canqc: Quebec Provincial Highways

[oscar]

QC221:
 - NY276 -> USA/CAN

GMSV indicates NY 276 takes a sharp turn east just south of the border, as confirmed by the border monument and fence just north of the road, rather than connecting to QC 221 (you can cross the border at that point, but on about 0.01 mi. of pavement that isn't part of NY 276) . I would rename and relocate the NY276 point, so it doesn't synch with the corresponding QC221 point for NY 276. @yakra, do you agree, and think the QC221 point should be renamed?

QC138Mon
 - USA/CAN is slightly off (also NY30)

@yakra, do you agree that the north end of NY 30 should be tweaked? If so, please let me know what the new coordinates should be, so I can plug them in the QC138Mon route file I'm working on.

Also, the points for the north end of US 11/south end of QC 223 look off relative to the border as shown in OSM, and to a lesser extent in ESRI (including its satellite imagery) and HERE. Do shapefile data support leaving the border point as is?

[oscar]

the shorter bits of QC138:

QC138 (Chevery)
 - OSM shows a section of QC138 at Chevery. Is this part of it? or is it ditched as unsigned?

I'll probably add that section, even though Transport Quebec's online maps (like Données Québec) don't identify it as a QC 138 segment. They at least suggest that OSM has the endpoints right. An old post on AARoads indicates that there is a Chevery segment signed as QC 138.

It also flags a 4-km long QC 138 segment in Pakuashipi, though OSM or other online maps don't show which 4 km of the roads between the airport and the ferry dock (much longer than 4 km apart) if any are part of QC 138. I'll try some more followup. Quebec 511 reports today that the road between the airport and the ferry dock is unnumbered (as well as closed due to bad weather); nothing, either on route number or road conditions, on the Chevery segment.

I'm also checking out a possible new QC 138 segment in La Romaine, a few km from the town to its airport. Work is already underway on a QC 138 extension from its east end in Kegaska to La Romaine, which might incorporate the existing airport road.

QC138Tet
 - route diverted away from ferry now towards construction linking with Tab section?

QC138Tab
 - road extended eastward from End, and westwards from a couple of km south - is most of this route now not QC138?

Transport Quebec's online maps indicate QC 138 still follows more or less the routings shown in the HB (I'll do some tweaks to each segment). There is a partially-completed connection between Tete-a-la-Baleine and La Tabatiere in progress, which seems likely to take over part of those segments. Maybe OSM is also right that the road to the Lac Robertson dam north of La Tabatiere will also become part of QC 138 (though it seemingly it goes in the wrong direction to help close the gap between La Tabatiere and Vieux-Fort). But none of this has changed QC 138 yet.

QC138Bla
 - add point for RueJeanBai in Vieux-Fort as a better point for it than End
 - RivStPFry is off OSM, and the name is surely wrong

In my local copy. Données Québec shows QC 138's west end where it is now, so End stays alongside the new RueJeanBai point (which might be where any future westward extension would start).

A wild card: The AARoads post above notes there is a winter snowmobile-only connection between the end of main QC 138 in Kegaska, and Blanc-Sablon, with stops in several communities along the way. While the post says it has QC 138 route markers, at least one website shows a marker similar in color and shape but with "Route Blanche" (White Route) instead of a number. Another shows an Autoroute-like marker for "Trans-Quebec 3". Also, the route is shown on Transport Quebec online maps, but with no indication of a route number, and also a number of alternate routes and spurs. I would not add the Route Blanche.

[oscar]

QC344
 - does there need to be points on A-640 and this road for the single ramps off the autoroute and the corresponding points down those roads on the provincial highway?

I don't quite understand. Are you referring to on-ramps to A-640 that don't have corresponding off-ramps and so don't have exit numbers? Like the on-ramp from Boul. des Pins between A-640 exits 2 and 8, and from Rue Eustache between A-640 exits 8 and 11?

Whatever we do for A-640 (points for those on-ramps could replace nearby shaping points), I don't see the need to add points to QC 344 for roads leading to such apparently minor connectors to A-640. Less minor connectors, leading to exit-numbered A-640 interchanges, are another story.

[si404]

I don't quite understand. Are you referring to on-ramps to A-640 that don't have corresponding off-ramps and so don't have exit numbers? Like the on-ramp from Boul. des Pins between A-640(2) and A-640(, and from Rue Eustache between A-640( and A-640(11)?

