Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: mapcat on August 22, 2022, 02:57:31 pm
-
The route as drafted includes a ferry across a lake on the Wisconsin River. Should be split into 2 routes there.
-
https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/includepts.php#ferry
Where is there a more convenient shorter crossing nearby? This is just the river. it's also short, it's free (unlike Cape may Lewes or the Washington state ferries). Just because it's a ferry doesn't disqualify the crossing.
-
Although it's usual to split routes at ferries, the manual does not require this.
-
Although it's usual to split routes at ferries, the manual does not require this.
I appreciate the clarification.
-
We might re-think our practice of routinely splitting routes at ferry crossings, no matter how short. One thought that occurred to me while we were discussing IL 108, which includes a similar short ferry link: Even if we develop a separate branch of the project to cover ferry routes, its developer(s) might give low priority for ferry crossings as short as WI 113's and IL 108's. The priority might go instead to long ferry routes like much of the Alaska Marine Highway, British Columbia, and Newfoundland ferry systems, and especially interstate, inter-provincial, and international routes (like some in Europe) that connect different highway routes rather than just fill highway route gaps.
Especially if new ferry route systems become "select" systems, not intended to cover all ferry routes, it might take awhile if ever to cover WI 113's ferry gap. Something to be said for just treating that gap as part of WI 113, at least at the option of the maintainer.
-
Manual or not, it's been SOP.
I'd count this as one among several (https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/commit/12595309ca930e66507eb7b29e36756673e468f8) other (https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/commit/ebc0514885c8828e26b344913b634de26376e781) items (https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/commit/f05d7991372c3d483c82d3edb3e504682c3fba50) that have taken a while to update from the CHM legacy manual.
-
I wouldn't be opposed to allow 'small' gap ferries to be 'merged' into the route files.
Would allow me to merge the two parts of Ontario SH-579 together.
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&r=on.sh579
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&r=on.sh579gar
-
If we merge the small gap ferries, I would still support having points at the end of these ferries. (From what duke87 has told me, the seasonal ferry at the east end of NY 74 is not part of it so my clinch there would be unaffected.)
-
https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/includepts.php#ferry
Where is there a more convenient shorter crossing nearby? This is just the river. it's also short, it's free (unlike Cape may Lewes or the Washington state ferries). Just because it's a ferry doesn't disqualify the crossing.
The rule is about adding wps for (roads to) nearby ferry crossings on a continuous route.
In general, ferry crossings are NOT roads. I think that there should be no room for discussion. Just split it. Period.
-
Manual or not, it's been SOP.
Indeed, and we should be consistent about it. "Break routes at ferries, we only map roads" is a straightforward objective rule, and it cleanly allows for ferries to be mapped separately later under a different fork of the project dedicated to mapping ferry routes specifically without creating any overlap between forks. Any form of "Break routes at ferries, except if..." opens the door to "why this and not that" and we don't need to go there.
Concur with OP that WI113 needs to be broken in two, therefore.
-
map roads? or highways?
Either way we look at it, it's a debate of a question that has zero perfect solutions so we take one of them. Exactly the same as the "definition of a clinch" where one might consider seeing the road as a clinch (sight clinching) whereas another does not consider it clinched until they have a vehicle with wheels and them behind the wheel make contact with every inch of the designated route including ferries and border crossings and if the road is changed the clinch is lost. Given that, as we've broken up short and long ferry routes alike (river crossings in IL and US 9/US 10/Washing SRs) - the wi113 entry should be split based on general conventions followed in TM.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
The manual has now been updated with a rule to require following our standard practice of splitting routes at ferries.
https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/sysnew.php#developwpt
-
I have the update from Highway63 doing the ferry splits in WI, but I'd like to have someone besides me get it into GitHub and double-check the changes to CSVs and so on. Anyone up for this task?
-
I can at this point presuming no one else has volunteered yet.
-
Thanks, sent files along.
-
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6005