Highway Data Discussion > In-progress Highway Systems & Work

Asia-Pacific Master Thread (UNESCAP / ESCWA)

<< < (3/8) > >>

michih:

--- Quote from: Duke87 on February 12, 2018, 09:09:59 pm ---If someone has already claimed it I won't step on their toes - the OP suggested it was unclaimed.
--- End quote ---

The OP indicates the official HB status but Bickendan has not yet submitted any file... I think you should ask Bickendan if he still wants to develop the system or if he can upload the files to GitHub and you can go ahead with drafting routes.

btw: I don't claim chng nor asiahr ;)


--- Quote from: Duke87 on February 12, 2018, 09:09:59 pm ---WRT peer review... you have a point, although I hesitate to go reviewing routes in a jurisdiction I have little familiarity with. Let me dig through and see what systems need review that no one has claimed.
--- End quote ---

According to what is indicated on the site....


--- Quote ---Some experienced users volunteer to help the project. If this interests you, start by reporting problems with existing highway data. Those who have learned the project's structure and highway data rules and guidelines can help greatly by providing review of new highway systems in development. Highly experienced users can learn how to plot new highway systems under the guidance of experienced contributors.
--- End quote ---

;)

Duke87:
Yes I've read that passage before. Maybe I'm taking this more seriously than others, but I see peer reviewing a system as not merely checking for things like that waypoint labeling follows guidelines or that intersections line up - but also as doing a thorough check that the routes in the HB match what is signed in the field / what is officially correct on paper as applicable.

I wouldn't even know where to begin doing that kind of check on chng since I have never been to China, I can't read Chinese writing, and there is no GMSV in China. I could check that what's drafted matches Google Maps or OSM, but I can't check it against primary sources and therefore cannot vouch for its accuracy. Would prefer someone more familiar with China handle (I recognize we may not have any such person "on staff").

I'm reviewing zafn and comfortable doing that because although I have never been to South Africa either, there is GMSV of all the major roads and the signs are all in English (although for this purpose I'd be fine with any language using the Latin alphabet and could swing Greek or Cyrillic if need be). This is sufficient for me to be reasonably confident that what I am signing off on is an accurate representation of reality on the ground.

si404:

--- Quote from: Duke87 on February 13, 2018, 08:56:57 pm ---Would prefer someone more familiar with China handle (I recognize we may not have any such person "on staff").
--- End quote ---
We don't AFAICS - it's one of many reasons why the system isn't ready for review, even though it's in preview (note that Michael!). I drafted routes to the best of my ability, but I was reliant on finding a latin-alphabet map service for word-based name labels (thankfully most were exit numbers or numbered routes).

That, and the snapshot of routes is about 3 winters out of date, so there's going to be about 10,000km not included...  :P

I've not been keeping Japan up-to-date (there's not much to add there though - more like 100km), and the Philippines had so much conflicting information that I just picked one set and stuck with it - it looks like I will have to revisit that system and redo it now more information is available.

---

zaf's fine for review. Though it will probably be quite a bit of work as I didn't check to see whether road numbers are signed (often just glad to have a point I could label!), and various routes are very long. It was quite a tedious system to create in places.

michih:

--- Quote from: si404 on February 14, 2018, 07:48:24 am ---(note that Michael!)
--- End quote ---

Hard to know when there is no info and no response...................

michih:

--- Quote from: Duke87 on February 13, 2018, 08:56:57 pm ---but I can't check it against primary sources
--- End quote ---

I think our primary source is OSM, isn't it?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version