canabs: Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986

[yakra]

Indetermini

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16779.msg2115865#msg2115865

In general, highways through cities are controlled by the respective city not the province (and therefore not officially Provincial Highways) except for those highways which are part of the National Highway System (NHS). There are, however, exceptions to both cases. For example, AB 22X (east of AB 201) is a Provincial Highway despite not being part of the NHS, while AB/TCH 16 between either end of AB 216 and AB/TCH 1 between Calgary west boundary and AB 201 (east) are controlled by Edmonton and Calgary respectively, despite being part of the NHS. There are official "Highway Connector" routes which provide provincial highway continuity through cities. Funding is provided by the province to the cities to maintain and sign these roadways, except in Calgary and Edmonton, where a separate transportation funding scheme was negotiated a number of years ago - rendering the official Highway Connector routings in these cities meaningless. In either case, highway route signing in cities is sometimes spotty. “TO” tabs are also sometimes used.

Still have yet to fully wrap my head around the details of exactly how this works, but I suspect Highway Connectors may be involved in many of the following cases where a route's end as shown in the shapefiles differs from what's indicated by signage in the field.
It looks like Highway Connectors are sometimes shown in the shapefiles and sometimes not, if everything I suspect is a Highway Connector actually is.

560, City of Calgary:
GIS: W end @ AB2
ProChart: W end @ AB201
GMSV: No route numbers on overhead signage at AB201, for either direction. Signed W from AB791. This.
Comments: The city line appears to run along east-west along Glenmore Trail here, per the ProChart & the Alberta County Municipal District Map, which shows the boundary slightly S of the roadway, putting Glenmore Trail, east of the interchange footprint, in Rocky View County. If I load these shapefiles into QGIS, I see the same thing, yielding a boundary (where it turns N-S) point here.
OTOH, the shapefiles have the L_PLACENAM attribute changing from "Calgary" to "Rocky View County" here. The TO (560) GMSV link above would make a bit more sense in this context.
ToDo: Truncate. With a Highway Connector situation probably in play here, and the absence of signage on AB201, I'm okay with with an end E of AB201. Question is, should it be here or here?

563, City of Calgary:
GIS: E end takes Old Banff Coach Rd into Calgary, curving south to end at Bow Trl.
ProChart: E end @ Calgary limits; no brown line continues inside. Mileage of 6.46 km seems to correspond to Calgary limits <-> the north end of the TCH/AB1 interchange.
GMSV: Nothing at or east of city limits. First I see is this.
Comments: Signage sparse west of there too.
ToDo: Truncate. (GeoBase vs AltaLIS coords. I've gone with AltaLIS in the stuff I've drafted already.)

564, City of Calgary:
GIS: Older versions have the W end @ AB2. Newer versions have more and more (but not yet all) of the roadway W of AB201 reverting to RTNUMBER1 = None. (Work in progress?)
ProChart: City limits, just E of AB201.
GMSV: No route numbers on AB201 or AB2, just "Country Hills Blvd".
Comments: GeoBase NRN shapefiles & AltaLIS municipal boundary shapefiles differ by ~0.000001 on the boundary location.
ToDo: Truncate

613, City of Wetaskiwin:
GIS: W end @ 45 St, just inside Wetaskiwin limits.
ProChart: Looks like Wetaskiwin limits. 11.18 km @ AB822_N appears to back this up. No brown line inside city limits.
GMSV: Signed facing N, S & E @ the AB2A/13 intersection.
Comments: That little bit inside city limits in the shapefiles is odd.
ToDo: Leave as-is

627, City of Edmonton:
GIS: E end @ 184St
ProChart: E end @ Edmonton limits; brown line continues inside.
GMSV: 627 W from city line @ 215St, nothing E of there.
ToDo: Truncate

628, City of Edmonton:
GIS: E end @ AB216
ProChart: E end @ Edmonton limits; no brown line continues inside.
GMSV: Old-style "Secondary" shield just W of city line & 231 St, nothing E of there: No mention from 216 or westbound Whitemud
ToDo: Truncate? (coords)

633StA, City of St. Albert:
GIS: E end @ AB2
ProChart: E end @ city limits.
GMSV: Signed east from AB44. From there...? No shields at AB2, RgeRd260, or corporate limits just west of there.
Comments: GeoBase NRN shapefiles & AltaLIS municipal boundary shapefiles disagree a negligibly tiny amount on the boundary location.
ToDo: Truncate

