Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: rickmastfan67 on December 26, 2016, 11:36:23 pm

Title: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 26, 2016, 11:36:23 pm: https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20161202152213.htm
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=pa.i476
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=pa.pa063

Ok, recently, new ramps opened there for PA-63 that are EZ-Pass only which are completely separate from the current '31' point on I-476. These new ramps are a direct connection to PA-63, unlike the current trumpet interchange (which had no changes made to it). Because of the changes, we now will have a problem with PA-63's file because of possibly needing to either recenter the current 'I-476' label, or add in a new one. The changes needed to be made to I-476 are cut and dry thankfully.

I recommend the following changes be made and I'll do them if nobody thinks there's a problem here.

I-476 changes:
new -> 31A (point to be centered directly ontop of PA-63.
31 -> 31B (with 31 hidden)

PA-63 changes:
(option 1): Recenter the current 'I-476' point onto the new '31A' location.
(option 2): Relabel the current 'I-476' point to 'I-476(31B)' (while keeping 'I-476' as a hidden label for it), and add a new point at the center of the '31A' interchange and label it as 'I-476(31A)'.

I'm thinking Option 2 might be the best for PA-63, but want opinions. You can see the new ramps in Google's Satellite imagery, so you get a good idea of what's happening here.
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: yakra on December 27, 2016, 12:03:34 am: I prefer Option 1.
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 01, 2017, 01:49:04 am: Any other comments before I do this (leaning towards option 1 for PA-63 now).
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: Ib3kii on January 01, 2017, 02:02:04 am: I also prefer option 1.
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 03, 2017, 05:13:53 am: Fix for this has been submitted as Pull Request #1038 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1038) using 'Option 1' for PA-63.
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: yakra on January 05, 2017, 03:28:49 am: http://tm.teresco.org/logs/unmatchedfps.log
pa.i476;20;31;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.49
pa.i476;31;44;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.84

http://tm.teresco.org/devel/datacheck.php
pa.i476;20;31A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.24
pa.i476;31B;44;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.84
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 05, 2017, 09:42:41 pm: I'll get a fix for that submitted later tonight.
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 06, 2017, 09:46:10 am: Quote from: yakra on January 05, 2017, 03:28:49 am
http://tm.teresco.org/logs/unmatchedfps.log
pa.i476;20;31;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.49
pa.i476;31;44;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.84

http://tm.teresco.org/devel/datacheck.php
pa.i476;20;31A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.24
pa.i476;31B;44;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.84

#1045 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1045)
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: froggie on January 10, 2017, 10:54:48 am: Sorry for the late-coming, but a strong argument could be made that this is a single interchange. What was changed for PA 63 is fine. But instead of two separate points on the I-476 list, the "31" point should have simply been moved to the PA 63 overpass and left it at that.
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: yakra on January 10, 2017, 09:45:39 pm: It's wibbly-wobbly, to be sure. I decided I was fine with it being two points, for an "interchange and a half". :)
I did take froggie's approach recently, with the reconfiguration of KS I-70 224(KT) (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/371a7cc0e2885565484e39380ca578977746a113).
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 11, 2017, 11:48:22 am: Quote from: froggie on January 10, 2017, 10:54:48 am
Sorry for the late-coming, but a strong argument could be made that this is a single interchange. What was changed for PA 63 is fine. But instead of two separate points on the I-476 list, the "31" point should have simply been moved to the PA 63 overpass and left it at that.

Well, 31 was in use, which was one of the main reasons I had in my mind to keep the location as is since that interchange didn't move at all. Plus, SB I-476 didn't get a new offramp like the NB side did. So, you could say they are effectively two different interchanges.

With Yakra's example, that interchange was completely reconfigured and all the I-70 EB ramps were moved to a new location, justifying the relocation of the point wholesale to it's new location. With the I-476 one, you can say it was an entirely new 'partial' interchange that was added for I-476, as none of the original ramps were removed.
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: froggie on January 12, 2017, 10:05:23 am: Semantics. I don't think it would have killed much to leave it as a single 31 point and move it to the overpass (0.2mi is effectively a rounding error for most people's lists). Functionally, it's a single interchange, and we've had single points for much larger interchange footprints than this.
Title: Re: PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes
Post by: yakra on January 13, 2017, 12:58:43 pm: Ah, but it so often does just come down to semantics in this project though...
I might have done it with one point (or not?), but I'm fine with two.