New Roadway - Hwy 43 to Hwy 779With this as the most recent info on the Alberta Provincial Highway Projects (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/) site, I'm more comfortable taking the path I was already considering for AB633; including two sections:
PROJECT INFORMATION
Location: Hwy 633 from Hwy 43 to Hwy 779,
14.4 km in total.
Description: A planning study has been
completed to identify the future alignment and
configuration of Highway 633 between Highway
43 and Highway 779. The objectives of the study
are to confirm the feasibility and cost of
constructing Highway 633 on the previously
designated straight-through alignment, review
expected traffic changes in the highway network
with construction of the missing Highway 633
link, and identify future right-of-way
requirements and access points.
A Public Information Session was held on May 5,
2011 at Muir Lake Community Hall. Information
shown at the session is available for download.
Schedule: Planning has been completed.
Construction is outside the three-year program.
Consultant: AMEC Earth & Environmental
For more information, contact: Roberta
Clifford, P. Eng., Sr. Transportation Engineer,
AMEC Earth & Environmental, ph. 780-377-3692,
roberta.clifford@amec.com
PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
Location Plan (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Edmonton_Area/Hwy633/Location_Plan.pdf)
Information Session - Fact Sheet (24MB) (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Edmonton_Area/Hwy633/Fact_Sheet.pdf)
Information Session - Display Boards (1.9MB) (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Edmonton_Area/Hwy633/PIS_Exhibits.pdf)
Information Session - Alignment Drawings (8.2MB) (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/projects/assets/Edmonton_Area/Hwy633/PIS_Alignment_Plans.pdf)
In general, highways through cities are controlled by the respective city not the province (and therefore not officially Provincial Highways) except for those highways which are part of the National Highway System (NHS). There are, however, exceptions to both cases. For example, AB 22X (east of AB 201) is a Provincial Highway despite not being part of the NHS, while AB/TCH 16 between either end of AB 216 and AB/TCH 1 between Calgary west boundary and AB 201 (east) are controlled by Edmonton and Calgary respectively, despite being part of the NHS. There are official "Highway Connector" routes which provide provincial highway continuity through cities. Funding is provided by the province to the cities to maintain and sign these roadways, except in Calgary and Edmonton, where a separate transportation funding scheme was negotiated a number of years ago - rendering the official Highway Connector routings in these cities meaningless. In either case, highway route signing in cities is sometimes spotty. “TO” tabs are also sometimes used.Still have yet to fully wrap my head around the details of exactly how this works, but I suspect Highway Connectors may be involved in many of the following cases where a route's end as shown in the shapefiles differs from what's indicated by signage in the field.
1. Re. AB11ASyl (now AB11ARed): I looked into it further and the portion out to the west town boundary is indeed included as a "provincial highway connector" (which is probably why it shows up in the GeoBase shapefile). This is strange given that Sylvan Lake is a Town not a City. Even so, the "connector" status is almost certainly meaningless now since AB11A west of Sylvan Lake was de-designated (given to Red Deer County) about 15 years ago. Keep the HB as is.At least in this one case, it's possible for a Highway Connector to exist in a town.
I think that the lengths of a gap depends on the entire length of the route and the relation to the lengths of the gap:FWIW, AB881 clocks in at 135 mi - 44 mi gap - 165 mi.
1mi - 10mi gap - 1mi,
10mi - 10mi gap - 10mi,
10mi - 10mi gap - 1mi or
100mi - 10mi gap - 100mi
are totally different and should be handled differently. I have no clear rule of thumb in my mind though.
With the usatn routes I've drafted so far, I've chosen to split a few:Note how in both cases, the gap is longer than the route segments at either end.
TN1, which has 2 segments of 1 and 3 miles. It follows US70 in between segments, but those segments are separated by about 300 miles.
TN7, which has 2 segments of 2 and 29 miles. It follows US31 in between segments, but those segments are separated by about 50 miles.
Others with unsigned parts have been kept as single files:Of those mapcat kept as single files, probably the best comparison to AB881 WRT the gap's length relative to the signed portion of the route:
...