Yes.

Whatever we do for A-640 (points for those on-ramps could replace nearby shaping points), I don't see the need to add points to QC 344 for roads leading to

If there are points on A-640, I can't see why you wouldn't add corresponding points on QC 344.

such apparently minor connectors to A-640. Less minor connectors, leading to exit-numbered A-640 interchanges, are another story.

So an on-ramp is minor, but an off-ramp is more major just because it would have an exit number (as entrance numbers don't typically exist apart from exit numbers, and are rarely signed)? That doesn't make sense. I get that un-numbered on-ramps are more annoying points to add than exit-numbered off-ramp, but I don't get that it's more significant: especially with distance-based exit numbering where it's so easy to give an exit a number even if its a driveway access that is very very minor. On is just as important as Off.

If you view the A-640 ramps as not warranting points (and they aren't must-add points) as being too minor, then QC 344 doesn't need them.

[oscar]

I learned about a new data source on Québec route data today: http://www.dds.transports.gouv.qc.ca/

The interface is ancient, but the data is current (although it doesn't handle overlaps well, only returning one route).  I was able to confirm that the way we have everything routed around Rouyn-Noranda is correct.  Former QC 117 through town connecting to QC 391 is reference route 22117 on both ends.

Thanks!

And on QC 391, it shows both provincial and municipal segments, with the municipal part connecting to former QC 117 (Boul. Rideau). But it's all route 391, unlike former 117 which as you note is now route 22117. This confirms my leaving the north end of 391 as is (relabeled to BoulRid).

I agree that the interface is awful, but I should see what it has to say about some of the isolated QC 138 segments in far eastern Quebec I've been trying to sort out lately.

[oscar]

QC138Mon:
BSteCatFry doesbn't meet label conventions. "Baie Ste Catherine Ferry" becomes...

If the cross road name has more than 3 words, use one of two options:
1. Pick out the two most important words besides the road type and use only those: Martin Luther King Boulevard becomes MarKingBlvd. Three words in total are included in shortened form.

BaieSteFry, BaieCatFry, SteCatFry,

2. Pick out one important word besides the road type and use it and the initials of the other words: Martin Luther King Boulevard becomes MLKingBlvd. Two words in total are included in shortened form along with initials of the rest.

BaieSCFry, BSteCFry, or BSCatFry.

...or does it?
If I search http://cmap.m-plex.com/tools/manual_wayptlabels.php for the string "ferry", I find nothing. But ISTR a "use the ferry name" convention developing prior to the end of CHM. Which you did?
On the one hand, I see "Tadoussac-Baie-Sainte-Catherine" as the ferry name in OSM. If the ferry name is the same at both ends, we may want to go with that (and thus in main qc.qc138 too); I like TadBSCFry the best out of the available options. FWIW, the only parallel in my work I can think of is in cannsc; the labels for ferry names (which probably came from here) are the same in the routes on each end.
On the other hand, the ferry could go by a different name at its two ends, and that's totally legit.
I'd be interested to hear what experience other contributors have had in naming ferry waypoints.

In Florida, rickmastfan67 renamed the waypoints for the ferry on FL A1A east of Jacksonville, for the river it crosses. Here, we could use Riv(iere)Sag(uenay)Fry for the ferry terminal waypoints on both QC138Mon and QC138. I'll pull that change in, when I finish making other changes to those long routes.

To be consistent within Quebec, I would also relabel the terminals on QC 133 and QC 158's ferry route across the St. Lawrence to StLauFry, and elsewhere on QC 133 as well as QC 223, RivRicFry. But this would not be completely consistent with other jurisdictions, including others I manage that have a hodgepodge of naming conventions for ferry routes.

For the only other ___Fry waypoint I spotted on my prowl through the route files, at the current east end of QC 138 (Tete-a-la-Baleine), the ferry doesn't cross a waterway, but rather hopscotches along the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. For that, I think the better name is Bel(la)Des(gagnes)Fry, for the ferry vessel regularly covering the route in both directions. I went with that kind of name for Geo(rge)Bla(ck)Fry in the Yukon on YT 2 and YT 9, though in that instance I could've as easily gone with Yuk(on)Riv(er)Fry.