733, (hamlet of) Wanham:
GIS: N end @ Wanham / Birch Hills County, just N of 2 Ave
ProChart: A bit N of AB49
GMSV: I only found this
Comments: Hamlet, not City? Probably no Highway Connector here...
ToDo: Northernmost bits look unsigned; truncate

772, City of Calgary:
GIS: Older versions have the E end @ AB2. Newer versions, similar to 564 above, have a discontinuity between Sage Hill Dr & 144 Ave.
ProChart: Calgary limits
GMSV: Nothing at, or SE of, AB201. Old-style "Secondary" shield a bit N of 144Ave.
Comments: OK, so that's an old sign. If it were being signed today, with modern signs & practices, would it still be signed there?...
ToDo: Truncate

814, City of Wetaskiwin:
GIS: S end @ Wetaskiwin limits
ProChart: Wetaskiwin limits
GMSV: signed from AB13
ToDo: Leave as-is

833, City of Camrose:
GIS: S end @ Camrose limits
ProChart: Camrose limits
GMSV: signed from AB13, and left turn onto 48A Ave.
ToDo: Leave as-is

869, Town of Sedgewick:
GIS: N end @ Township Rd 442, just outside Wetaskiwin limits.
ProChart: N of AB13
GMSV: unsigned N of AB13
Comments: Sedgewick, like Sylvan Lake, is a Town not a City. Nonetheless... highway connector?
ToDo: Leave as-is


What I'm thinking of doing...
1. For routes where signage indicates a longer route than shown in shapefiles, go with signage.
  613, 814, and 833 stay as they are now, with their full extents in the HB.
2. For routes where shapefiles show a longer route than what's signed, go with signage if there's a clear endpoint.
  733 ends at AB49 (truncate); 869 ends at AB13 (as-is).
3. In cases where, approaching a municipal boundary, signage does not indicate a clear endpoint, go with the municipal boundary.
  560: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange (see above).
  564: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange.
  627: Truncate E end to Edmonton line @ 215St.
  633StA: Truncate E end to St. Albert line, about 1 km W of the current RayGibDr point.
  772: Truncate S end to Calgary line, slightly south of the current TR261A point. This case is a perhaps a bit more iffy than the others, what with the old-style "Secondary" shield still with city limits. It doesn't do anything to help me more precisely pin down an endpoint. If I write it off as an old remnant shield, that might not even get installed under modern signing practices, I can just be consistent about my "rules" here and how I'm implementing them.

What does everyone think of this proposal?
@julmac, any insight here?

[oscar]

Just a few thoughts, the second of which might be unhelpful:

-- 869 in the town of Sedgwick, I'm not sure Town vs. City makes a difference, or whether they're just different names for otherwise similar urban municipalities. A town can graduate to a city if its population grows enough, but I'm not sure anything but the name changes.

-- This issue is similar to the agonies I'm going through figuring out California's relinquishments of state highway segments to local jurisdictions. But the "Highway Connector" concept seems to help here, if the province is indicating which locally-maintained routes should be treated as if they were part of the provincial system for continuity, and which others it doesn't care about continuity. Of course, California usually requires signage for route continuity, but the local governments often ignore that law. Whether the absence of signage makes it hard for travelers to stay on a route from one side of a city to the other, can tip the scale for me on whether or not to ignore a relinquishment.

[yakra]

Town vs. City may not make much of a difference. I noted that mostly as a follow-up to julmac's post Re: canab: Alberta Provincial Highways 1-216:

1. Re. AB11ASyl (now AB11ARed): I looked into it further and the portion out to the west town boundary is indeed included as a "provincial highway connector" (which is probably why it shows up in the GeoBase shapefile). This is strange given that Sylvan Lake is a Town not a City. Even so, the "connector" status is almost certainly meaningless now since AB11A west of Sylvan Lake was de-designated (given to Red Deer County) about 15 years ago. Keep the HB as is.

At least in this one case, it's possible for a Highway Connector to exist in a town.

A potential Highway Connector shouldn't affect the final outcome of AB869 in the HB.
869, along with 733, was included in my #2, "clear-enough-signage" category above.

[yakra]

Implied multiplexes

There was some discussion on Thresholds for Implied Multiplexes about a year ago.
The gist of it was that implied multiplexes are best figured out on a case-by-case, "what feels right in this situation?", basis.
One general point of agreement = that if connecting the two segments requires running concurrent with multiple distinct routes, it makes sense to split based on that.


