NC: US 501 North of Roxboro

[dfilpus]

US 501 north of Roxboro NC has been moved to a new divided four lane highway well east of the old road. It now meets NC 49 east of town. The old route is not bannered.
The new route is shown on Google Maps, but not on Mapnik or OSM.
Changes are needed to US 501 and NC 49.

[rickmastfan67]

I checked this area out in imagery that's legit for OSM to see if it could be traced in, Bing & Mapbox don't even show construction started yet.  The most recent NAIP imagery does show the very early stages of construction.  Hopefully we'll be getting the newest NAIP imagery for NC, as the state was one of the states selected for 2016 acquisition.

[mapmikey]

Changes submitted to Jim...required moving 1 waypoint

[mapcat]

Could you please edit the updates entry to show the extent of the new alignment (such as "between X and Y")? Trying to figure out how much of 501 I will need to re-clinch. Thanks.

[oscar]

FWIW, here's my revised list file entries for the part of US 501 in NC north of Raleigh. I had previously clinched everything north of Raleigh, as you had, so these should work for you (other than substituting "SC/NC" for "I-40", since you covered the whole route in NC):

NC US501 I-40 MainSt
NC US501 BosRd NC/VA

I agree that updates entry could've been clearer, though it usually isn't necessary to provide waypoint names for the deleted segment.

[michih]

If the description is not clear, one can ask on the forum or (more experienced user) can check GitHub: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/9d58607f01f1801e0ecd3c0870c45a941a3e023a.

NC49 was renamed to MainSt, HalRd was renamed to BosRd. The segment in-between was relocated.

I guess GitHub history (or anything similar) was not yet available with CHM.

[mapcat]

If the description is not clear, one can ask on the forum or (more experienced user) can check GitHub: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/9d58607f01f1801e0ecd3c0870c45a941a3e023a.

NC49 was renamed to MainSt, HalRd was renamed to BosRd. The segment in-between was relocated.

I guess GitHub history (or anything similar) was not yet available with CHM.

I don't think a user should be expected to do all that research.

FWIW, here's my revised list file entries for the part of US 501 in NC north of Raleigh. I had previously clinched everything north of Raleigh, as you had, so these should work for you (other than substituting "SC/NC" for "I-40", since you covered the whole route in NC):

NC US501 I-40 MainSt
NC US501 BosRd NC/VA

I agree that updates entry could've been clearer, though it usually isn't necessary to provide waypoint names for the deleted segment.

Thanks. But I can't agree with you that the endpoints of the realigned segment should be optional. Even looking at the satellite image for what appears to be new construction, it's not obvious at first glance that that's where it occurred.

[yakra]

bits crossposted: http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1849.msg4764#msg4764

I don't think a user should be expected to do all that research.

Agreed.

I agree that updates entry could've been clearer, though it usually isn't necessary to provide waypoint names for the deleted segment.

Thanks. But I can't agree with you that the endpoints of the realigned segment should be optional. Even looking at the satellite image for what appears to be new construction, it's not obvious at first glance that that's where it occurred.

IMO , it's almost always Best Practice to provide "pivot waypoints" so the user can quickly refer to the HB and find the relocated section. The only time I really deviate from that would be for intuitive enough cases such as "Removed from US999 Business (Gotham City) and relocated onto the northwestern Gotham City bypass"

--

I think the old CHM conventions, the "mad-libs" of how to phrase updates wording, are overall a very good benchmark to strive for.
They can be found at the bottom of this page (search for "Newsworthy news entries").

A couple excerpts:

Relocated route (in middle of route):
Pennsylvania US 220: Removed from Main Street and 5th Avenue, and relocated onto a new northern Georgetown bypass, between US 23 and PA 70.
(mentions both ends of the new part, that is, the intersections/places where the old and new alignments meet) and both the old and new routes

Don't refer to "the new route" or "the new end". Instead, say what the new route is.

Sure, even I'll admit that writing these out can get tedious at times. But proper, descriptive wording in the updates entries can go a long way toward establishing clarify.

[froggie]

Not sure I'd like or suggest the old CHM conventions.  IMO, Tim was way too anal when it came to the wording of updates.  A few years ago, he refused a set of Minnesota updates for a lengthy period because he didn't like how I had worded the updates, and I was too busy (i.e. deployment/Navy stuff) to fix it for him.

[mapcat]

Not sure I'd like or suggest the old CHM conventions.  IMO, Tim was way too anal when it came to the wording of updates.  A few years ago, he refused a set of Minnesota updates for a lengthy period because he didn't like how I had worded the updates, and I was too busy (i.e. deployment/Navy stuff) to fix it for him.

OK, so as we work toward a new set of conventions, what would you recommend instead?

[yakra]

Not sure I'd like or suggest the old CHM conventions.  IMO, Tim was way too anal when it came to the wording of updates.  A few years ago, he refused a set of Minnesota updates for a lengthy period because he didn't like how I had worded the updates, and I was too busy (i.e. deployment/Navy stuff) to fix it for him.

I agree. (i had a couple Texas updates get hung up for quite a while as well.)
I do think the CHM conventions are a good baseline to start from, but there's plenty of room to relax them, when appropriate, without losing detail and having the descriptions become less clear/intuitive.