TN43 (unsigned on US45E)
We get a feel for how the local authority signs their highways, and work that into the decisions we make. Ultimately we should be working towards something that makes it easy for users to plan, execute, and document their travels.Most implied multiplexes in AB are far shorter. Often (but not always?), they have TO trailblazers.
What I'm thinking of doing...
What does everyone think of this proposal?
@julmac, any insight here?
1. For routes where signage indicates a longer route than shown in shapefiles, go with signage.
613, 814, and 833 stay as they are now, with their full extents in the HB.
2. For routes where shapefiles show a longer route than what's signed, go with signage if there's a clear endpoint.
733 ends at AB49 (truncate); 869 ends at AB13 (as-is).
3. In cases where, approaching a municipal boundary, signage does not indicate a clear endpoint, go with the municipal boundary.
560: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange (see above).
564: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange.
627: Truncate E end to Edmonton line @ 215St.
633StA: Truncate E end to St. Albert line, about 1 km W of the current RayGibDr point.
772: Truncate S end to Calgary line, slightly south of the current TR261A point. This case is a perhaps a bit more iffy than the others, what with the old-style "Secondary" shield still with city limits. It doesn't do anything to help me more precisely pin down an endpoint. If I write it off as an old remnant shield, that might not even get installed under modern signing practices, I can just be consistent about my "rules" here and how I'm implementing them.
AB501 is an unusual case, a bit of a conflict between the "leave out unsigned routes" rule and the usual implied multiplex guidelines.
What would otherwise be the implied route to connect AB501Car (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ab.ab501car) and AB501 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ab.ab501) is parallel to another unsigned segment (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/AB/canab/ab.ab002trkcar.wpt) which was considered and rejected (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=38.msg512#msg512) as AB2 Truck (Cardston).
It seems a bit wrong-headed to run AB501 along AB AB2 AB501_W AB501_E (Should these be labeled AB501_S & AB501_N if there's no multiplex? Or maybe AB501 & AB501Car? Oh bother...) in this case. Heck, someone arriving at AB AB501Car AB2 would actually have to turn the other way on AB2 to reach the next (the unsigned one) segment.
Heh -- if the ultimate test is "what feels right in this situation?", then this is what feels right in this situation. 8)
AB 560 and 564 both extend to AB 201. ... AB 564 appears to only be designated to the city boundary.On the surface, this looks contradictory, unless there's some nuance I'm missing.
AB 560 and 564 both extend to AB 201. They are unsigned form AB 201 for no good reason. I suggest they be truncated to AB 201 instead of the city boundary. (Side technicality: AB 560 is designated as such to AB 201; however, AB 564 appears to only be designated to the city boundary. Moot point since the Transportation Utility Corridor [the ownership boundary for AB 201] extends east to the city boundary).Right now, I'm working under the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that the portions of 560 & 564 within city limits are highway connectors. If this assumption turns out to be incorrect, I can re-evaluate my approach.
Truncate AB 772 to city boundary. I might suggest a point further south except that AB 772 is planned to be re-routed to Shaganappi Trail in the future.Eyeballing this out, it looks like such a reroute would peel away from the existing road a wee bit south of the boundary.
Do 560 & 564 extend to 201 as provincial highways proper? Or, as just connectors?
By "designated", do you mean designated as a provincial highway proper, or as AB5**, including whatever connector(s) may be involved? (I assume the former?)
If connectors exist for 560 and/or 564, where are they; what are their endpoints? This could provide a little clarity...
I want to take as consistent an approach as I can in cases of highway connectors that are unsigned. I don't like the idea of including some-but-not-all of an unsigned connector; I want to head off any arguments/questions about "You included this, why not this?" (In this context, one could make the case for AB201 being a bit of an arbitrary cutoff...) Thus in choosing between "all" and "nothing", I choose "nothing", out of not wanting to include unsigned route segments. It's consistent with what's been done on the site so far.
627, 633StA, & 772 also fall into the same #3, unsigned within city limits, go with the municipal boundary, category. Creating an exception for 560 & 564 opens up the door to a rethink of how these three are done. :(
New business:
I just noticed AB628 also falls into this category. :(
I've had AB563 on my radar a while as deserving another look. Checking out the map again, it does enter Calgary limits. ISTR signage being subpar on the western bits, and non-existent in the east. I'll give GMSV another look. Most likely, this one gets truncated.