AB881Har & AB881 pass the "connected by only a single route" test, thanks to AB55.
But the gap is much longer than any other implied multiplex in Alberta.

I think that the lengths of a gap depends on the entire length of the route and the relation to the lengths of the gap:
1mi - 10mi gap - 1mi,
10mi - 10mi gap - 10mi,
10mi - 10mi gap - 1mi or
100mi - 10mi gap - 100mi
are totally different and should be handled differently. I have no clear rule of thumb in my mind though.

FWIW, AB881 clocks in at 135 mi - 44 mi gap - 165 mi.

With the usatn routes I've drafted so far, I've chosen to split a few:

TN1, which has 2 segments of 1 and 3 miles. It follows US70 in between segments, but those segments are separated by about 300 miles.
TN7, which has 2 segments of 2 and 29 miles. It follows US31 in between segments, but those segments are separated by about 50 miles.

Note how in both cases, the gap is longer than the route segments at either end.

Others with unsigned parts have been kept as single files:
...
TN43 (unsigned on US45E)

Of those mapcat kept as single files, probably the best comparison to AB881 WRT the gap's length relative to the signed portion of the route:
6.71 mi - 6.26 mi gap - 1.16 mi.

We get a feel for how the local authority signs their highways, and work that into the decisions we make. Ultimately we should be working towards something that makes it easy for users to plan, execute, and document their travels.

Most implied multiplexes in AB are far shorter. Often (but not always?), they have TO trailblazers.
This gap is of much more significant length, and has no TO trailblazers at the northern segment's south end (No GMSV at the southern segment's north end). ATM, I'm leaning toward leaving the two segments separated. Thoughts?


AB501 is an unusual case, a bit of a conflict between the "leave out unsigned routes" rule and the usual implied multiplex guidelines.
What would otherwise be the implied route to connect AB501Car and AB501 is parallel to another unsigned segment which was considered and rejected as AB2 Truck (Cardston).
It seems a bit wrong-headed to run AB501 along AB AB2 AB501_W AB501_E (Should these be labeled AB501_S & AB501_N if there's no multiplex? Or maybe AB501 & AB501Car? Oh bother...) in this case. Heck, someone arriving at AB AB501Car AB2 would actually have to turn the other way on AB2 to reach the next (the unsigned one) segment.
Heh -- if the ultimate test is "what feels right in this situation?", then this is what feels right in this situation.

[julmac]

What I'm thinking of doing...
What does everyone think of this proposal?
@julmac, any insight here?

1. For routes where signage indicates a longer route than shown in shapefiles, go with signage.
  613, 814, and 833 stay as they are now, with their full extents in the HB.

OK, that's consistent with the treatment in the AB 1-216 system.

2. For routes where shapefiles show a longer route than what's signed, go with signage if there's a clear endpoint.
  733 ends at AB49 (truncate); 869 ends at AB13 (as-is).

OK. 733 and 869 are provincial highways proper (not connectors), but this treatment is consistent with other unsigned segments such as unsigned AB 3A at Barnwell.

3. In cases where, approaching a municipal boundary, signage does not indicate a clear endpoint, go with the municipal boundary.
  560: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange (see above).
  564: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange.
  627: Truncate E end to Edmonton line @ 215St.
  633StA: Truncate E end to St. Albert line, about 1 km W of the current RayGibDr point.
  772: Truncate S end to Calgary line, slightly south of the current TR261A point. This case is a perhaps a bit more iffy than the others, what with the old-style "Secondary" shield still with city limits. It doesn't do anything to help me more precisely pin down an endpoint. If I write it off as an old remnant shield, that might not even get installed under modern signing practices, I can just be consistent about my "rules" here and how I'm implementing them.

AB 560 and 564 both extend to AB 201. They are unsigned form AB 201 for no good reason. I suggest they be truncated to AB 201 instead of the city boundary. (Side technicality: AB 560 is designated as such to AB 201; however, AB 564 appears to only be designated to the city boundary. Moot point since the Transportation Utility Corridor [the ownership boundary for AB 201] extends east to the city boundary).

Agree with truncating AB 267 and AB 633Sta to the city boundaries.
Truncate AB 772 to city boundary. I might suggest a point further south except that AB 772 is planned to be re-routed to Shaganappi Trail in the future. The remnant signage is left-over from before the city boundary extended so far north.

