Czechia Silnice I. + II. Třídy (czei + czeii)

[si404]

II476 is NS

Debatable, it's rather diagonal.

Also, irrelevant. Clearly there isn't a grid here, but in places (N America) where there's strong grids routes don't necessarily meet at right angles (eg two N-S roads can meet each other) and so a N-S route can meet another one.

and II468 clearly heads to the west and east.

On the micro level, but the road in general is very clearly more N-S orientated.

I'm fine with the status quo, if you are willing to take on board the general point (which was a lot of the issues I saw) that N-S roads can be concurrent with N-S roads, rather than the other routes needing to be perpendicular.

I'm gone with OSM/RSD now and let it end at II493 instead of II488 although 2011/12 GSV tells something different (and here)

That's fine. There's been some renumbering here. I trust your judgement on this.

[michih]

I'm fine with the status quo, if you are willing to take on board the general point (which was a lot of the issues I saw) that N-S roads can be concurrent with N-S roads, rather than the other routes needing to be perpendicular.

I was not sure about the rule back in 2016. I've checked whether each route is more WE or NS and then I've striclty called the wps of all intersecting routes with concurrencies NS (if the route itself is WE) and WE if NS route. I thought there might be a peer-review soon so that I'll get feedback what's right and what's wrong. I've changed my strategy meanwhile and I think that my latest systems are better, see deuthl. Likely not 100% perfect though. In the end, if the label name has the correct numbering, the cardinal directions have secondary meaning only... Sorry.

[si404]

Sorry.

No need to apologise.

In the end, if the label name has the correct numbering, the cardinal directions have secondary meaning only.

Indeed - unless the roads have explicit cardinal directions, of course.

[michih]

@Si: Thanks for the review! System will be activated with the next site update

[yakra]

II290 has _S & _N suffixes at its multiplex splits with I10 & E65, and _E & _W suffixes at its splits with I14. Which is correct?

[michih]

II290 has _S & _N suffixes at its multiplex splits with I10 & E65, and _E & _W suffixes at its splits with I14. Which is correct?

I10 + E65 are correct. Will change I14.

Will your research end up in a data check?

[yakra]

Will your research end up in a data check?

Been looking at the HighwayGraph vertex label simplification routines.

The other stuff I spammed the forum with today (there will be more coming; that was, like... 1/3 of it?) could maybe become a datacheck, but it wouldn't be easy.
Tweak the parts that detect where a route name/number ends in a waypoint label, look at the diffs in waypointsimplification.log, and there's a bunch of stuff like that.

This item's different; found it when looking at points listing different directional suffixes for the same route. This would not make a good datacheck; there'd be way too many false positives.