[neroute2]

QC344
 - does there need to be points on A-640 and this road for the single ramps off the autoroute and the corresponding points down those roads on the provincial highway?

I don't quite understand. Are you referring to on-ramps to A-640 that don't have corresponding off-ramps and so don't have exit numbers? Like the on-ramp from Boul. des Pins between A-640 exits 2 and 8, and from Rue Eustache between A-640 exits 8 and 11?

Whatever we do for A-640 (points for those on-ramps could replace nearby shaping points), I don't see the need to add points to QC 344 for roads leading to such apparently minor connectors to A-640. Less minor connectors, leading to exit-numbered A-640 interchanges, are another story.

I'm with si404 here. Onramps are just as important as offramps, so they should definitely be included on 640, and if there are signs on 344 for these connections, they should be added there too. However, in these particular cases, I see nothing on 344, so maybe don't bother.

[oscar]

Latest round of canqc review changes (including conforming changes to some Autoroutes):

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3756

This includes most or all changes needed to the five existing QC 138 segments. I'm still checking three short possible new QC 138 segments (La Romaine, Chevery, Pakuashipi). I've also taken care of some shorter rural routes, including all the ones with ferry waypoints.

Some of these changes will create NMPs at intersections with routes I haven't yet edited. I'll fix those in the next round. In the meantime, I'll compile a list of the routes that need more work, including the huge QC 132.

[oscar]

QC112:

 - move RueStJean from the overpass to the link road

I disagree (also for similar comments on other canqc routes, but I happen to be working on this route at the moment). See my take on a similar issue in California.

[oscar]

Another round of changes, mainly to long routes QC 112 and QC 167. Minor changes to intersecting routes, and fixes to NMPs created by yesterday's pull request.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3761

[cl94]

Another round of changes, mainly to long routes QC 112 and QC 167. Minor changes to intersecting routes, and fixes to NMPs created by yesterday's pull request.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3761

This update or another one within the past couple of days caused an issue with QC 134. 134 proceeds straight down Taschereau, but a recent update puts it on the 112/116 concurrency, only to jump back to Taschereau at the east end of the concurrency along a nonexistent road.

[oscar]

Another round of changes, mainly to long routes QC 112 and QC 167. Minor changes to intersecting routes, and fixes to NMPs created by yesterday's pull request.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3761

This update or another one within the past couple of days caused an issue with QC 134. 134 proceeds straight down Taschereau, but a recent update puts it on the 112/116 concurrency, only to jump back to Taschereau at the east end of the concurrency along a nonexistent road.

Thanks! Not sure how it happened, but it was almost certainly yesterday's changes, which included waypoint changes on the QC 112/QC 116 concurrence, and were supposed to change only one waypoint label on QC 134. This error also affected my own list file.

I'll undo this unintended change to QC 134 as soon as I can, perhaps later today.

[oscar]

...

QC134
 - A-20 is not an intersection (on this road)

But somehow, someone managed to use that point in a list file. Perhaps that user also claimed the A-20(81) waypoint on QC 132, and the corresponding point on A-20, which really should be for the Boul. La Fayette exit/entrance rather than for Pont Jacques-Cartier (which is accessed indirectly from A-20 exit 82, not 81).

EDIT: I've already edited the QC 134 file to remove the A-20 point, fix the problem ci94 flagged, and make other changes from your review of the route. I'll also edit at least the Montreal part of the massive QC 132 file, and concurrent parts of A-15 and A-20, to move the 81 waypoint south about 0.07 mi/0.12 km to Boul. La Fayette, rename that exit number for QC 132 from A-20(81) to 81(20) +A-20(81), and similar reformats for other QC 132 exits. All that to be included in tonight's pull request.

At least one list file will be broken, but that can't be helped.

Pull request submitted: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3762

[oscar]

QC366
 - *OldA-5_S should be the label of the missing corresponding point on the surface road. Add that, and relabel current point
 

@si404, please take a look at what I've done with QC366 in the vicinity of A-5 (ignore the NMP and hidden junction errors, to be fixed in my next pull request). Is that what you had in mind?

The closed points on A-5 and QC366 are guesstimates, based on the old waypoint for A-5's north end.

[si404]

Yes, that's what I was thinking about.