[julmac]

AB501 is an unusual case, a bit of a conflict between the "leave out unsigned routes" rule and the usual implied multiplex guidelines.
What would otherwise be the implied route to connect AB501Car and AB501 is parallel to another unsigned segment which was considered and rejected as AB2 Truck (Cardston).
It seems a bit wrong-headed to run AB501 along AB AB2 AB501_W AB501_E (Should these be labeled AB501_S & AB501_N if there's no multiplex? Or maybe AB501 & AB501Car? Oh bother...) in this case. Heck, someone arriving at AB AB501Car AB2 would actually have to turn the other way on AB2 to reach the next (the unsigned one) segment.
Heh -- if the ultimate test is "what feels right in this situation?", then this is what feels right in this situation.

Agree with how you have it in the HB. The "truck bypass" portion of AB 501 is basically an unsigned segment of AB 501. Leaving it out would be consistent with the treatment of other unsigned segments in both AB systems.

[yakra]

Oy, this is starting to remind me of the headache of sorting out what to include for the usanyp system...

AB 560 and 564 both extend to AB 201. ... AB 564 appears to only be designated to the city boundary.

On the surface, this looks contradictory, unless there's some nuance I'm missing.
Do 560 & 564 extend to 201 as provincial highways proper? Or, as just connectors?
By "designated", do you mean designated as a provincial highway proper, or as AB5**, including whatever connector(s) may be involved? (I assume the former?)
If connectors exist for 560 and/or 564, where are they; what are their endpoints? This could provide a little clarity...

AB 560 and 564 both extend to AB 201. They are unsigned form AB 201 for no good reason. I suggest they be truncated to AB 201 instead of the city boundary. (Side technicality: AB 560 is designated as such to AB 201; however, AB 564 appears to only be designated to the city boundary. Moot point since the Transportation Utility Corridor [the ownership boundary for AB 201] extends east to the city boundary).

Right now, I'm working under the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that the portions of 560 & 564 within city limits are highway connectors. If this assumption turns out to be incorrect, I can re-evaluate my approach.

I want to take as consistent an approach as I can in cases of highway connectors that are unsigned. I don't like the idea of including some-but-not-all of an unsigned connector; I want to head off any arguments/questions about "You included this, why not this?" (In this context, one could make the case for AB201 being a bit of an arbitrary cutoff...) Thus in choosing between "all" and "nothing", I choose "nothing", out of not wanting to include unsigned route segments. It's consistent with what's been done on the site so far.

627, 633StA, & 772 also fall into the same #3, unsigned within city limits, go with the municipal boundary, category. Creating an exception for 560 & 564 opens up the door to a rethink of how these three are done.

Truncate AB 772 to city boundary. I might suggest a point further south except that AB 772 is planned to be re-routed to Shaganappi Trail in the future.

Eyeballing this out, it looks like such a reroute would peel away from the existing road a wee bit south of the boundary.
Under an "Endpoint at the city line" scenario, it'd mean no changes necessary to this file if/when that happens. (Unless the extension magically becomes signed.) I like this.
Under a "somewhere south of there" scenario, it'd mean a relocation in the HB at an end of an active route, which is yecchier than a straightforward extension, especially one that won't even take effect.

New business:
I just noticed AB628 also falls into this category.
I've had AB563 on my radar a while as deserving another look. Checking out the map again, it does enter Calgary limits. ISTR signage being subpar on the western bits, and non-existent in the east. I'll give GMSV another look. Most likely, this one gets truncated.
I'll add entries for these routes to Reply #15, above.

[julmac]

Do 560 & 564 extend to 201 as provincial highways proper? Or, as just connectors?
By "designated", do you mean designated as a provincial highway proper, or as AB5**, including whatever connector(s) may be involved? (I assume the former?)
If connectors exist for 560 and/or 564, where are they; what are their endpoints? This could provide a little clarity...

Designated means provincial highway proper. The province has "direction, control, and management" of a designated highway. AB 560 is designated to the west side of the AB 201. AB 564 is designated only to the City boundary, but the province still has "direction, control, and management" of Country Hills Boulevard to the west side of the interchange (exactly the same as for AB 560) by virtue of it being within the right-of-way boundary for AB 201, meaning that for all practical purposes AB 564 extends to AB 201. It's an inconsistent treatment for sure (not exactly sure the historical reason for the difference), but for the province to extend the designation of AB 564 the extra 500 m at this point would only be a paper exercise.

