Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: CoreySamson on November 29, 2024, 09:51:01 pm
-
I would like to request a point at E0950 on OK 102 just south of Wellston. I had to make a (kinda sketchy) detour as I was trying to clinch parts of OK 66, and I ended up cutting through E0950 to get to US 177. There is already a corresponding point for E0950 on US 177, so this point would give that one some use.
-
The points on US177 were only included to keep the shape of the route within tolerance.
When that happens, it doesn't confer any sense of overall importance on that intersection; it's just a "shaping point".
So, not really corresponding, per se. ;)
I may not be as hardline anti-point-request as Tim (who originated Clinched Highway Mapping, TM's ancestor project), but I still take a very skeptical view of them.
Here's my philosophy:
A requested point should be sensible, one that would be reasonable to add in if the route were being created from scratch now. One likely to be used by regional (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/includepts.php#majorhwy) (not local) travelers to which TM is targeted. For example, a road connecting to a nearby freeway interchange.
...and this one was admittedly "sketchy" ;)
It someone requests a point simply because "I need this for my .list file", I'm pretty unlikely to include it.
OTOH, if a point looks like it'll be useful for many other people per the reasons above, I'll add it.
Unlike Tim, I do think point requests have their place. Considering them on their merits is OK.
I don't necessarily think we should just rubber-stamp them though. This creates clutter of almost-useless points in route files, and creates the impression that we grant all/many/most point requests, leading to more requests made, more requests granted, and more clutter.
TLDR:
Personally, I'm only likely to grant point requests if they're useful for the project overall, for regional travelers.