Travel Mapping
User Discussions => Other Discussion => Topic started by: froggie on May 31, 2023, 10:01:54 am
-
Pursuant to a thread on AARoads (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33329.msg2845862#msg2845862), Jayhawk had an idea to use TM to map out those freeways in the US (and, theoretically, any country we have in TM) that have 6 or more through lanes. I'm intending to start a user list on GitHub called "6lane" to map this out.
Thoughts and comments from the TM crowd are welcomed.
-
A perfectly grand idea. We have the database and can map stuff like that quite easily and effectively.
-
Ok I get this idea. I thought we were creating a separate system or something for a second.
So would I-81 around Harrisburg be:
1. PA I-81 59 70
or
2. PA I-81 57 72
due to there only being 4 thru lanes on I-81 through both the PA 581 and I-83 interchanges?
-
Sounds like a nice unintentional feature. And with the 6lane.list file living in GitHub, people can contribute concurrently via pull requests.
-
If anyone bothers about Germany, have a look here: http://autobahnatlas-online.de/index_e.html
There are maps and one can even go through each route. Legend: red = 4 lanes, violet = 6 lanes.
-
If anyone bothers about Germany, have a look here: http://autobahnatlas-online.de/index_e.html
There are maps and one can even go through each route. Legend: red = 4 lanes, violet = 6 lanes.
I'm doing the UK first, but Germany will be next due to that fantastic resource. Other European countries have good resources to make it easy, but none is as good as this.
-
Ok I get this idea. I thought we were creating a separate system or something for a second.
So would I-81 around Harrisburg be:
1. PA I-81 59 70
or
2. PA I-81 57 72
due to there only being 4 thru lanes on I-81 through both the PA 581 and I-83 interchanges?
Effectively the latter, though you might write it as the former with 57 59 and 70 72 entries as well.
If you travel from exit 1 to exit 3 and then from exit 3 to exit 15, you clinch 1 to 15, even though you haven't been through 3. A limit of the way we do stuff.
-
Yeah the biggest limitation here is this will not catch cases where a route is 6 or more lanes on both approaches to an interchange, but does not maintain 6 thru lanes through it. A situation which is fairly common, so this is a nontrivial limitation.
Still, an interesting use of the project. I can dig it.
-
Even though it's still a devel system, we can put down the Yamuna Expressway and Greater Noida Expresway in Uttart Pradesh, India, as both being 6 lanes.
-
Yeah the biggest limitation here is this will not catch cases where a route is 6 or more lanes on both approaches to an interchange, but does not maintain 6 thru lanes through it. A situation which is fairly common, so this is a nontrivial limitation.
I was thinking about this earlier this morning as I got the ball started before work. Where there are multiple interchange points to support it, things can be tweaked (I did such with some of the Minnesota routes). Where the route lists went with 1PPI, we'll just have to live with it.
That said, Jayhawk and I both agreed that where the lanes are strictly auxiliary lanes between interchanges that are not multiple miles apart, they do not count.
-
The first site update that include this is now finishing up.
Since it seems a number of people will be contributing to this file, I'll try to merge in PRs more frequently to avoid conflicts.
-
Just a thought, but if you really want to get as close as possible for 6+ lane segments (like if a segment ends 5 miles from an exit on either side), you could always see if there's a shaping point already near by. Or even request a shaping point be added for this project. I'm sure the data maintainers for the region wouldn't mind adding one in most cases (or adjusting a near-by one).
-
Just a thought, but if you really want to get as close as possible for 6+ lane segments (like if a segment ends 5 miles from an exit on either side), you could always see if there's a shaping point already near by. Or even request a shaping point be added for this project. I'm sure the data maintainers for the region wouldn't mind adding one in most cases (or adjusting a near-by one).
Yeah, that would work on I-76 just east of the Blue Mountain Tunnel for instance.
Still makes my I-81 in Harrisburg thoughts questionable. You could arguably go either way.
