canqc: Quebec Provincial Highways

[7/8]

I just noticed that QC 241 is missing.

[mapcat]

I just noticed that QC 241 is missing.

Thanks, it was left out of the csvs for some reason. In the next update.

[Duke87]

I'm fine with using "Mon" for Montée. It may not be standard but it is the first three letters so it's easily decipherable. When I drafted islth I used the first thee letters for each type of road suffix in Icelandic, there are as far as I can tell no standard abbreviations for those either.

I support using the standard French abbreviations for others (e.g. "Boul" instead of "Blvd").

Couple route specific notes:
- For QC138Mon, what is with the kink in the route around point BoulAng? It appears to me you may have captured a temporary detour route around construction in the area. To properly catch the permanent route you will want to delete the three points between A-20(64) and RueStJac_W.
- For QC136, my understanding is the western end is at QC 175, not A-73 (it is signed from QC 175). This road was a subject of discussion at the 2014 Quebec City meet, and Carl had pointed out where the technically correct endpoints are. Let me ping him about it.

[mapcat]

Couple route specific notes:
- For QC138Mon, what is with the kink in the route around point BoulAng? It appears to me you may have captured a temporary detour route around construction in the area. To properly catch the permanent route you will want to delete the three points between A-20(64) and RueStJac_W.

Is the reconstruction completed there? It appears some bridges will need to be rebuilt, and 138 will either follow A-20 or is being removed from it. If you have a link to construction status I'd appreciate a look.

- For QC136, my understanding is the western end is at QC 175, not A-73 (it is signed from QC 175). This road was a subject of discussion at the 2014 Quebec City meet, and Carl had pointed out where the technically correct endpoints are. Let me ping him about it.

I saw that it was signed from QC 175, but the Geobase files show the route beginning directly beneath A-73. That source treats the roadway to/from Av des Hôtels as a set of ramps, and the avenue itself as an unnumbered street.

[oscar]

A minor point I noticed is that QC138Mon's point at A-55 is labeled "A-55(181)", but since it's the only place it meets A-55, it can simply be "A-55".

Similarly, QC202's A-15(6) => A-15.

I'm just starting on reconstructing my QC travels, so I might find some others as I go along.

[Duke87]

Is the reconstruction completed there? It appears some bridges will need to be rebuilt, and 138 will either follow A-20 or is being removed from it. If you have a link to construction status I'd appreciate a look.

Apparently the route as I know it is closed until 2019(!). Okay, wow, that's a detour lasting four years. The planned final arrangement is visible in the document: https://www.turcot.transports.gouv.qc.ca/fr/Documents/2016-04-15_Turcot%205-1.1.pdf

Similar to the old setup, but slightly tweaked. I would map the old route and be prepared to relocate the point for A-20(64) once the construction is complete. What you've got mapped may be the de facto route currently and for a couple more years to come, but it's a temporary detour nonetheless.

I saw that it was signed from QC 175, but the Geobase files show the route beginning directly beneath A-73. That source treats the roadway to/from Av des Hôtels as a set of ramps, and the avenue itself as an unnumbered street.

Carl pointed me to the Geobase files you reference, so I agree - what you have mapped is correct.

[oscar]

On QC 366, a fairly optional point request, for the intersection with Ch. de Wakefield Heights, on the east side of Riviere Gatineau. Some of us on a 2012 road meet went to the east portal of a covered bridge carrying the Trans-Canada Trail across the river, and I'm pretty sure we took QC 366 to Ch. de Wakefield Heights to get there.

[mapcat]

Apparently the route as I know it is closed until 2019(!). Okay, wow, that's a detour lasting four years. The planned final arrangement is visible in the document: https://www.turcot.transports.gouv.qc.ca/fr/Documents/2016-04-15_Turcot%205-1.1.pdf

Similar to the old setup, but slightly tweaked. I would map the old route and be prepared to relocate the point for A-20(64) once the construction is complete. What you've got mapped may be the de facto route currently and for a couple more years to come, but it's a temporary detour nonetheless.

Well, since the old route is currently unclinchable, and will differ from the future route, I'm more inclined to split it at the construction zone. Thoughts, anyone?

Similarly, QC202's A-15(6) => A-15.

Thanks. Fixed.

On QC 366, a fairly optional point request, for the intersection with Ch. de Wakefield Heights, on the east side of Riviere Gatineau. Some of us on a 2012 road meet went to the east portal of a covered bridge carrying the Trans-Canada Trail across the river, and I'm pretty sure we took QC 366 to Ch. de Wakefield Heights to get there.

Lots of people could probably use that then. Added.

[Duke87]

Well, since the old route is currently unclinchable, and will differ from the future route, I'm more inclined to split it at the construction zone. Thoughts, anyone?

That seems needlessly messy and... AFAIK would also lack precedent. Temporary bridge closures (effectively what this is) happen all the time. We don't go splitting the route in the system or remapping it along the posted detour when they do. We leave it as is.

