Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread

[neroute2]

I can do Florida and maybe California.

[michih]

I've merged topics and added  "reviewer: t.b.d." to the OP. Si offered reviewing canqc. Anyone else?
Is there any preview system which was peer-reviewed but not yet activated?

I can do Florida and maybe California.

rickmastfan67 is currently quite busy and I guess he won't work on it soon. I think that you might start with usaca. Fine to you, oscar?

In the zeal to get new systems online (especially in Europe), we've let peer review and activation of already-built systems languish.

How many US contributors have peer-reviewed European or Asian systems in post-CHM times?

[Duke87]

How many US contributors have peer-reviewed European or Asian systems in post-CHM times?

I reviewed zafn (South Africa) and have now started on the Australian systems. Neither are Europe or Asia but both are on continents I've never set foot on.

I don't have qualms reviewing systems in such circumstances so long as there is sufficient street view imagery available to be able to do a good check on what is actually signed.

[michih]

I reviewed zafn (South Africa) and have now started on the Australian systems. Neither are Europe or Asia

yep, I was aware of it I meant that no US contributor was tied on peer-reviewing European systems. You reviewed zafn, I reviewed canmb.... And to be honest, if Si had not started drafting European tier 4 systems, I had also never started drafting and reviewing (mainly European) systems....

[michih]

canabs Alberta Primary Provincial Highways 500-986 (tier 5) reviewer: julmac

http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2169

I've added Julmac as reviewer since he has obviously started reviewing the system.

canmbs Manitoba Provincial Roads (tier 5) reviewer: t.b.d.
canmbw Winnipeg City Routes (tier 5) reviewer: t.b.d.

http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2344
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1846

canmbw is in preview since 2017-12-24 and canmbs is in preview since 2018-08-15. Are they ready for peer-review?

[oscar]

Is there any preview system which was peer-reviewed but not yet activated?

cansk has been peer-reviewed, subject to changes under discussion or shortly forthcoming in Saskatoon and Regina, and also a double-check for new rural routes I might've missed. I expect this will be ready to activate soon after the Regina Bypass is completed in late October, if not sooner.

I can do Florida and maybe California.

rickmastfan67 is currently quite busy and I guess he won't work on it soon. I think that you might start with usaca. Fine to you, oscar?

I think so. I'd been holding off on putting usaca out for review, due to some work to be done, as well as my finishing off cansk:

-- relabeling intersections with many county routes (in response to neroute2's and yakra's previous comments), and cross-checking and adding more from improved coverage of Signed County Routes on cahwyguy's California Highways site

-- nailing down what to do with route segment relinquishments to local control, now that fad seems to be slowing down

Neither really needs to delay neroute2's peer review (which could include comments on my tentative relinquishment "rules" laid out in the usaca thread, and the relinquished segments already removed from some usaca routes), if he wants to go ahead.

[Markkos1992]

Personally, I am fine with doing South Carolina.  I did not even realize that it had not been peer-reviewed.

[yakra]

Another example of why we need to move our preview systems forward to active status before developing more new systems.  With 100 systems in preview and available for mapping, that's a whole lot of users mapping travels in a whole lot of places with no promise of updates entries.

I'm with Jim that we should try to keep the preview state period as short as possible (< 12 months ?) to avoid bothering users with "silent changes".

Yes. Even if I've been bad about this myself. More below...

Perhaps we should also change our policy about waypoint label changes while a system is in preview.
...
I'm planning on bulk changes in California, to change any CH____ waypoint labels (back) to CR___ labels, for consistency with how we handle intersections with signed county routes in other jurisdictions. In-use CH___ labels in active routes would go to CR____ +CH____. We could do same for the preview usaca routes (and usaush routes in California, though most of their CR___ labels were never changed over to CH___, and the one I know about that was changed isn't in use).

I'd say, don't require +AltLabels as we do with active systems, but don't go and say This Can't Be Done either.
I think something like this for some of the more stale preview systems could be helpful to keep things sane for travelers.

And we can do it without changing the policy. We just had to bring the system to active status first. Because that would be the only difference left between preview and active systems.

Rather than quote Duke87 and froggie's posts in full, I'll just say that I agree with them.
Even the bit about

I'd argue we need a temporary moratorium on creating new systems until we can clean out the preview backlog.