-
I've added UK, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium, as well as some states with data listed in the AA Roads thread.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData/pull/8840/files
Just a thought, but if you really want to get as close as possible for 6+ lane segments (like if a segment ends 5 miles from an exit on either side), you could always see if there's a shaping point already near by. Or even request a shaping point be added for this project. I'm sure the data maintainers for the region wouldn't mind adding one in most cases (or adjusting a near-by one).
The issue is that using shaping points doesn't work as intended when it comes to mapping.
-
Just a thought, but if you really want to get as close as possible for 6+ lane segments (like if a segment ends 5 miles from an exit on either side), you could always see if there's a shaping point already near by. Or even request a shaping point be added for this project. I'm sure the data maintainers for the region wouldn't mind adding one in most cases (or adjusting a near-by one).
The issue is that using shaping points doesn't work as intended when it comes to mapping.
Was just an idea.
-
Was just an idea.
It's an idea I like, I was just pointing out that there's an issue that means it wouldn't work unless things change in the code.
-
I'll try to take a look and see if it's more of a site update thing or a mapping thing. I'd like to make it work appropriately but need to make sure we don't break anything with graphs, including the traveled format graphs.
-
Yeah the biggest limitation here is this will not catch cases where a route is 6 or more lanes on both approaches to an interchange, but does not maintain 6 thru lanes through it. A situation which is fairly common, so this is a nontrivial limitation.
I was thinking about this earlier this morning as I got the ball started before work. Where there are multiple interchange points to support it, things can be tweaked (I did such with some of the Minnesota routes). Where the route lists went with 1PPI, we'll just have to live with it.
That said, Jayhawk and I both agreed that where the lanes are strictly auxiliary lanes between interchanges that are not multiple miles apart, they do not count.
What if they're auxiliary lanes that are multiple miles long? I-229 in SD has auxiliary lanes between all the exits except 9 and 10, would that count?
-
Here it is: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=6lane
@si404:
- There are errors (https://travelmapping.net/logs/users/6lane.log) for your US and even ENG entries. Don't you use the "list tool" editor?
- German A8 (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?u=6lane&r=deubw.a008&lat=48.908511&lon=8.774214&zoom=13) is not yet 6-laned at Pforzheim (u/c by 2026+ (http://autobahnatlas-online.de/A8.htm#Karlsruhe_5)).
- A8 is also 6-laned from exit 61 to 62b, not 61 to 62a.
- I'd close A7's gap between exit 67 and 70 as it is already mostly 6-laned now, remainders to be opened "soon". autobahnatlas-online.de is only updated once per year ~ February/March.
-
@si404:
- There are errors (https://travelmapping.net/logs/users/6lane.log) for your US and even ENG entries. Don't you use the "list tool" editor?
They weren't my US entries - they were copy-pasted from the aaroads thread.
The ENG ones I did off memory of our side of things, checking labels only when I wasn't certain what it would be and copying the label off the browser (rather than waste a load of extra clicks using the list tool to get a single point label - used it in DEU due to the regions, and remembered why I only use it when necessary). I can fix them easily.
German A8 (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?u=6lane&r=deubw.a008&lat=48.908511&lon=8.774214&zoom=13) is not yet 6-laned at Pforzheim (u/c by 2026+ (http://autobahnatlas-online.de/A8.htm#Karlsruhe_5)).
- A8 is also 6-laned from exit 61 to 62b, not 61 to 62a.
- I'd close A7's gap between exit 67 and 70 as it is already mostly 6-laned now, remainders to be opened "soon". autobahnatlas-online.de is only updated once per year ~ February/March.
I see the tiny bit of orange at Pforzheim now on the big map http://autobahnatlas-online.de/AutobahnkarteMitAS.pdf (dated April, so more recent than when you have the annual update) that I used. I'm not perfect, and nor are you - eg occasionally we misread i as l (to take a mistake in your work I found today when peer reviewing - one that I make often too!), and we don't always get 100% when converting data from one form to another.
