canmb: Manitoba Provincial Trunk Highways

[michih]

MB11:
Exceeds limits b/n MB304 and RivRd


MB16:
Why is MB16 missing but often used for wp labels?


MB44:
MB204_N wp should be moved to the interchange underpass


MB100:
Why is MB100 missing but often used for wp labels?



MB59:
PraGroRd wp should be moved to the interchange underpass


MB68:
It has a different route b/n MB278 and MB481 on OSM but it seems to be correct according to GM/GSV. Has it recently been changed?
Minimum, there should be a wp where both routes meet again: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.086070&lon=-99.149637


MB77:
Exceeds limits b/n SK/MB and TwiSt

[yakra]

> MB11: Exceeds limits b/n MB304 and RivRd
RivRd replaced with ArtAve

> MB16: Why is MB16 missing but often used for wp labels?
> MB100: Why is MB100 missing but often used for wp labels?
MB16 & MB100 are carbon copies of TCHYel & TCHWin respectively. I'm saving adding these files till just before activation, so any edits to these routes needn't be done in two files.

> MB44: MB204_N wp should be moved to the interchange underpass
My first inclination was to call this a "misbehaving parclo", but moving it would result in nicer shaping and graph view for both MB44 and MB204 (if/when the Provincial Roads ever get drafted).
Using OSM coords, as GIS is not up to date here.

> MB59: PraGroRd wp should be moved to the interchange underpass
I think this is better handled as a misbehaving parclo though, and will leave as is.

> MB68: It has a different route b/n MB278 and MB481 on OSM but it seems to be correct according to GM/GSV. Has it recently been changed?
Not too recent. GSV is dated 2009, and the old demolished route at the north end is overgrown in Google & Bing satellite. I'll check the provincial map on the MoT's website for completeness' sake. And... yup. It's shown as moved.

> Minimum, there should be a wp where both routes meet again: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.086070&lon=-99.149637
The philosophy from the (early?) CHM days was to not worry too much about capturing old alignments from before a route was drafted. Either way, I agree; this is recent/significant enough to justify an *OldMB68 waypoint. Added.

> MB77: Exceeds limits b/n SK/MB and TwiSt
Wow. OSM, in all its lo-res glory, most closely matches the shapefiles here. +x24300-3 added.

[yakra]

michih, your post covers a pretty broad range of routes, lower-numbered stuff up to higher-numbered stuff.
Does that complete your peer review?

[michih]

Yes!

[yakra]

Any more comments before I activate canmb?

[julmac]

Apparently MB30 does not reach the North Dakota border but instead ends at "Seventh Street" in Gretna. The short piece of road between the 49th parallel and MB 30 is signed as "ND18".

[yakra]

Apparently MB30 does not reach the North Dakota border but instead ends at "Seventh Street" in Gretna.

Only Google says so. And they're not always very reliable. OSM, the provincial map, and the shapefiles all support MB30 as in the HB now.

The short piece of road between the 49th parallel and MB 30 is signed as "ND18".

While I did see ND18 signage in GMSV, that's probably just because it's the only place left for MB30 to go at that point, and as such was just thought to be the more useful trailblazer.

[mapcat]

Google might be basing their end on these signs, which look kinda official (Oct '14 imagery).

[yakra]

I sent a PM to SignGeek101 on AARoads, asking if  he has any idea what's up with the signs.

[yakra]

Working on PTH 30 for the TravelMapping project, I put its south end at the US border, where Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, and shapefiles from GeoBase all have it. (The map from Manitoba Infrastructure is a bit too chunky & lo-res to get a very good reading.) But, &%(&$#!!! Any idea what's up with these signs?

I would leave it at the border. I'm not aware personally, but I checked Manitoba 511 (should be official) and it also has it ending at the border. I checked if it was simply an old alignment that was never updated (and the new shields were put up just from not thinking about current alignments). The shields in the 2014 GSV are Clearview (new), but the 2009 GSV has much older shields (probably the originals). Sorry I couldn't be more help.

Quite helpful, thank you. In 10+ years of working on the CHM/TM projects, I've learned there are plenty of instances where you can't be 100% sure of something
Having one more official source of info is good enough; I'll leave it as-is and just disregard the signage as a Sign-O, an oddity, a Damn Thing, even if it was replaced not too far back.

There's precedent in USANH, and doubtless in other contributors' work.

You're ignoring clear and consistent signage of NH10 to Littleton in favor of a route log? Who are you and what have you done with Eric?

He's tied to a utility pole at END ME196 in Lewiston. I am no one to be trifled with.

That all said, I've put in a Pull Request to activate canmb:
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1426

[yakra]

canmb is active on-site now. Moving this topic to Completed Highway Systems Threads.

[yakra]

Found this old post when searching for something else...

I thought you rounded off MB 8's north end to an intersection point, rather than strain to tack on a few hundred feet to the End sign north of that intersection.

Reply #8 from oscar | Reply #9 from me
As work on the Provincial Roads hits full stride, I've found MB's GeoBase NRN shapefiles to be a bit rubbish, in terms of what routes go where.
The more recently discovered shapefiles from Manitoba Land Initiative, much better in this regard, have the end right at the intersection at Hec_N. So it looks like we got the endpoint right, if the confirmation is a bit late.

In other news, MB17's north end will need to be extended to PR 325.
That will be batched together with several other minor edits (mostly relabelings) once the 200-series Provincial Roads are drafted.