Look at it this way: if QC 138 had been mapped and in an active system before the ramps to A-20 closed for construction, would their closure have been deemed cause for changing the route? The fact that we happened not to map the route until after the construction started should not logically make a difference in how we handle it.

[oscar]

Well, since the old route is currently unclinchable, and will differ from the future route, I'm more inclined to split it at the construction zone. Thoughts, anyone?

That seems needlessly messy and... AFAIK would also lack precedent. Temporary bridge closures (effectively what this is) happen all the time. We don't go splitting the route in the system or remapping it along the posted detour when they do. We leave it as is.

Agreed, but not totally unprecedented. IN 912, in CHM days when it was in Select Numbered State Freeways rather than in the Indiana state set as it is now, was split in two when a long bridge in the middle of the route was torn down, with no immediate plans to replace it. Of course, folks who'd clinched the route before the bridge demolition were  done out of some mileage. And, AIUI, there are now plans to build a new bridge reconnecting the two IN 912 segments.

Permanent or long-term closures or detours are one thing, especially if there are no plans to restore the old route. But something that'll be fixed (hopefully) in just two years should be ignored.

[rickmastfan67]

QC-117 (& QC TCH (Kirkland Lake)):
ChKan - Would recommend removal of this point (seems to be just a gravel road with no name signed in the field) and replace it with a point just to the East @ Chemin du Mont-Kanasuta, which is a paved road and has a street blade showing it's name (per StreetView).
QC/ON - Needs to be synced with it's Ontario counterpart, ON-66 & ON TCH (Kirkland Lake).  Doing this will clear a NMP error.


QC-101:
Multiplex with QC-117 is completely broken and needs to be fixed (only the 'RuePri' point is showing up as synced right now per the HB).  Sync it with 117's locations for the multiplex, or QC TCH (Kirkland Lake) would need to be updated as well.

[oscar]

QC-117 (& QC TCH (Kirkland Lake)):
ChKan - Would recommend removal of this point (seems to be just a gravel road with no name signed in the field) and replace it with a point just to the East @ Chemin du Mont-Kanasuta, which is a paved road and has a street blade showing it's name (per StreetView).
QC/ON - Needs to be synced with it's Ontario counterpart, ON-66 & ON TCH (Kirkland Lake).  Doing this will clear a NMP error.

Agreed. I've made these changes locally (which should go live later today) to QC TCHKir, and if OK with mapcat I can make identical changes to QC117. The new ChMontKan point also replaces a shaping point to the east.

[mapcat]

Agreed. I've made these changes locally (which should go live later today) to QC TCHKir, and if OK with mapcat I can make identical changes to QC117. The new ChMontKan point also replaces a shaping point to the east.

Oscar, I told you I was going to work on this today. We can't both edit the same files and submit changes without causing problems. You remember what happened last time. Please don't submit your pull request. Thank you.

[oscar]

Agreed. I've made these changes locally (which should go live later today) to QC TCHKir, and if OK with mapcat I can make identical changes to QC117. The new ChMontKan point also replaces a shaping point to the east.

Oscar, I told you I was going to work on this today. We can't both edit the same files and submit changes without causing problems. You remember what happened last time. Please don't submit your pull request. Thank you.

I'm confused. You said you were going to work on synching QC 101 to TCHKir/QC 117, which you can do with changes only to QC 101. The changes rickmastfan suggested (and I would implement) to TCHKir are all west of the QC 101 concurrency, and so wouldn't affect your changes to QC 101. That part of TCHKir also isn't concurrent with any other canqc route, other than QC 117 (most of which is a clone of TCHKir).

The pull request for QC TCHKir isn't yet in the system, only in my local files. I was going to include that later today with some usaca updates that I'm still working on.

As I said before, I can make the QC TCHKir changes to QC 117 if you want, or you can make them yourself once the TCHKir changes are in the master. (especially if you're editing the south end of QC 117, which isn't concurrent with TCHKir). Up to you.

[mapcat]

I'm confused. You said you were going to work on synching QC 101 to TCHKir/QC 117, which you can do with changes only to QC 101. The changes rickmastfan suggested (and I would implement) to TCHKir are all west of the QC 101 concurrency, and so wouldn't affect your changes to QC 101. That part of TCHKir also isn't concurrent with any other canqc route, other than QC 117 (most of which is a clone of TCHKir).

The pull request for QC TCHKir isn't yet in the system, only in my local files. I was going to include that later today with some usaca updates that I'm still working on.

As I said before, I can make the QC TCHKir changes to QC 117 if you want, or you can make them yourself once the TCHKir changes are in the master. (especially if you're editing the south end of QC 117, which isn't concurrent with TCHKir). Up to you.

I'm referring to this message:

I am aware of these errors and more and plan to take care of all of them after I get home this weekend.

I should have clarified "and more" (I was busy at the time): there are almost 200 NMP errors in Québec currently, and I was planning on taking care of all of them. Some include changes to Autoroutes, so you will want to update your fork after the merge. I've incorporated the edits James suggested, and have dealt with the most obvious NMP errors. Some of those will remain after this update, so I will most likely need to complete this tomorrow.

Pull request submitted: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1340