I've changed them, given you don't seem to want to, instead flagging them here rather than just changing them.
https://github.com/si404/UserData/commit/9f9ae043cf9564a40c1ec1510fb470575484f240
-
I see the tiny bit of orange at Pforzheim now on the big map http://autobahnatlas-online.de/AutobahnkarteMitAS.pdf (dated April, so more recent than when you have the annual update) that I used. I'm not perfect.
No one is perfect. I just had a look into for rating if I like the idea of mapping 6+ lane freeways.
The route pages are better than the map: http://autobahnatlas-online.de/A8.htm just edit the url, use the links at interchanges or open the link via the "Routes" page.
I've changed them, given you don't seem to want to, instead flagging them here rather than just changing them.
I don't like the approach since it is quite inaccurate as long as we cannot map segments between shaping points.
A6 in Baden-Württemberg is not yet 6-laned east of A81. It in planning stage for ages (10+ years) and still far away from construction. There is some permanent shoulder running though. You have mapped it being 6-laned from exit 39 to 40. However, it is partially 6-laned from exit 39 to 42: http://autobahnatlas-online.de/A6.htm#Weinsberg_81
Even if we could map segments between shaping points, what about 5-laned segments, e.g. additional uphill lanes? Look at A6 between exit 49 and 50. It's a mess. I'm not (yet) convinced by the basic idea.
We might start with 8+, 10+ or 12+ user list files first because it's easier to complete as a first shot. Just my 2ct....
-
Was just an idea.
It's an idea I like, I was just pointing out that there's an issue that means it wouldn't work unless things change in the code.
Maybe put in points in a similar manner as "closed points"? I can't imagine us having to put in very many...the one that sticks out most in my mind is I-70 on the west side of the Ike tunnels.
Yeah the biggest limitation here is this will not catch cases where a route is 6 or more lanes on both approaches to an interchange, but does not maintain 6 thru lanes through it. A situation which is fairly common, so this is a nontrivial limitation.
I was thinking about this earlier this morning as I got the ball started before work. Where there are multiple interchange points to support it, things can be tweaked (I did such with some of the Minnesota routes). Where the route lists went with 1PPI, we'll just have to live with it.
That said, Jayhawk and I both agreed that where the lanes are strictly auxiliary lanes between interchanges that are not multiple miles apart, they do not count.
What if they're auxiliary lanes that are multiple miles long? I-229 in SD has auxiliary lanes between all the exits except 9 and 10, would that count?
I would not count I-229 as those are all still fairly closely spaced together interchanges and the lanes do not continue through the interchanges.
I-29, on the other hand, would count between 229 and 90.
-
Anyone who wants to edit the 6lane.list file for my regions (IN, KY, LA, MI, OH, PR, TN) should feel free to do so since I won't have an opportunity before the end of the year.
-
Related to mapcat's message, I see this little side project as something that the maintainers of various regions are under no obligation to participate in for their regions, and those who wish to add segments are under no obligation to obtain any approval or permission from maintainers of regions in which they'd like to add or update entries in 6lane.list.
Related to modifying the highway data to allow more accurate mapping of segments consisting of 6+ lanes, I would prefer to hold off on that for now except in cases where the change would not result in any violation of our current rules about waypoints to include.
-
I have created a small, tempoary list file called 6lanetest.list, and populated it with a few segments of I-90 in Massachusetts that use shaping points in various ways to try to claim travels. You can see that, for example, a portion of the segment between exits 10 and 41 that is claimed by two of the shaping points in between does not show up on mapview or showroute views.
Anyone interested in welcome to experiment with additional entries in 6lanetest.list if you'd like to see how things are handled by our current infrastructure when shaping points are used as segment endpoints. I would, however, like to remove the extraneous list file when experiments are complete.
-
I have created a small, tempoary list file called 6lanetest.list, and populated it with a few segments of I-90 in Massachusetts that use shaping points in various ways to try to claim travels. You can see that, for example, a portion of the segment between exits 10 and 41 that is claimed by two of the shaping points in between does not show up on mapview or showroute views.