I want to take as consistent an approach as I can in cases of highway connectors that are unsigned. I don't like the idea of including some-but-not-all of an unsigned connector; I want to head off any arguments/questions about "You included this, why not this?" (In this context, one could make the case for AB201 being a bit of an arbitrary cutoff...) Thus in choosing between "all" and "nothing", I choose "nothing", out of not wanting to include unsigned route segments. It's consistent with what's been done on the site so far.

627, 633StA, & 772 also fall into the same #3, unsigned within city limits, go with the municipal boundary, category. Creating an exception for 560 & 564 opens up the door to a rethink of how these three are done.

While it would technically be an exception to your rule to include the extra 500 m of undesignated AB 564, I think that's the most practical approach for the benefit of travel mapping. The other examples (AB 627/633Sta/772) are much longer undesignated segments.

New business:
I just noticed AB628 also falls into this category.
I've had AB563 on my radar a while as deserving another look. Checking out the map again, it does enter Calgary limits. ISTR signage being subpar on the western bits, and non-existent in the east. I'll give GMSV another look. Most likely, this one gets truncated.
I'll add entries for these routes to Reply #15, above.

Yes, truncate these to the City boundaries. Two others that deserve some consideration are AB 542 and 873 through Brooks. They were both de-designated and turned over to the town a few years ago. Signing is inconsistent.

[julmac]

My notes on the 500s (critical in bold)

AB501
-change WP6 TR11 --> "RR231"

AB501Car
-add WP @ 7 St (Cardston)

AB505
-change WP12 RR241 -->"TR50A"

AB506
-change WP9 AB5 --> "AB4"

AB507
-change WP6 TR62_W --> "RR20A"
-add SPs through Pincher Creek (and on AB6)

AB512
-remove WP0 "AB3"
-in conjunction with above, WP4 AB3_E --> "AB3"

AB527
-change WP3 AB 527 --> "AB2"

AB533
-change WP7 TR163 --> "RR292"

AB546
-add more SPs or WPs near Turner Valley

AB552
-WP @ AB 797 is missing

AB552Dew
-uppercase "W" is showing up in .list name

AB560
-add WP @ Rainbow Road

AB561
-add WP @ Hussar

AB575
-add WP @ 12 St (Drumheller)

AB579
-add WP @ Dagnall Park

AB582
-add WPs @ 20 Ave, 20 St (Carstairs)

[yakra]

I've put in a pull request to promote canabs to preview status.

Included: eight truncations as noted upthread.
WRT AB560 & AB564, I'm still a bit on the fence about those, and considering truncating them back to the city line.
For now though, why not get rid of the bits that julmac and I both agree should get zapped.

Two others that deserve some consideration are AB 542 and 873 through Brooks. They were both de-designated and turned over to the town a few years ago. Signing is inconsistent.

These are still on the ToDo list.

All of the critical changes julmac listed here have been implemented, with one caveat:

AB552
-WP @ AB 797 is missing

I don't really consider it critical, with AB797 itself unsigned here, but why not. Added as 244St.

-- Non-critical items --

AB552Dew
-uppercase "W" is showing up in .list name

This is intentional; "De Winton", two words, both capitalized.
On that note, some fixes are included in the pull request:
AB608ami -> AB608Ami
AB628she -> AB628She
AB633sta -> AB633StA
AB661fta -> AB661FtA
AB663bea -> AB663Bea
AB663lak -> AB663Lak
AB697pad -> AB697Pad
Wow. I pooched it on a lot of those... 

AB533
-change WP7 TR163 --> "RR292"

Shapefiles list "Williams Coulee Road", instead of Twp Rd 163. Rge Rd 292 is signed in the field, OTOH. Changed.

AB507
-change WP6 TR62_W --> "RR20A"

Looks like Rge Rd 20A to me. Changed. TR62_E -> TR62 too.

AB501
-change WP6 TR11 --> "RR231"
AB505
-change WP12 RR241 -->"TR50A"

For these, I don't see any signage in GMSV. Sticking with the names listed in the shapefiles, which usually match what I can see in GMSV when there's disagreement with other sources.

AB579
-add WP @ Dagnall Park

Between RR60A & RR53? Maybe, if's a major destination in and of itself. I'm most interested in points that could break up the long visible distance to the west.