I'll add entries for these routes to Reply #15, above.
Two others that deserve some consideration are AB 542 and 873 through Brooks. They were both de-designated and turned over to the town a few years ago. Signing is inconsistent.These are still on the ToDo list.
AB552I don't really consider it critical, with AB797 itself unsigned here, but why not. Added as 244St.
-WP @ AB 797 is missing
AB552DewThis is intentional; "De Winton", two words, both capitalized.
-uppercase "W" is showing up in .list name
AB533Shapefiles list "Williams Coulee Road", instead of Twp Rd 163. Rge Rd 292 is signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.3391199,-113.8963878,3a,15y,319.16h,84.74t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s1hFx6NTvAiMMEaag86id2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) in the field, OTOH. Changed.
-change WP7TR163--> "RR292"
AB507Looks like Rge Rd 20A to me. (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.4663875,-114.1433404,3a,15y,25.56h,86.02t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sqssgkUkxObSVaswMFMAsdA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i42) Changed. TR62_E -> TR62 too.
-change WP6TR62_W--> "RR20A"
AB501For these, I don't see any signage in GMSV. Sticking with the names listed in the shapefiles, which usually match what I can see in GMSV when there's disagreement with other sources.
-change WP6TR11--> "RR231"
AB505
-change WP12RR241-->"TR50A"
AB579Between RR60A & RR53? Maybe, if's a major destination in and of itself. I'm most interested in points that could break up the long visible distance to the west.
-add WP @ Dagnall Park
AB501CarI think my philosopy WRT points in smaller communities & keeping routes within lateral tolerance is probably pretty similar to Oscar's (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2320.msg9113#msg9113).
-add WP @ 7 St (Cardston)
AB507
-add SPs through Pincher Creek (and on AB6)
AB546
-add more SPs or WPs near Turner Valley
AB561
-add WP @ Hussar
AB575
-add WP @ 12 St (Drumheller)
AB582Assuming you mean Didsbury. The way in which the route bypasses this medium-sized community, making a bit of a de facto business route, I can almost see this. I'll leave it in "unless someone specifically needs another for their list files" territory.
-add WPs @ 20 Ave, 20 St (Carstairs)
AB560This is more justified, IMO. A more subarban, short-distance route overall here. Chestermere's a fairly large community. I could see a point here serving the AB791 or Langdon corridors. Appears to change to Rge Rd 283 south of Twp Rd 240; is signed as such @ AB560.
-add WP @ Rainbow Road
Two others that deserve some consideration are AB 542 and 873 through Brooks. They were both de-designated and turned over to the town a few years ago.So, these are no longer provincial highways proper. Out of curiosity, are there highway connectors here?
Signing is inconsistent.I saw nothing eastbound on AB542 approaching AB873_S. Everything else in-town was still marked. GMSV here is from 2015; signage may have changed since.
ab.ab501;RR193;RR175;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.34 | RR175 -> RR183; two new shapers |
ab.ab501;RR51;AB41;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.09 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab501;AB41;AB/SK;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.61 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab504;RR160;AB877;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.33 | RR160 -> RR155 |
ab.ab509;AB511;AB3;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;28.57 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab511;RR253;AB509;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.54 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab579;AB40;TR294B;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.05 | RR64A added; one new shaper |
ab.ab621;RR92;AB22;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.30 | RR85 added |
ab.ab663lak;RR123;TR684;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.35 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab686;IndDr;PeeLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;38.98 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab686;PeeLake;TroLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.29 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab695;RR224;End;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.14 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab697pad;AB35;TomLanFry;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.96 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab734;TR312;JamWil;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;19.03 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab734;AB584;AB591;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.51 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab734;PepLakeRd;RamFalPP;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.17 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab734;HumRd;NorRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.60 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab734;NorRd;NorIndDr_S;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.58 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab734;ChuRd;BlaRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.29 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab734;BlaTowRd;GraFlaRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.04 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab750;OldAB750_Ati;AB88;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;16.30 | +X365680 -> UtiLake155A |
ab.ab754;AB88;YelRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;50.71 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab813;TR700;WardCheDr;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.86 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab813;TR734;WolfTrl;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;36.16 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab813;SerRd;TR800A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.46 | no intermediate named roads; TR800A -> TR801A |
ab.ab881;AlpKRd;TR743A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;36.81 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab881;TR743A;Con;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.64 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab881;NorDr;Cha;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;20.03 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab881;NokRd;EngLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;25.21 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab881;EngLake;SinDr;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.84 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab947;AthRiv;AB43;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.71 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab986;RR193;TR871A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;24.04 | no intermediate named roads |
ab.ab986;RR130A;AB88;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;23.93 | +X32 -> LoonLake |
AB 735: please add point for TR830. That's a county line road, and I turned around just north of there after a side trip to clinch Clear Hills County.Why not. This allow travelers to clinch something other than all or nothing, and does so with as close to a 50/50 mileage split as can be done.