Anyone interested in welcome to experiment with additional entries in 6lanetest.list if you'd like to see how things are handled by our current infrastructure when shaping points are used as segment endpoints. I would, however, like to remove the extraneous list file when experiments are complete.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData/blob/master/list_files/6lanetest.list
MA I-90 NY/MA +X4
MA I-90 +X19 +X25
MA I-90 +X60 +X66
MA I-90 +X132 +X136https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?u=6lanetest&r=ma.i090
https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?u=6lanetest&rg=ma
yep, it doesn't work with our current infrastructure.
However, it is interesting that showroute and mapview deal with it differently!
-
ssoworld's commit (https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData/commit/47589980386ff199e803c6d7b1747e417974bcec) had the side effect of deleting Rhode Island. Why was this able to go through without a conflict?
-
ssoworld's commit (https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData/commit/47589980386ff199e803c6d7b1747e417974bcec) had the side effect of deleting Rhode Island. Why was this able to go through without a conflict?
It didn't show up as a conflict because it simply removed those lines. I don't know why they were removed in the file he committed.
Thanks for restoring them with the new PR, which I'll merge now and run an extra site update.
-
How does one want to handle HOV lanes - say you have 2 GP Lanes and 1 HOV each way?
-
How does one want to handle HOV lanes - say you have 2 GP Lanes and 1 HOV each way?
I believe froggie stated yes to that. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33329.msg2845998#msg2845998)
-
Now that New Jersey is in, what's the ruling on whether Jersey freeways count or not?
-
Now that New Jersey is in, what's the ruling on whether Jersey freeways count or not?
I didn't include them when I mapped NJ because they're not freeways. If we decide to include them, I or someone else can add them.
PS: NJ 21 needs a point at the south end of the freeway; I made a thread requesting it but got no response.
-
I see - or rather I didn't.
I slobbed up California and threw it in. The most unstable ones are 58 (which seems to be getting more open), 99, and 101 which all are under heavy construction expanding them beyond 4 lanes.
EDIT: 3 PRs exist for 6lane on 6/11. Will have to take care to not erase any (neroute2 and I have large changes over multiple states)
-
How does one want to handle HOV lanes - say you have 2 GP Lanes and 1 HOV each way?
I believe froggie stated yes to that. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33329.msg2845998#msg2845998)
Jayhawk made that call. I merely agreed with him when others disagreed, and pointed out what some agencies think.
-
It's great to see this project happening. Two comments on NY:
1. I-490 6-8 should count IMO. I can see the argument against including 7-8 because of the combined exits (although I think the EB lane extending beyond the exit is a better argument for including it than if it was an exit only lane), but 6-7 definitely counts.
2. If I-490 8-9 counts, then I-481 3-4 should also count. Similar length and situation, and I-481 SB even keeps its third lane through Exit 3.
-
It's great to see this project happening. Two comments on NY:
1. I-490 6-8 should count IMO. I can see the argument against including 7-8 because of the combined exits (although I think the EB lane extending beyond the exit is a better argument for including it than if it was an exit only lane), but 6-7 definitely counts.
2. If I-490 8-9 counts, then I-481 3-4 should also count. Similar length and situation, and I-481 SB even keeps its third lane through Exit 3.
Yeah, it's the combined interchange. NB 7B and 8 are the same, which makes the three lanes there essentially an aux lane between 6 and 7, and we're only including those if they're over two miles. To that end, I must have forgotten about the lane drop within exit 9 when I mapped that, so 8-9 should be removed.
-
I'm making tweaks to NV/CA as I find them. Notably, I-80 on the west side of Reno is still mostly 5 lanes, with the 6th lane still in the planning stages, while I-5 between Stockton and Sacramento still has a 20-mile gap in the 6-lane.
