Intersecting routes on the HB

[michih]

We sometimes move wps by exactly 0.000001° to break concurrencies but the route is still intersecting. Is it possible to include these routes?

I'd argue that those should not be included, since the concurrencies were intentionally broken.  If there's an intersection, then maybe those should be lined up and concurrencies should be broken with a shaping point instead.

Ok, it's fine with me.

If I click on the intersecting route, the HB is loaded as usual. Is it possible to center the map with the last waypoint and zoom in with the same zoom level and with the same map style which was selected before? That means, I would see exactly the same map but just the highlighted route is changed. I could directly proceed browsing at the point I left the previous route.

Sounds like a nice idea.  We should note it as a GitHub issue as a feature request for the future.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/179

7. Click on "FRA E17" --> wp table is loaded correct but the route is not loaded on the map!

The problem here comes up because the City fields are in double quotes.  Any idea why?  That breaks my new JS code.

Looking into this, it seems over 500 routes, all in Europe, have their city fields enclosed in double quotes.  Before I code a workaround in the intersecting routes code or remove those possibly extraneous quotes from the csv files, I want to make sure they're not there for some Good Reason that I'm not aware of.

Si has already fixed it: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1267

Please keep us on the loop if there are more routes. Maybe I have similar names... Dunno, maybe a data check should be added?

[Jim]

Si's csv file edits seem to have fixed the problem above.  Anything else anyone sees before I have this go live?

[Jim]

This is now installed on the production site.

[yakra]

We sometimes move wps by exactly 0.000001° to break concurrencies but the route is still intersecting. Is it possible to include these routes?

I'd argue that those should not be included, since the concurrencies were intentionally broken.  If there's an intersection, then maybe those should be lined up and concurrencies should be broken with a shaping point instead.

I would argue that these should be included. There's still an intersection, and one should still be able to move from one route to the other via intersecting roads, sliproads, etc.

My canonical example:
TX US183 @ TX21, TX21 @ US183/130, and TX130 @ 461. Movement between US183 & TX130 is made via Texas's typical sliproad-frontage road setup. US183 & TX21 show up as Intersecting/Concurrent Routes for one another, as they have identical coordinates.  TX130, with its mismatching coords, doesn't list & isn't listed for the other two routes. It clearly intersects TX21 here, and has access to US183 as well.

So, while calling US183 & TX130 Concurrent Routes here isn't strictly correct, listing them as Intersecting Routes is appropriate IMO.

Some other examples that immediately come to mind:
• RI I-95 @ 19 mismatches RI I-195 @ 1 and RI US6 @ I-195(1). I-95 clearly intersects both other routes.
• NS7 mismatches NS111(6B), to break a false multiplex toward NS111(6A). Both routes clearly intersect here.
• Fall River, Massachusetts:
  - US6 @ MA79/138 mismatches MA79 & MA138 @ US6_E. There's access here via the northbound exit slip, and Davol Street to the south.
  - MA79 @ *BriSt mismatches US6 & MA138 @ BriSt. MA138 south transfers from US6 on the frontage road to MA79 on the freeway mainline here.
• NY27 and BeltPkwy, with Texas-style sliproad-frontage road access.

I believe, in good faith, that everything I have marked off in nmpfps.log should be a perfectly legitimate intersection, like these examples. I'd be surprised if any of my intentional NMPs didn't include connections between any (if not all?) of the routes involved. However, I'm not going to take the time to do the research to prove/disprove this right now.

FWIW, sometimes I've corrected some intentional NMPs to be off by 0.000001 instead of some greater amount, the idea being that they'd someday be interpreted as intersections by an algorithm that would Do Such Things.

[compdude787]

This is now installed on the production site.

Unfortunately, the highway browser is not working at all now, no matter what route or user I have selected. The map just defaults to Siena College in near Albany, NY, and the selected route does not show up on the map at all. I don't know what you did when you put this up live, because it's working just fine on the tmtest website, but you gotta fix this.

[yakra]

Unfortunately, the highway browser is not working at all now, no matter what route or user I have selected. The map just defaults to Siena College in near Albany, NY, and the selected route does not show up on the map at all. I don't know what you did when you put this up live, because it's working just fine on the tmtest website, but you gotta fix this.

I noticed this problem, and was about to post the same thing when the problems seemed to clear up. Try it again?

[michih]

We sometimes move wps by exactly 0.000001° to break concurrencies but the route is still intersecting. Is it possible to include these routes?

I'd argue that those should not be included, since the concurrencies were intentionally broken.  If there's an intersection, then maybe those should be lined up and concurrencies should be broken with a shaping point instead.

I would argue that these should be included. There's still an intersection, and one should still be able to move from one route to the other via intersecting roads, sliproads, etc.

FWIW, sometimes I've corrected some intentional NMPs to be off by 0.000001 instead of some greater amount, the idea being that they'd someday be interpreted as intersections by an algorithm that would Do Such Things.

I absolutely agree with... both of you I'd prefer to include NMPs as intersecting routes because we are used to handled it this way for one year now but it would be fine with me - if there's no "simple" technical solution - to eliminate intentional NMPs and add shaping points instead. I think it should work for all use-cases. However, I don't start replacing NMPs by shaping points right now because I still hope to get a software solution

@compdude787: I think HB works fine. I don't see any problem.

[Jim]

Those who had intermittent problems might have some of the JS code cached.  Try a force reload.

[compdude787]

Those who had intermittent problems might have some of the JS code cached.  Try a force reload.

Okay, thanks, that worked for me.

[yakra]

Might be better off if devel routes were omitted.
Whaddaya think?

[michih]

Might be better off if devel routes were omitted.
Whaddaya think?

I don't think that they should generally be omitted because devel systems are shown in the HB system overview per default. I think the only good solution is to implement a geneal mechanism as described here: https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/64. Just my 2c though...

[Jim]

Yes, let me think if there's a not-too-painful way to implement the idea in https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/64 .

[sipes23]

At first I thought this was kind of a dumb feature to add, so I said nothing figuring it would cause no harm.

I was wrong. It was awesome. I saw it tonight and used it.

[yakra]

Just found a bug due to case sensitivity:
Load http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?units=miles&r=ar.us064busalm and click on the east endpoint. Only AR US64 will be shown, as expected.
Load http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?units=miles&r=ar.us064bUsalm and click on the east endpoint. Both AR US64 and AR US64 Bus(Alma, AR) itself are shown.

[yakra]

I haven't created a GitHub issue for this, as I don't know whether it'd better belong in DataProcessing or Web.

Consider the following:
tx.us183 @ TX21
tx.tx021 @ US183/130
tx.tx130 @ 461
The first two points have the same coords. TX130 (on the main lanes) has its coords offset to break a false-positive multiplex with US183 (on the frontage roads). Thus US183 & TX21 both list one another as Intersecting/Concurrent Routes. TX130 lists nothing.
I propose listing routes with intentional NMPs (IE, off by 0.000001) as Intersecting Routes, as it should still be possible to get from one route to the other. I can't conceive of any example where this would not be the case. (Does anyone know of any?)