With a little guilt, with 4 systems of my own in preview, and two that I've mentioned reviewing but actually done very little about...
Si reminds me about cannl every so often, and I've meant to have a look at usaal too.
Not to mention julmac's review of the AB700 series routes I've not responded to yet...

New York Parkways

I'm confident that this has had a thorough review from the various participants in its thread.
All that's really keeping it from activation is the status of West River Parkway (SR 957C), closed to vehicular traffic for conversion into a pedestrian and bicycle linear park.

I've merged topics and added  "reviewer: t.b.d." to the OP. Si offered reviewing canqc. Anyone else?

I've put myself down for cannl.

canmbs Manitoba Provincial Roads (tier 5) reviewer: t.b.d.
canmbw Winnipeg City Routes (tier 5) reviewer: t.b.d.

http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2344
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1846

canmbw is in preview since 2017-12-24 and canmbs is in preview since 2018-08-15. Are they ready for peer-review?

Both canmbw and canmbs are ready for peer-review.

a double-check for new rural routes I might've missed.

I can help with this if you'd like. Just a quick scan of shapefiles for any newly introduced route numbers not in the HB. I'll stop short of the plate of spaghetti that's checking each for extensions/truncations/etc. though...

Here are the systemupdates.csv entries for CAN & USA preview systems, to get an idea how long each has been languishing:

Code: [Select]

2016-02-23;(USA) South Carolina;usasc;South Carolina State Highways;preview
2017-01-20;(USA) Georgia;usaga;Georgia State Highways;preview
2017-02-03;(Canada) Newfoundland and Labrador;cannl;Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Highways;preview
2017-05-05;(USA) Puerto Rico;usapr;Puerto Rico Territorial Highways;preview
2017-05-06;(USA) California;usaca;California State Highways;preview
2017-05-29;(Canada) Quebec;canqc;Quebec Provincial Routes;preview
2017-08-23;(USA) Florida;usafl;Florida State Highways;preview
2017-09-06;USA;usaush;United States Historic US Routes;preview
2017-12-24;(Canada) Manitoba;canmbw;Winnipeg City Routes;preview
2018-03-03;(Canada) Saskatchewan;cansk;Saskatchewan Provincial Highways 1-399;preview
2018-03-26;(Canada) Alberta;canabs;Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986;preview
2018-06-15;(USA) Arkansas;usaar;Arkansas State Highways;preview
2018-06-15;(USA) New York;usanyp;New York Parkways;preview
2018-07-22;(USA) Louisiana;usala;Louisiana State Highways;preview
2018-08-15;(Canada) Manitoba;canmbp;Manitoba Provincial Roads;preview
2018-11-12;(USA) Alabama;usaal;Alabama State Highways;preview
2019-01-13;(USA) American Samoa;usaas;American Samoa Territorial Highways;preview

[si404]

In the zeal to get new systems online (especially in Europe), we've let peer review and activation of already-built systems languish.

I don't agree with this reading of the situation. Obviously, had I not been working on getting started with the rest of the world, I could have probably reviewed some more North America systems, however I felt - especially when michih came on board and I had someone to bring Europe up to the same sort of standard as North America with me - that there's plenty enough of you North Americans to be getting on with stuff over there.

It's not like I've not put pulled quite a lot of weight in North America making and reviewing systems either.

Yes, certainly there is a problem that I'm about the only one interested in more 'exotic' parts of the world meaning many systems without review. However, blaming the North American problems on foreigners on other continents is really not on and such will not endear the prolific European contributors to review North American systems would it?

I think part of the problem in North America (eg usaca, cannl) is a chasing of perfection, or near enough. Certainly the very thorough and excellent peer reviews I've received for NAm systems have been part of why I'm reluctant to undertake reviews in North America as I can't see how I'd bring the same quality of insight and understanding as someone more local (or even just someone who instinctively thinks in grids, even when there isn't an obvious one) would do.

[oscar]

a double-check for new rural routes I might've missed.

I can help with this if you'd like. Just a quick scan of shapefiles for any newly introduced route numbers not in the HB. I'll stop short of the plate of spaghetti that's checking each for extensions/truncations/etc. though...

