itass: Italy Strade Statali

[Spinoza]

Thank you all for your work.

@panda80, don't hesitate to contact me for anything, if I can help.

[panda80]

Started with the introduction of new routes, yesterday was Abruzzo, today Basilicata (will come with the next update).

[Spinoza]

Started with the introduction of new routes, yesterday was Abruzzo, today Basilicata (will come with the next update).

 

Great! Looking forward to it.

[michih]

System will be temporarily removed due to some data errors with the latest rework.

I think that new routes of the following regions have been added so far:
- Abruzzo
- Basilicata
- Lazio
- Umbria
- Toscana

[panda80]

Puglia was also added today, should be in with the next site update.

[Spinoza]

As for ANAS website, it appears it is not updated yet 

Is it updated now?

If not, do the pdfs per region indicate the routes which were transferred? https://www.stradeanas.it/it/le-strade/rientro-strade

Sorry if it's BS, I just saw a post on another forum with this link....

Yes, all regions I posted here are updated: Tuscany, Liguria, Molise, Basilicata, Umbria, Calabria, and also Abruzzo, Campania, Latium.
Marche and Puglia are updated but the new roads do not show in the map, only in the dropdown menu.

I contacted ANAS to let them know of the outdated maps.
They answered that they have programmed the maps update - but alas they didn't give me any time frame.

I would like to report that ANAS has finally updated the maps in their website.
I didn't thoroughly check all the roads but it seems they're mostly there.

EDIT:
It seems that *almost* all the regions had their maps updated, with the notable exception of Lombardy...

[michih]

Updates to Campania and Marche should be live with the next site update.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5028
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5029

[Spinoza]

Updates to Campania and Marche should be live with the next site update.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5028
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5029

Thanks!
Seems that not all the new roads are there, though. For instance, in Marche SS360 is missing, as well as SS485, SS502 and some others.

[si404]

@Si404, what do you generally think about a split into regions for future SR systems?

If we would agree on splitting, would we do it before or after the rework and/or activation of itass? I mean, we could also activate itass by regions.... smaller iterations, starting with regions where the transfer back to ANAS already happened etc.

If there's going to do a split, the rework and review of itass is the time to do it.

Bump on this - do we want to split?

I've drafted split routes for the other systems, and am happy to do itass if we decide to split.

[michih]

@Si404, what do you generally think about a split into regions for future SR systems?

If we would agree on splitting, would we do it before or after the rework and/or activation of itass? I mean, we could also activate itass by regions.... smaller iterations, starting with regions where the transfer back to ANAS already happened etc.

If there's going to do a split, the rework and review of itass is the time to do it.

Bump on this - do we want to split?

I'd love to see Italy split into regions. It is the last of the "big five" (Western) European countries which is not yet split on TM.

Please agree with @panda80 what's the best way (and time) to split because you'd work on the same files. I think it would be wise to wait till @panda80 will have dealt with all regions. But who knows what @panda80 thinks about it...

We should use https://tmstage.teresco.org/ for testing the split version, and keep in mind that there was some trouble when splitting DEU, ESP and FRA. The "new" 6-field user .list file entry should help. Maybe @yakra can help again with converting the user .list files?

[panda80]

First of all, what's the reason behind splitting Italy? For me the only reasonable one would be to be possible to activate region by region, but as the preview kms are also visible in the stats I don't see it to be a very important issue. As the plan to introduce SPs routes is a far-future one, I think we better wait with the splitting. Splitting has a big downside, it takes much longer to introduce the routes after a trip in the .list files, making TM user-unfriendly. In my opinion we should split just where it is absolutely necessary (like FRA, DEU for example, where someone already had the intention to introduce 5th tier systems in the near future when the splitting was done).

[Jim]

I have no reason to support or oppose splitting Italy, but did want to address one of panda80's concerns about entering travels across subdivisions.  Hopefully by viewing a route that crosses subdivision boundaries as a connected route, using the 6-field list entries that can span subdivisions makes it just as easy as if no subdivisions were there.

[michih]

what's the reason behind splitting Italy?

• The possibility to draft the tier 5 systems (sure, this will likely only happen in the remote future)
• The possibility to track travels region by region
• The possibility to compare region stats
• The possibility to see that you've clinched a region (or that you are close to....)

Splitting has a big downside, it takes much longer to introduce the routes after a trip in the .list files, making TM user-unfriendly.

As Jim wrote, the 6-field list entries can help. However, my list file structure is region by region and I don't use the option.

In my opinion we should split just where it is absolutely necessary (like FRA, DEU for example, where someone already had the intention to introduce 5th tier systems in the near future when the splitting was done).

3 out of 4 reason I mentioned above are still valid.

Since we get more and more travelers, and each traveler gets more and more travels, the conversion effort for the users will be least the earlier we will split.

Just my 2ct. I don't say that we have to split.

Note: si404 has already split the routes (wpt files). The next steps would (likely) "only" be testing the data set, and converting the user list files.

[michih]

We should use https://tmstage.teresco.org/ for testing the split version, and keep in mind that there was some trouble when splitting DEU, ESP and FRA. The "new" 6-field user .list file entry should help. Maybe @yakra can help again with converting the user .list files?

@yakra: Would you volunteer and make some magic if we really decide for splitting?

[si404]

One bonus of splitting is that its easier to compare with ANAS data, which is done by region, and check that its all been brought up to date.

I'm easy either way.