updates.csv: non-root data in the root column

[yakra]

ut.ut085 (West Jordan)
" (West Jordan)" was probably intended to be in the Route rather than Root column. Though oddly, there's only one UT85 in the HB now, without a City, and updates.csv doesn't mention I don't see another one being deleted and folded into a main UT85 route.
Edit: Ah. Found it: 2019-03-30;(USA) Utah;UT 194;ut.ut194;New route number for former discontiguous section of UT 85 in Lehi

autsisrab -> ita.autsisrab

il/il057 -> il.il057

gbna (here & here) and mnem ("Re-entered"?") don't produce a valid link to a single route in the HB. These fields could be left blank, but these entries may be better suited for systemupdates.csv instead.

[Duke87]

ut.ut085 (West Jordan)
" (West Jordan)" was probably intended to be in the Route rather than Root column. Though oddly, there's only one UT85 in the HB now, without a City, and updates.csv doesn't mention another one being deleted and folded into a main UT85 route.

There is no mention of that because that didn't happen. There is, however, this:

2019-03-30;(USA) Utah;UT 194;ut.ut194;New route number for former discontiguous section of UT 85 in Lehi

You're right about "(West Jordan)" being in the wrong column though, that's an oopsie and lemme fix that. Gonna keep the reference to West Jordan since there were two UT85 segments at the time of that update.

[Markkos1992]

autsisrab -> ita.autsisrab

gbna (here & here) and mnem ("Re-entered"?") don't produce a valid link to a single route in the HB. These fields could be left blank, but these entries may be better suited for systemupdates.csv instead.

I am guessing si404 more or less never saw this thread or forgot about it.

il/il057 -> il.il057

I fixed this one.  Also I-72 should have been I-172 in the original updates entry.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6769

[michih]

gbna (here & here) and mnem ("Re-entered"?") don't produce a valid link to a single route in the HB. These fields could be left blank, but these entries may be better suited for systemupdates.csv instead.

I think we should just remove the system name from the route field of these 2016/18 update entries and then finally close this thread. I'll remove them later this month if @si404 does not beat me.

I think the thread can be closed then?

[yakra]

Any thoughts on moving the entries to systemupdates.csv?

[michih]

2019-10-31;France;fraa;France Autoroutes;re-entered
2019-10-31;France;fran;France Routes Nationales;re-entered
2019-10-31;(France) Corsica;fracort;Corsica Routes Territoriales;re-entered
2018-01-05;Montenegro;mnem;Montenegro Magistralni Put;re-entered
2017-10-06;Germany;deua;German Autobahnen;re-entered
2017-10-06;Germany;deub;Germany Bundesstraßen;re-entered
2017-10-06;(Germany) Bavaria;deubyst;Bavaria Staatsstraßen;re-entered
2017-10-06;(Germany) Hesse;deuhel;Hesse Landesstraßen;re-entered
2017-10-06;Germany;eure;UNECE International 'E' Roads (Germany);re-entered
2017-10-06;Germany;eursf;Europe Select Named Freeways (Germany);re-entered
2017-10-06;Spain;espa;Spain Autopista / Autovia;re-entered
2017-10-06;Spain;espn;Spain Carretera Nacionales;re-entered
2017-10-06;Spain;eure;UNECE International 'E' Roads (Spain);re-entered
2017-10-06;Spain;eursf;Europe Select Named Freeways (Spain);re-entered

[michih]

gbna (here & here) and mnem ("Re-entered"?") don't produce a valid link to a single route in the HB. These fields could be left blank, but these entries may be better suited for systemupdates.csv instead.

@yakra, your links point to a commit from 2022. It's not the latest version of updates.csv The fields are already blank. The invalid links are gone. Marking solved.