For I-80 in Sparks, Exits 18-21 have auxiliary lanes between every interchange, but it (for the time being, at least) drops to 4-5 within each interchange. Under the aux lane rule, I'd assume this stretch would be listed as 4 lanes, but we can pretty easily make it 6. This point will become moot when 80 is widened through Sparks a few years down the road.
I-580 north of Carson City has a pair of climbing lanes over Lakeview Summit. These could be considered either auxiliary or normal lanes depending on how you look at it, but they are only about a mile long.
US 395 north of I-80 is about to have its 6-lane segment extended north; I'll keep tabs on this project and add that when the additional SB lane is built.
-
It's great to see this project happening. Two comments on NY:
1. I-490 6-8 should count IMO. I can see the argument against including 7-8 because of the combined exits (although I think the EB lane extending beyond the exit is a better argument for including it than if it was an exit only lane), but 6-7 definitely counts.
2. If I-490 8-9 counts, then I-481 3-4 should also count. Similar length and situation, and I-481 SB even keeps its third lane through Exit 3.
Yeah, it's the combined interchange. NB 7B and 8 are the same, which makes the three lanes there essentially an aux lane between 6 and 7, and we're only including those if they're over two miles. To that end, I must have forgotten about the lane drop within exit 9 when I mapped that, so 8-9 should be removed.
It's an interesting one, because it is worth distinguishing from an auxiliary lane IMO. It feels and functions like a normal six-lane freeway on that stretch, especially WB. It has much more in common with NY17 through Goshen than NY390 24-25, for example. And technically, Exit 8 doesn't exist EB, so 6-7 could be counted on that basis. (To extend the Goshen comparison, we would still count 122A-123 if the EB 124 off-ramp was removed.)
-
I'm making tweaks to NV/CA as I find them. Notably, I-80 on the west side of Reno is still mostly 5 lanes, with the 6th lane still in the planning stages, while I-5 between Stockton and Sacramento still has a 20-mile gap in the 6-lane.
For I-80 in Sparks, Exits 18-21 have auxiliary lanes between every interchange, but it (for the time being, at least) drops to 4-5 within each interchange. Under the aux lane rule, I'd assume this stretch would be listed as 4 lanes, but we can pretty easily make it 6. This point will become moot when 80 is widened through Sparks a few years down the road.
I-580 north of Carson City has a pair of climbing lanes over Lakeview Summit. These could be considered either auxiliary or normal lanes depending on how you look at it, but they are only about a mile long.
US 395 north of I-80 is about to have its 6-lane segment extended north; I'll keep tabs on this project and add that when the additional SB lane is built.
Thank you.
-
For Oregon:
I-5: +x5(OR99E) 299A
299B 300A
+x61 OR/WA
I-84: I-5 +x7(US30)
9A 17
(+x7(US30) 8 is 5 lane; 17A 18 is the Sandy River Bridge and likely only counts as aux lanes)
I-205: I-5 3
9 OR/WA
I-405: 1 +x1(US26)
2B I-5(302B)
US 26: 62 74
US 30: VauSt I-405(3)
-
It's great to see this project happening. Two comments on NY:
1. I-490 6-8 should count IMO. I can see the argument against including 7-8 because of the combined exits (although I think the EB lane extending beyond the exit is a better argument for including it than if it was an exit only lane), but 6-7 definitely counts.
2. If I-490 8-9 counts, then I-481 3-4 should also count. Similar length and situation, and I-481 SB even keeps its third lane through Exit 3.
Yeah, it's the combined interchange. NB 7B and 8 are the same, which makes the three lanes there essentially an aux lane between 6 and 7, and we're only including those if they're over two miles. To that end, I must have forgotten about the lane drop within exit 9 when I mapped that, so 8-9 should be removed.
It's an interesting one, because it is worth distinguishing from an auxiliary lane IMO. It feels and functions like a normal six-lane freeway on that stretch, especially WB. It has much more in common with NY17 through Goshen than NY390 24-25, for example. And technically, Exit 8 doesn't exist EB, so 6-7 could be counted on that basis. (To extend the Goshen comparison, we would still count 122A-123 if the EB 124 off-ramp was removed.)
