondacks in winter than the Green Mountains).  Also nothing of a higher priority coming up (filling in gaps elsewhere, re-clinching re-aligned routes, etc.).

Apologies if it seemed the whole post was directed at you.  It wasn't; only the sentence below the quote was (and I was half joking, though I didn't make enough effort to convey that given that I was rather frustrated at the time).  It was directed at the seeming majority that wants to just keep it around right now.  Having had 24 hours to mull it over, I have fewer objections than I did, but I would still prefer it not be live at this time.  It was sprung on everyone with essentially no warning, and as it stands, it's basically devel quality.  As noted, the Seaway Trail has a ton of issues, and I found at least one more that hasn't been noted.  There's the question of what to include (this will probably always be a point of frustration, as it's essentially a grab-bag system with little way to predict what might get added over time; at least with usasf and cansf, you can just make sure to clinch any freeway just in case).  And, of course, the concurrences.  At a minimum I would want the concurrency issue to be addressed and the Seaway Trail and other routes to be fixed onto their correct alignments before it's permanently in preview, with a drop to devel before that is finished.  And, also, changing the color.  Perhaps the dark green I brought up when we were discussing colors for usanp?

Welp.  There goes my 100% of NY for a long, long while.

Back again: https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?u=vdeane&rg=NY&sys=usai,usaus,usanyp,usaif,usasf,usausb,usany,usapa
Yeah, IMO that's too custom to really count.

I have a question that may be on the minds of others.

Is this systems likely to stick around?

If so, I want to update my .list file to include segments I've driven that aren't already covered by existing routes. If not, I'd rather not take the time and effort.

I don't really have a preference for either option, but it would be nice to know before adding quite a few lines to my list.
That seems to be the case.  That said, I'm not touching anything on it until the concurrency/alignment issues are fixed.

still don't understand the controversy...

As long as there are separately named systems, people can ignore the ones they don't care about and go for 100% in the ones they do.  This would be the compromise for adding non/underposted state routes - they would get a separate system from the state highways system.

Having 100% on TM for a state overall has zero meaning.  Unless every road in the state is in TM, it displaying somebody has driven 100% of that state is inaccurate and arbitrary to whatever somebody includes in that state's mappable travels.
Eh, that doesn't quite work (at least for things other than railways, which are on a separate site).  I was content to ignore anything that wasn't an interstate up until the point where CHM got concurrency detection, at which point it became a question of inaccurate stats or mapping everything.

I would far prefer that usatr fall back to devel status, rather than going away, until the questions about it can be discussed and decisions made.
I can agree with that.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.