itass: Italy Strade Statali

[michih]

Thanks @si404 for fixing the Sardinia and Sicily issues mentioned upthread. However, there are some (new) issues:

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7643#issuecomment-2302629613
   

• S389DirUdd and SS389 wps need to be synced (in ITA directory, didn't check ITA-SAR)
• E25Cag + SS554 concurrency broken
• Please check SS729's west end. It's on concurrency with SS597 now but OSM, GM and April 2024 GSV indicate it on the direct route to SS131 which is not covered by any SS road now.

I didn't check all changes though.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7643#issuecomment-2302681775
Well, I still had mapview opened.... There is a concurrency issue at https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=ita.ss389&lat=40.797811&lon=9.280851&zoom=15 SS389 meets SS597 but there are also SS729 and E840. Not sure if SS597 should exist at all here.

Same with SS597Chi just further west.

[michih]

More for Sicily:

- SS640's east end wp coords needs to be synced with A19Cal and SS626.

- The short A19 segment... well, there was a green motorway sign back in 2012. However, I don't find any on June 2024 GSV, i.e. it seems that one can enter the A19 main route w/o passing a beginning of motorway sign... Likely just due to SS640 construction. I guess that the segment was dedicated as motorway because it was a distributor road. I think that the dedication / signposting is just unclear because the SS640 expressway is still u/c. I assume that OSM and GM are right with indicating SS640 for the segment. I think we should remove A19Cal from HB, and extend SS640 to A19 main route. A19Cal has three travelers. Thus, we need to add alt labels to SS640 and alt route name.

[michih]

I tried to fix the coords and routings reported in the last two posts but did not change wp labels which sometimes look wrong around: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7679
I didn't touch A19 either.
I'll look into it tomorrow again to check that I didn't fucked up anything. It's a pain to have each file twice (ITA + ITA-SAR directory).

Edit: Fix for the fix: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7684

[michih]

@si404 you've added CorUmbI_W + ViaNaz_S to SS389 the other week. OSM does indicate this route and the other route being SS389. GM does only indicate the other route.

What's your source that you've decided to add the wps? Is there a road log for Sardinia?

(I've checked the junction on GSV but maybe I've not looked hard enough)

[michih]

A 5km long expressway was opened today: https://www.skyscrapercity.com/posts/189898242/ It's the extension of what we have in HB as SS195bis. The road number is not confirmed by GM nor GSV.

[si404]

@si404 you've added CorUmbI_W + ViaNaz_S to SS389 the other week. OSM does indicate this route and the other route being SS389. GM does only indicate the other route.

What's your source that you've decided to add the wps?

I had it the other way, but someone said:

SS389Dir (Udduso)'s east end is at the wrong junction.

So I changed it, based on the source of 'michih says I got it wrong'!

[michih]

@si404 you've added CorUmbI_W + ViaNaz_S to SS389 the other week. OSM does indicate this route and the other route being SS389. GM does only indicate the other route.

What's your source that you've decided to add the wps?

I had it the other way, but someone said:

SS389Dir (Udduso)'s east end is at the wrong junction.

So I changed it, based on the source of 'michih says I got it wrong'!

You didn't change SS389DirUdd's east end but added two wps only. In addition, you added two wps to SS389.
From lower zoom (you don't see the 2nd route withSS389 numbers on OSM), the previous draft looked like SS389DirUdd + SS389 were on concurrency just west of SS389DirUdd's east end w/o having a wp at the west end of the concurrency.

If we have no better source, I think we should go with GM i.e. truncating SS389DirUdd to its new wp 'CorUmbI_E' and reroute SS389 via SS389DirUdd's CorUmbI_E wp at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.578438&lon=9.252591.

[michih]

I'll look into it tomorrow again to check that I didn't fucked up anything. It's a pain to have each file twice (ITA + ITA-SAR directory).

Edit: Fix for the fix: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7684

I'm happy with my fixes for my changes to the previous fixes I won't update Sardinian wpt files from now (except I'd have point requests during my travels).

[michih]

But I found another issue on a route I wanna travel in Sicily.
SS189 is routed through Santa Rosalia but SS189 is clearly signed via the bypass on OSM, GM and 2024 GSV: here, here and here. In addition SS188 and SS189 do both have a wp at the same junction in Santa Rosalia but with different coords and labels don't indicate the other SS route. The routes meet after a concurrency further north. See attached.

I've just moved SS189 onto the bypass: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7687

[michih]

Sicily

SS640 should be moved onto new alignment west of Caltanissetta.
SS189 south of SS118/SS122 is not indicated on OSM nor GM nor GSV. Truncate?

Just realized that si404 did not process this. Nonetheless, the final SS640 section opened to traffic today (two-way-traffic only though): https://www.skyscrapercity.com/posts/189957106/
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=ita.ss640&lat=37.493350&lon=14.025893&zoom=14

[si404]

If we have no better source, I think we should go with GM

If we have no better source than Google maps, why should I change it from OSM's routings for mainline SS389 and SS389Dir? Which is what we have!

i.e. truncating SS389DirUdd to its new wp 'CorUmbI_E' and reroute SS389 via SS389DirUdd's CorUmbI_E wp at http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.578438&lon=9.252591.

Looking on Streetview, I remembered why I didn't change the routings (instead just adding the points to allow travels along the shortcut and to better shape the route). While the road marked on OSM as SS389 that we don't have in the browser is signed as a shortcut for traffic going between south and west, the SS389 destinations (there's no road numbers signed at all) are signed through the town - you are not directed the way GM has, but rather the way we/OSM has, if you are travelling on the SS389.

There's your better source than Google Maps - Google Maps Streetview!

[michih]

I'm not familar with how Italian practise on road signing but right of way regulations do not mean anything about road dedication in Germany and Austria. If you mean that:

While the road marked on OSM as SS389 that we don't have in the browser is signed as a shortcut for traffic going between south and west, the SS389 destinations (there's no road numbers signed at all) are signed through the town - you are not directed the way GM has, but rather the way we/OSM has, if you are travelling on the SS389.

Your routing follows the priority road at the northern junction. However, the priority road at the southern junction is between the two "branches".... and your routing follows a one-way street.

[si404]

I'm not familar with how Italian practise on road signing but right of way regulations do not mean anything about road dedication in Germany and Austria. If you mean that:

I never mentioned priority roads and definitely wasn't referring to them. I'm not sure what they have to do with anything here other than some sort of left field attempt to try and keep pushing for the GM route over the signed route.

your routing follows a one-way street.

OK, that's a slight point adjust to deal with the small one-way system, not a fundamental reworking of the route needed due an error.

[michih]

the SS389 destinations

Ah, I misread distinations as directions and... well, if you mean Monti and Nuoro. Fine for me.