Honestly, I don't disagree that it functions that way. One of the limitations of the way they set up the rules, especially given that the third lane EB ends right around where the cloverleaf ramp would come in if 7 and 8 were separate interchanges in that direction.
-
It's great to see this project happening. Two comments on NY:
1. I-490 6-8 should count IMO. I can see the argument against including 7-8 because of the combined exits (although I think the EB lane extending beyond the exit is a better argument for including it than if it was an exit only lane), but 6-7 definitely counts.
2. If I-490 8-9 counts, then I-481 3-4 should also count. Similar length and situation, and I-481 SB even keeps its third lane through Exit 3.
Yeah, it's the combined interchange. NB 7B and 8 are the same, which makes the three lanes there essentially an aux lane between 6 and 7, and we're only including those if they're over two miles. To that end, I must have forgotten about the lane drop within exit 9 when I mapped that, so 8-9 should be removed.
After reviewing, I would be inclined to include 490 6-8, but not 8-9. 481 3-4 is a hard no.
-
Oregon correction:
I-5: +x5(OR99E) -> +x4(OR99E)
Add: 194 195 (Eugene's 6 lane segment extends slightly past both interchanges)
OR 217: US26 2A
6 7
-
I did spot checks of Montana, Vermont, and Wyoming, and couldn't find any in those states. Otherwise, I think every U.S. state has something mapped.
-
Was IL I-90 recently reconfigured at 84? Everything I can find shows 6 lanes continuing into the merge with I-94, but https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=6lane&r=il.i090 currently has a gap. Maybe it's this project (https://idot.illinois.gov/projects/Interstate-90-Kennedy-Bridge-Study), but unless it's going to be permanently reduced after construction, I don't think a gap makes sense.
-
Jim/NE2, you can go ahead and add Bickendan’s Oregon Update above if you wish. I cannot promise when I can enter it.
-
After reviewing, I would be inclined to include 490 6-8, but not 8-9. 481 3-4 is a hard no.
Why have we arbitrarily decided that if a stretch of 6 lanes only lasts between two consecutive interchanges it doesn't count? I-490 exits 8-9 and I-481 exits 3-4 both look like six lane freeways to me.
-
After reviewing, I would be inclined to include 490 6-8, but not 8-9. 481 3-4 is a hard no.
Why have we arbitrarily decided that if a stretch of 6 lanes only lasts between two consecutive interchanges it doesn't count? I-490 exits 8-9 and I-481 exits 3-4 both look like six lane freeways to me.
I'd say 481 3-4 is essentially an auxiliary lane northbound, with the slight complication of the left lane exiting at 4. 490 8-9 is also auxiliary lanes, though I'm more inclined to call them thru lanes if they connect two freeways.
As for why we decided this, a four-lane freeway with auxiliary lanes between every adjacent pair of interchanges (example: IN KeyPkwy from 116thSt to 136thSt) does not have six thru lanes.
-
Jim/NE2, you can go ahead and add Bickendan’s Oregon Update above if you wish. I cannot promise when I can enter it.
Done here. (https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData/pull/8980)
-
Was IL I-90 recently reconfigured at 84? Everything I can find shows 6 lanes continuing into the merge with I-94, but https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=6lane&r=il.i090 currently has a gap. Maybe it's this project (https://idot.illinois.gov/projects/Interstate-90-Kennedy-Bridge-Study), but unless it's going to be permanently reduced after construction, I don't think a gap makes sense.
Good play. It will always be 3 general purpose lanes through.
-
For Idaho, US 20 or 26 should also be included: I-184 13thSt
-
For Idaho, US 20 or 26 should also be included: I-184 13thSt
Done
https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData/pull/8999
Side note. Two more UserData PRs and...
(https://media.tenor.com/z5V6OVLdSkQAAAAC/vegeta-dragon-ball-z.gif)
-
Oops I did the ID thing first. It does not matter which one is closed, but I would not get to close mine until later.