AB501Car
-add WP @ 7 St (Cardston)
AB507
-add SPs through Pincher Creek (and on AB6)
AB546
-add more SPs or WPs near Turner Valley
AB561
-add WP @ Hussar
AB575
-add WP @ 12 St (Drumheller)

I think my philosopy WRT points in smaller communities & keeping routes within lateral tolerance is probably pretty similar to Oscar's.

AB582
-add WPs @ 20 Ave, 20 St (Carstairs)

Assuming you mean Didsbury. The way in which the route bypasses this medium-sized community, making a bit of a de facto business route, I can almost see this. I'll leave it in "unless someone specifically needs another for their list files" territory.

AB560
-add WP @ Rainbow Road

This is more justified, IMO. A more subarban, short-distance route overall here. Chestermere's a fairly large community. I could see a point here serving the AB791 or Langdon corridors. Appears to change to Rge Rd 283 south of Twp Rd 240; is signed as such @ AB560.

[yakra]

Two others that deserve some consideration are AB 542 and 873 through Brooks. They were both de-designated and turned over to the town a few years ago.

So, these are no longer provincial highways proper. Out of curiosity, are there highway connectors here?

Signing is inconsistent.

I saw nothing eastbound on AB542 approaching AB873_S. Everything else in-town was still marked. GMSV here is from 2015; signage may have changed since.
542: Signage at TCH 1 / Cassils Rd interchange was changed after May 2012 to remove references to AB542. Similar 2012-era signage on the ramps themselves may also be gone; there's no newer imagery to compare.
Where should the new east end be? City limits?
AB542 on TCH 1 would be relabeled CasRd.
873: Even if this sign is still around, signage from TCH 1 itself has changed, listing AB 873 NORTH specifically. That's worth something.
Where would the south end of the northern segment be? The TCH 1 interchange, or Brooks limits?
The southern segment: North end at Brooks limits, I presume?

[yakra]

Datacheck

ab.ab501;RR193;RR175;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.34	RR175 -> RR183; two new shapers
ab.ab501;RR51;AB41;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.09	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab501;AB41;AB/SK;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.61	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab504;RR160;AB877;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.33	RR160 -> RR155
ab.ab509;AB511;AB3;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;28.57	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab511;RR253;AB509;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.54	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab579;AB40;TR294B;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.05	RR64A added; one new shaper
ab.ab621;RR92;AB22;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.30	RR85 added
ab.ab663lak;RR123;TR684;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.35	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab686;IndDr;PeeLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;38.98	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab686;PeeLake;TroLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.29	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab695;RR224;End;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.14	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab697pad;AB35;TomLanFry;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.96	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;TR312;JamWil;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;19.03	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;AB584;AB591;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.51	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;PepLakeRd;RamFalPP;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.17	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;HumRd;NorRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.60	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;NorRd;NorIndDr_S;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.58	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;ChuRd;BlaRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.29	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab734;BlaTowRd;GraFlaRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.04	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab750;OldAB750_Ati;AB88;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;16.30	+X365680 -> UtiLake155A
ab.ab754;AB88;YelRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;50.71	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab813;TR700;WardCheDr;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.86	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab813;TR734;WolfTrl;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;36.16	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab813;SerRd;TR800A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.46	no intermediate named roads; TR800A -> TR801A
ab.ab881;AlpKRd;TR743A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;36.81	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab881;TR743A;Con;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.64	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab881;NorDr;Cha;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;20.03	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab881;NokRd;EngLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;25.21	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab881;EngLake;SinDr;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.84	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab947;AthRiv;AB43;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.71	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab986;RR193;TR871A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;24.04	no intermediate named roads
ab.ab986;RR130A;AB88;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;23.93	+X32 -> LoonLake

[oscar]

Now that canabs is in preview, and I have a few new entries for that system to add to my list file, some point requests:

AB 735: please add point for TR830. That's a county line road, and I turned around just north of there after a side trip to clinch Clear Hills County.

AB 827: please add point for 8Ave in Thorhild. That's a turnoff for the Thorhild County administrative offices, a "county seat" where I went inside the building (a little more effort than usual for my county-snagging efforts, but the building was open and I really needed to take a pee). That's only about 1 km north of the existing AB18 point, and I have the highway between AB28 and AB18 in my list file, so no biggie.