Thanks. I'll scan the provincial Highway Hotline and press releases, especially for the most recent changes that might not yet be in the shapefiles. That's how I picked up the new SK 11 Warman bypass, the associated extension of SK 305, and the addition of SK 52A near Yorkton, all in the HB.

[froggie]

In the zeal to get new systems online (especially in Europe), we've let peer review and activation of already-built systems languish.

I don't agree with this reading of the situation. Obviously, had I not been working on getting started with the rest of the world, I could have probably reviewed some more North America systems, however I felt - especially when michih came on board and I had someone to bring Europe up to the same sort of standard as North America with me - that there's plenty enough of you North Americans to be getting on with stuff over there.

It's not like I've not put pulled quite a lot of weight in North America making and reviewing systems either.

Yes, certainly there is a problem that I'm about the only one interested in more 'exotic' parts of the world meaning many systems without review. However, blaming the North American problems on foreigners on other continents is really not on and such will not endear the prolific European contributors to review North American systems would it?

I think part of the problem in North America (eg usaca, cannl) is a chasing of perfection, or near enough. Certainly the very thorough and excellent peer reviews I've received for NAm systems have been part of why I'm reluctant to undertake reviews in North America as I can't see how I'd bring the same quality of insight and understanding as someone more local (or even just someone who instinctively thinks in grids, even when there isn't an obvious one) would do.

I did not intend this as a North America vs. Europe thing...I'm sorry if you took it otherwise.  I have not been paying attention to whomever's creating systems outside of those few states (and Quebec) I'm most familiar with.  My point was that, to the outside folks, there's all of these systems being created, but long-standing systems sitting in preview have not been activated.

[Markkos1992]

In the zeal to get new systems online (especially in Europe), we've let peer review and activation of already-built systems languish.

I don't agree with this reading of the situation. Obviously, had I not been working on getting started with the rest of the world, I could have probably reviewed some more North America systems, however I felt - especially when michih came on board and I had someone to bring Europe up to the same sort of standard as North America with me - that there's plenty enough of you North Americans to be getting on with stuff over there.

It's not like I've not put pulled quite a lot of weight in North America making and reviewing systems either.

Yes, certainly there is a problem that I'm about the only one interested in more 'exotic' parts of the world meaning many systems without review. However, blaming the North American problems on foreigners on other continents is really not on and such will not endear the prolific European contributors to review North American systems would it?

I think part of the problem in North America (eg usaca, cannl) is a chasing of perfection, or near enough. Certainly the very thorough and excellent peer reviews I've received for NAm systems have been part of why I'm reluctant to undertake reviews in North America as I can't see how I'd bring the same quality of insight and understanding as someone more local (or even just someone who instinctively thinks in grids, even when there isn't an obvious one) would do.

I did not intend this as a North America vs. Europe thing...I'm sorry if you took it otherwise.  I have not been paying attention to whomever's creating systems outside of those few states (and Quebec) I'm most familiar with.  My point was that, to the outside folks, there's all of these systems being created, but long-standing systems sitting in preview have not been activated.

I agree with Froggie's point.  I have been focused on revamping PA so I personally had not even been considering peer reviewing other systems.

[michih]

I've added reviewers for:

canabs Alberta Primary Provincial Highways 500-986 (tier 5) reviewer: julmac
canmbs Manitoba Provincial Roads (tier 5) reviewer: michih
canmbw Winnipeg City Routes (tier 5) reviewer: michih
cansk Saskatchewan Provincial Highways reviewer: julmac (already done)

usafl Florida State Highways reviewer: neroute2
usasc South Carolina State Highways reviewer: Markkos1992


@neroute2: I've merged your topics since there was already a usafl thread! And again... oscar is fine with you reviewing usaca but rickmastfan67 will likely not respond soon to tell you whether you are right with your suggestions or not... the way learning the rules might be longer...

[cl94]

If you need someone else to review Alabama, Georgia, and/or Louisiana, I might be able to help with that. Those have been sitting in preview limbo forever.

[ntallyn]

If you need someone else to review Alabama, Georgia, and/or Louisiana, I might be able to help with that. Those have been sitting in preview limbo forever.

I'm still working through all of the existing comments; now that the job has settled down a bit, I should be able to get through the rest of the updates/fixes.