EDIT: I closed the one I made earlier.
-
Oops I did the ID thing first. It does not matter which one is closed, but I would not get to close mine until later.
EDIT: I closed the one I made earlier.
Call it a tie
-
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this project, I think it's pretty much complete for the US. There's data logged for 47 states + DC, and the remaining three states (MT, VT, WY) have no existing six-lane mileage. It's imperfect, but still a great resource and much, much better than anything that existed previously.
Sorting by mileage then country provides some interesting data to parse through: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=6lane&units=miles
Unsurprisingly, Ohio stands out as the gold standard for six-laning. It's the only state with a population under 20 million that comes particularly close to 1000 miles of six-lane freeways logged, although that may be a bit skewed if the I-80/I-90 overlap gets counted twice. Even so, it's well ahead of next-place Georgia and actively adding to that with widening projects on I-70 and I-71.
Another interesting note: a state's six-lane mileage ranking tends to track pretty closely with its population ranking. 9 of the top 10 are the same in both categories, with NJ replacing PA in the six-lane mileage category. Most of the states at the bottom are also unsurprising.
PA has a surprisingly wide variance, being #5 in population but #23 in six-lane mileage. I was stunned that PA has only about 1/3 as much six-lane mileage as NY, given that PA feels like it has more *rural* six-lane mileage than NY (or am I just putting too much weight on the widened Turnpike segments?), but I guess the lack of mid-sized cities (in which NY stacks considerable mileage upstate) plus Pittsburgh and Scranton not having anything with a consistent six-lanes really skews PA down the list.
-
I was looking at NY for an AARoads thread a couple days ago and noticed that someone added the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge to it. Should that be included? It meets the two mile length, but WB the right lane is closed outside of rush hour so that it can be used as a shoulder (this is the typical configuration (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5200101,-73.9975475,3a,31.4y,277.53h,88.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgnK6HEerklncx0EMxtv3oQ!2e0!5s20170901T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu), making it arguable that this is actually five lanes with shoulder running.
-
I was looking at NY for an AARoads thread a couple days ago and noticed that someone added the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge to it. Should that be included? It meets the two mile length, but WB the right lane is closed outside of rush hour so that it can be used as a shoulder (this is the typical configuration (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5200101,-73.9975475,3a,31.4y,277.53h,88.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgnK6HEerklncx0EMxtv3oQ!2e0!5s20170901T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu), making it arguable that this is actually five lanes with shoulder running.
I added it after some waffling. My thoughts were that if the part-time lanes are always physically there, they should count, but if they're reversible and thus not there when traffic flows the other way, they shouldn't count. But I can't really argue strongly either way.
-
I was looking at NY for an AARoads thread a couple days ago and noticed that someone added the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge to it. Should that be included? It meets the two mile length, but WB the right lane is closed outside of rush hour so that it can be used as a shoulder (this is the typical configuration (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5200101,-73.9975475,3a,31.4y,277.53h,88.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgnK6HEerklncx0EMxtv3oQ!2e0!5s20170901T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu), making it arguable that this is actually five lanes with shoulder running.
I added it after some waffling. My thoughts were that if the part-time lanes are always physically there, they should count, but if they're reversible and thus not there when traffic flows the other way, they shouldn't count. But I can't really argue strongly either way.
That and I'm not sure that most people actually obey the lane signs unless the Bridge Authority cones off a lane or something.
-
Can this thread be used to report changes to 6lane (for those of us who aren't github users)?
If so, here are some updates for BC:
BC TCHMai (concurrent with BC1) has at least six general purpose lanes from 25 to 44, and from 50 to 58.
25 has six lanes on either side, but not through the interchange. Meanwhile, 23 to 25 is currently included, but does not meet the 2 mile threshold.
Also, I'm not sure if there was a final verdict on HOV lanes. I would argue that they do not count, as they do not have the same effect on traffic flow as a general purpose lane.
