Highway Data Discussion > In-progress Highway Systems & Work
Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread
yakra:
--- Quote from: oscar on January 02, 2016, 05:12:15 pm ---Just the provincial trunk highways (<200), or also the provincial roads (200-600s)? PTHs are primary and the most important, but I've clinched some of the more remote PRs and hope some year to be able to map them too.
--- End quote ---
Just the PTHs, <200. (Is PTH the proper system name that I should use?) Provincial Roads 200-699 are in the longer range plans as a separate system; no work has been done there yet.
oscar:
--- Quote from: yakra on January 02, 2016, 09:16:00 pm ---
--- Quote from: oscar on January 02, 2016, 05:12:15 pm ---Just the provincial trunk highways (<200), or also the provincial roads (200-600s)? PTHs are primary and the most important, but I've clinched some of the more remote PRs and hope some year to be able to map them too.
--- End quote ---
Just the PTHs, <200. (Is PTH the proper system name that I should use?)
--- End quote ---
Maybe "canmbpth" and later "canmbpr" for the system codes, spell out the abbreviations elsewhere?
yakra:
--- Quote from: oscar on January 02, 2016, 10:20:33 pm ---Maybe "canmbpth" and later "canmbpr" for the system codes, spell out the abbreviations elsewhere?
--- End quote ---
I'd prefer keeping the system codes as short as we can. To date nothing has used more than six characters.
I'm leaning toward keeping canmb & canmbs as originally proposed by Tim.
Bickendan:
I suppose you can add
usaorh Oregon Internal Highways (where not synced with usaor)
yakra:
--- Quote from: Bickendan on January 18, 2016, 11:18:39 pm ---I suppose you can add
usaorh Oregon Internal Highways (where not synced with usaor)
--- End quote ---
Are these signed?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version