AB 827: please add point for 8Ave in Thorhild. That's a turnoff for the Thorhild County administrative offices, a "county seat" where I went inside the building (a little more effort than usual for my county-snagging efforts, but the building was open and I really needed to take a pee). That's only about 1 km north of the existing AB18 point, and I have the highway between AB28 and AB18 in my list file, so no biggie.I'm more meh about this one, being so close to the existing AB18 point.
Otherwise, I don't have much to add from canabs. The main ones are three connectors between AB 41 and Saskatchewan primary routes, and also AB 881 between Lac La Biche and Fort McMurray.Grin -- I was actually checking out your mapview a couple hours before I first read your post.
AB 560 is designated to the west side of the AB 201. AB 564 is designated only to the City boundary, but the province still has "direction, control, and management" of Country Hills Boulevard to the west side of the interchange (exactly the same as for AB 560) by virtue of it being within the right-of-way boundary for AB 201, meaning that for all practical purposes AB 564 extends to AB 201. It's an inconsistent treatment for sure (not exactly sure the historical reason for the difference), but for the province to extend the designation of AB 564 the extra 500 m at this point would only be a paper exercise.
While it would technically be an exception to your rule to include the extra 500 m of undesignated AB 564, I think that's the most practical approach for the benefit of travel mapping. The other examples (AB 627/633Sta/772) are much longer undesignated segments.I'm starting to come around to this line of thinking.
RR162 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.368284&lon=-112.112304
AB36 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.366357&lon=-112.019038
RR151 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.362627&lon=-111.951970
RR150 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.367462&lon=-111.929125
AB535 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.398241&lon=-111.888086
ParkRd103 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.444669&lon=-111.883302
BroLim http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.542932&lon=-111.883377
BroLim http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.586577&lon=-111.897143
AB1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.590539&lon=-111.897254
AB544 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.688437&lon=-111.897418
AB550 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.730624&lon=-111.897373
For this segment, we may want to take out the BroLim point and just have the end at AB1. I'm including BroLim here for reference purposes.
542: ... Where should the new east end be? City limits? ...Moving ahead under the assumption that both of these are the case.
873: ... The southern segment: North end at Brooks limits, I presume?
873: Even if this (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.5909421,-111.8986125,3a,30.7y,113.95h,89.8t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s5fm44wU0BW1X36gM_fkvlw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) sign is still around, signage from TCH 1 itself has changed, listing AB 873 NORTH specifically. That's worth something.
Where would the south end of the northern segment be? The TCH 1 interchange, or Brooks limits?
AB873 (Duchess):BroLim corresponds to 15 Ave, which corresponds to the edge of the TCH footprint, because 15 Ave becomes the TCH 1 East onramp.Code: [Select]BroLim http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.586577&lon=-111.897143
For this segment, we may want to take out the BroLim point and just have the end at AB1. I'm including BroLim here for reference purposes.
AB1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.590539&lon=-111.897254
AB544 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.688437&lon=-111.897418
AB550 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.730624&lon=-111.897373
Is there a reason the [AB 742] file doesn't end here (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0834995,-115.3873031,3a,75y,329.43h,78.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6ogrXg0w7j6k-vbJ6RMg4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), at the END sign?This is where the shapefiles had it ending, all the way back to the 10.0 revision, dated 2013-04-26. A bit before the May 2015 GMSV date.
