Author Topic: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"  (Read 2616 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:November 28, 2022, 11:08:11 am
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2022, 07:42:11 pm »
The I-10 point being hidden is due to the way the interchange is setup due to each highway leaving each other at the I-10 offramps, but needing the missing graph connection with I-10.

This will allow users browsing I-10 to click the link through to US90 and US98, but not vice versa. You're also creating a HIDDEN_JUNCTION error here.

The graph connection point needs to be either visible on both routes or simply not included. (I kinda favor the latter since other graph connections between I-10 and US 90/98 exist not that far away)

It was just a thought to keep it hidden on US-90/98 there.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3936
  • Last Login:Today at 04:17:36 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2022, 09:12:45 pm »
Duke87, I believe you mean VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC. These can be marked FP, and sometimes there's legitimate reason to create them.
The most familiar example for most of us may be the former end of I-22, before I-269 was completed, with a hidden point on US78 IIRC.
There are places in Europe where a Tier 1 route transitions to a lower-tier route, at like a subregion boundary or maybe a major river or whatever, all freeway or expressway, no entrance or exit. An E Road concurrent with both routes will have a hidden point at the transition.

Quote from: Duke87
his will allow users browsing I-10 to click the link through to US90 and US98, but not vice versa.
IMO, the fact that the link cannot be followed from both routes isn't necessarily a reason to not still allow it for one. I think it can be useful sometimes, and have done this a few places in Texas.
https://travelmapping.net/devel/datacheck.php?show=VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC&showmarked=on&rg=TX

All that said, that "other graph connections between I-10 and US 90/98 exist not that far away" is a point worth considering too.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
  • Last Login:December 01, 2022, 05:48:50 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2022, 10:04:33 pm »
Duke87, I believe you mean VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC.

Yes, I do. Brain went to the first one I remembered, but that is a distinct one isn't it.

Anyway, okay, if there is precedent for this form of one-way graph connection and it can be FPed out of the datacheck error log then I withdraw my objection. It is less janky than an extra visible point on US90 and US98, certainly.