Otherwise, I don't have much to add from canabs. The main ones are three connectors between AB 41 and Saskatchewan primary routes, and also AB 881 between Lac La Biche and Fort McMurray.

[yakra]

AB 735: please add point for TR830. That's a county line road, and I turned around just north of there after a side trip to clinch Clear Hills County.

Why not. This allow travelers to clinch something other than all or nothing, and does so with as close to a 50/50 mileage split as can be done.
Added. Along for the ride, AB734: ForTruRd -> Big/Cle

AB 827: please add point for 8Ave in Thorhild. That's a turnoff for the Thorhild County administrative offices, a "county seat" where I went inside the building (a little more effort than usual for my county-snagging efforts, but the building was open and I really needed to take a pee). That's only about 1 km north of the existing AB18 point, and I have the highway between AB28 and AB18 in my list file, so no biggie.

I'm more meh about this one, being so close to the existing AB18 point.

Otherwise, I don't have much to add from canabs. The main ones are three connectors between AB 41 and Saskatchewan primary routes, and also AB 881 between Lac La Biche and Fort McMurray.

Grin -- I was actually checking out your mapview a couple hours before I first read your post.

AB 560 is designated to the west side of the AB 201. AB 564 is designated only to the City boundary, but the province still has "direction, control, and management" of Country Hills Boulevard to the west side of the interchange (exactly the same as for AB 560) by virtue of it being within the right-of-way boundary for AB 201, meaning that for all practical purposes AB 564 extends to AB 201. It's an inconsistent treatment for sure (not exactly sure the historical reason for the difference), but for the province to extend the designation of AB 564 the extra 500 m at this point would only be a paper exercise.

While it would technically be an exception to your rule to include the extra 500 m of undesignated AB 564, I think that's the most practical approach for the benefit of travel mapping. The other examples (AB 627/633Sta/772) are much longer undesignated segments.

I'm starting to come around to this line of thinking.
The shapefiles indicate a west end for AB630 about here, a point wholly within Sherwood Park. It doesn't correspond to a municipal boundary -- though, a historical one, possibly? The boundary does turn from E-W to N-S just south of there, pretty much at what looks like the southern edge of the ROW.
Seeing this, it kinda made me say "Hell with it; how far down this rabbit hole do I wanna go?"
I can see a bit of a One Point Per Interchange argument to be made here (though to be clear, no one's suggesting more than one point) in terms of granularity of point placement. Having connections at the interchanges makes graphs more useful for Jim's students, and enables the "Intersecting/Concurrent Routes" feature...

As far as splitting AB873 due to its turnback in Brooks, here's what I'm working with:
AB873:

Code: [Select]

RR162 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.368284&lon=-112.112304
AB36 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.366357&lon=-112.019038
RR151 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.362627&lon=-111.951970
RR150 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.367462&lon=-111.929125
AB535 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.398241&lon=-111.888086
ParkRd103 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.444669&lon=-111.883302
BroLim http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.542932&lon=-111.883377
AB873 (Duchess):

Code: [Select]

BroLim http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.586577&lon=-111.897143
AB1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.590539&lon=-111.897254
AB544 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.688437&lon=-111.897418
AB550 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.730624&lon=-111.897373For this segment, we may want to take out the BroLim point and just have the end at AB1. I'm including BroLim here for reference purposes.

[yakra]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1955

542: ... Where should the new east end be? City limits? ...
873: ... The southern segment: North end at Brooks limits, I presume?

Moving ahead under the assumption that both of these are the case.

873: Even if this sign is still around, signage from TCH 1 itself has changed, listing AB 873 NORTH specifically. That's worth something.
Where would the south end of the northern segment be? The TCH 1 interchange, or Brooks limits?

AB873 (Duchess):

Code: [Select]

BroLim http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.586577&lon=-111.897143
AB1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.590539&lon=-111.897254
AB544 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.688437&lon=-111.897418
AB550 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.730624&lon=-111.897373For this segment, we may want to take out the BroLim point and just have the end at AB1. I'm including BroLim here for reference purposes.

BroLim corresponds to 15 Ave, which corresponds to the edge of the TCH footprint, because 15 Ave becomes the TCH 1 East onramp.
This is as good a place as any to invoke One Point Per Interchange, and thus match signage from TCH 1.
BroLim is out; AB1 is the northern segment's endpoint.

This makes canabs officially ready for peer review.