QuoteTwo others that deserve some consideration are AB 542 and 873 through Brooks. They were both de-designated and turned over to the town a few years ago.So, these are no longer provincial highways proper. Out of curiosity, are there highway connectors here?
QuoteAB582Assuming you mean Didsbury. The way in which the route bypasses this medium-sized community, making a bit of a de facto business route, I can almost see this. I'll leave it in "unless someone specifically needs another for their list files" territory.
-add WPs @ 20 Ave, 20 St (Carstairs)
Is there a reason the [AB 742] file doesn't end here (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.0834995,-115.3873031,3a,75y,329.43h,78.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6ogrXg0w7j6k-vbJ6RMg4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), at the END sign?This is where the shapefiles had it ending, all the way back to the 10.0 revision, dated 2013-04-26. A bit before the May 2015 GMSV date.
I did a fair bit of GMSVing around this route and area when drafting it, and somehow missed this sign.
Other stuff that may be noteworthy:
That's an old-style END sign, FWIW. See discussion of AB772 upthread.
The control section map / progress chart (http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/2017_PROVINCIAL_HWY_500-986_CONTROL_SECTION_MAP.pdf) shows a short Graded / Gravelled segment at the west end. The 0.00 km mark is clearly shown at the W end of that, and the total length of 9.76 km neatly matches the distance (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/51.0820249,-115.4056881/51.056106,-115.3128827/@51.0708866,-115.4009322,13z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0) to the far side of the AB1 interchange.
julmac, do you have the inside scoop on this route?
Ultimately though, it should probably be truncated. There's an actual junction, the pavement ends, and there's an END sign. Another case of "Think of the traveler who..."
20 Ave (Didsbury) should have a WP to remove ambiguity. (A turn is required in order to remain on AB 582).Not all turns on a route are worthy of a waypoint. See for example NS NS322 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=ns.ns322) NanAve OchSt via Thistle St. IMO there's not terribly much ambiguity to resolve here. If I were to add a point here, it would be because Didsbury itself is a sorta-large community that draws some traffic & travelers on its own.
My notes on the 600s:
AB616 -change WP10Labels chosen because the concurrent route doesn't leave the multiplex here; it just quietly begins/ends, with no junction as such. I chose the intersecting road name instead.RR12--> "AB778_S"
AB661 -change WP4TR630-->"AB769_N"
AB616 -consider splitting @ AB 2A (not co-signed)These are cases of our "implied concurrency" or "implied multiplex" practice on TM. Even if a route is not signed, or not designated, on a short hop along another route, the connection is plotted within a single file anyway. This helps with continuity, not having too many distinct routes in the HB, etc.
AB663 -consider splitting route @ AB 63 (not co-signed)
AB677 -consider splitting route @ AB 2 (not co-signed)
AB695 -consider splitting route @ AB 35 (not co-signed)
AB619 -change WP15 AB/SK --> "AB17/SK17" and check the co-ordinatesAt route endpoints, regional boundary labels take precedence over exit numbers or intersecting routes.
AB641 -change WP4AB/SK--> "AB17/SK17"
AB628These coords came from QGIS, as a result of my "truncate to the municipal boundary" policy I decided on upthread. The boundary was just a tiny tiny bit west of the road junction. The point is shown on the municipal boundary in ESRI WorldTopoMap.
-change WP4ParEdm--> "231St" and check the co-ordinates
AB663 -add two WPs @ Railway Ave and 1 St (Colinton)Another one like NS NS322 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=ns.ns322) NanAve OchSt via Thistle St. No need to plot out every turn, especially in small communities like this. Having the point at Main & Railway might be arguably more useful though. Moved, as it results in slightly better shaping.
AB686 -convert SP11 to WP (this is the location of the future extension of AB 686 shown on the Progress Chart)I couldn't find any road name to name this point after, so I left it hidden. With no GMSV in the area, I was also at a loss for finding any signage for a nearby or distant placename.