But if they do count, all of BC TCHMai 25 58 can be included.
(It seems very odd to exclude 44A to 48 when it has 10 lanes total, but it's separated into two carriageways; the outer one is ramp access only, and the inner one has only four general purpose lanes + 2 HOV lanes).
-
Can this thread be used to report changes to 6lane (for those of us who aren't github users)?
If so, here are some updates for BC:
BC 1 is actually in the file up to 61, but it's not showing up because there's no point yet for 61 (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5611.0).
-
I was looking at NY for an AARoads thread a couple days ago and noticed that someone added the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge to it. Should that be included? It meets the two mile length, but WB the right lane is closed outside of rush hour so that it can be used as a shoulder (this is the typical configuration (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5200101,-73.9975475,3a,31.4y,277.53h,88.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgnK6HEerklncx0EMxtv3oQ!2e0!5s20170901T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu), making it arguable that this is actually five lanes with shoulder running.
I added it after some waffling. My thoughts were that if the part-time lanes are always physically there, they should count, but if they're reversible and thus not there when traffic flows the other way, they shouldn't count. But I can't really argue strongly either way.
That and I'm not sure that most people actually obey the lane signs unless the Bridge Authority cones off a lane or something.
IMO it is a shoulder, since it is not in use for a large majority of the day. Also, I have never seen anyone illegally using the shoulder as a lane in the 1000+ times I have been over the bridge. Not that it never happens, but I have never seen or heard of it myself.
-
Several segments are not currently being mapped due to missing points or routes:
MO I-170: exit 9B (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5540.0)
NJ 21: 3rdAve (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5514.0)
NM US 70: RinBlvd (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5564.0)
TX I-10: 548 (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5597.0)
TX US 281: BorDr (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5603.0)
BC 1: 61 (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5611.0)
NY JFKExpy
TX WurPkwy
AB AirTrl, GleTrl, MacTrl (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=30.msg30304#msg30304)
-
Can also add the following SC I-85 segment:
98 (now closed) -> 106
StreetView from 2023 shows that segment has had it's widening to 3 lanes each way completed, and opened to traffic.
So, would gain another ~8 miles for the project.
-
I started to look into the issue relevant to this side project about how Mapview and Showroute display travels when a list file uses a hidden point as an endpoint of a marked segment (as would be desirable to improve the accuracy of the 6-lane maps and stats). My initial thoughts are the existing GitHub Issue related to the differences in Mapview and Showroute in this context.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/629
-
To help with an experiment that might allow more accurate mapping of the 6-lane segments, could someone pick just a few spots where 6-lane segments begin/end that are not at currently visible points and add hidden points of the form +6Lxxx at those places, and update `6lanetest.list` to use them for the affected route(s)? I'm trying a change that I hope will make this look accurate on the maps in Mapview and Showroute.
-
Do you mean a hidden point like on I-5 as noted earlier in the thread?
-
Do you mean a hidden point like on I-5 as noted earlier in the thread?
Yes.
If someone has a better suggestion for the format of such points, I'm open to it. It would need to start with + followed by 2-3 fixed characters, followed by anything else that would be used to avoid name conflicts.
-
If someone wants to do this with I-76 and I-476, you have my permission to do so. I presume it is only those routes affected in PA. Just link to the pull request so I can see it.
-
I added ran4sh's update to my pull request from earlier today.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData/pull/9536
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33329.msg2865779#msg2865779
-
hidden points of the form +6Lxxx at those places, and update `6lanetest.list` to use them for the affected route(s)? I'm trying a change that I hope will make this look accurate on the maps in Mapview and Showroute.
+ followed by 2-3 fixed characters, followed by anything else that would be used to avoid name conflicts.
I don't get it; why the specific nomenclature? All hidden points can be used in a .list (a few examples are in #629 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/629)), and any mapview/showroute fix shouldn't be limited to a subset of them.
-
I have to admit I've forgotten the details. I am unsure if this is still an issue after the railways-related modifications.