UT: changes and errors

[neroute2]

This produces a weird concurrency of UT 190 with itself but the route is officially defined by the state as such.

I don't have a big objection to the route being plotted this way, but do want to be positive it's the right way to do it.

To clarify: Is the the route officially defined as being concurrent with itself?

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title72/Chapter4/72-4-S124.html is ambiguous. https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=7224232019937654 calls the part east of the loop "East Leg".

[the_spui_ninja]

This produces a weird concurrency of UT 190 with itself but the route is officially defined by the state as such.

I don't have a big objection to the route being plotted this way, but do want to be positive it's the right way to do it.

To clarify: Is the the route officially defined as being concurrent with itself?

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title72/Chapter4/72-4-S124.html is ambiguous. https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=7224232019937654 calls the part east of the loop "East Leg".

UT 190 is listed as concurrent with itself according to https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/. That might just be how they inventory the route, however.

Would it work to split this into a mainline UT 190 and a UT 190 (Guardsman Pass) (or something like that)?

Also, it looks like UT 210 does something similar (goes to the mainline end of the route and doubles back to go around the Alta bypass), but I can't see any signage on the bypass in GMSV.

[neroute2]

UT 190 is listed as concurrent with itself according to https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/. That might just be how they inventory the route, however.

Where are you seeing this? I see agreement with the highway reference: the loop goes to mile 16.844, then the east leg begins at 16.845.

[the_spui_ninja]

UT 190 is listed as concurrent with itself according to https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/. That might just be how they inventory the route, however.

Where are you seeing this? I see agreement with the highway reference: the loop goes to mile 16.844, then the east leg begins at 16.845.

Oh there is a gap; I misinterpreted it.

That makes splitting the file into two routes make even more sense.

[Duke87]

To clarify: Is the the route officially defined as being concurrent with itself?

UT 190 is officially defined as going down to Brighton, around the loop road to where it intersects itself, and then jumping from there to the other place it intersects itself. At least, this is how the mileposts work - the "concurrent with itself" mileage is only counted once. (see UDOT HRO)

I toyed with the idea of creating a separate route for UT 190 (Guardsman Pass), but rejected it for three reasons:

1) The most important reason - what UT 190's mileposts do is consistent with how concurrencies in Utah are typically handled - the mileage is only counted for one route, the other has its mileposts pick up at the far end of the concurrency at the same number where they left off at the beginning of it. So UT 190 doing this at its (apparent? implied?) concurrency with itself cannot be taken as indication there is no concurrency without it logically following that most if not all other concurrencies throughout Utah need to be broken based on the same reasoning. Which brings this into reductio ad absurdum territory

2) There is not, as far as I can tell, any signage for UT 190 on the "eastern leg" up to Guardsman Pass. So if it were decided that this should be a separate route, standing policy about excluding unsigned routes would dictate it should not be in the HB.

3) It is a more complicated solution, and there is no clear case for justifying the complication - but at least one good case against it (reason 1) and one can of worms the complication would open (reason 2)

Shaping points look to have gotten a bit heavy in the last UT190 update. I trimmed it down in wptedit, getting good results with just +X780988 +X118247 +X208330 +X590188 +X572671 +X633937 +X400069 +X455519

This ties into what I was getting at in the US 219 thread - with the resource constraint issue from the CHM days no longer present, there is no longer any functional necessity to try to minimize the number of shaping points. I prefer to have the extra points for the sake of increased anatomical correctness of the route trace... unless there is some other reason not to do this which I am not considering.

[yakra]

Well, even an O(n) complexity algorithm increases in time (and RAM consumption) as n increases...

But anyway. I'll remain agnostic on whether U190 should be split in 2 files. Reason #1 makes sense. Splitting it would mean mucking about with people's list files.

At lhe very least though, per the links above, it looks like the east end should be cut back a tiny bit, from GuaPas to
Sal/Was http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.607930&lon=-111.556316

[neroute2]

At lhe very least though, per the links above, it looks like the east end should be cut back a tiny bit, from GuaPas to
Sal/Was http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.607930&lon=-111.556316

Per topos, OSM has an imprecise county line. Guardsman Pass is at the line.

[the_spui_ninja]

To clarify: Is the the route officially defined as being concurrent with itself?

UT 190 is officially defined as going down to Brighton, around the loop road to where it intersects itself, and then jumping from there to the other place it intersects itself. At least, this is how the mileposts work - the "concurrent with itself" mileage is only counted once. (see UDOT HRO)

I toyed with the idea of creating a separate route for UT 190 (Guardsman Pass), but rejected it for three reasons:

1) The most important reason - what UT 190's mileposts do is consistent with how concurrencies in Utah are typically handled - the mileage is only counted for one route, the other has its mileposts pick up at the far end of the concurrency at the same number where they left off at the beginning of it. So UT 190 doing this at its (apparent? implied?) concurrency with itself cannot be taken as indication there is no concurrency without it logically following that most if not all other concurrencies throughout Utah need to be broken based on the same reasoning. Which brings this into reductio ad absurdum territory

2) There is not, as far as I can tell, any signage for UT 190 on the "eastern leg" up to Guardsman Pass. So if it were decided that this should be a separate route, standing policy about excluding unsigned routes would dictate it should not be in the HB.

3) It is a more complicated solution, and there is no clear case for justifying the complication - but at least one good case against it (reason 1) and one can of worms the complication would open (reason 2)

Shaping points look to have gotten a bit heavy in the last UT190 update. I trimmed it down in wptedit, getting good results with just +X780988 +X118247 +X208330 +X590188 +X572671 +X633937 +X400069 +X455519

This ties into what I was getting at in the US 219 thread - with the resource constraint issue from the CHM days no longer present, there is no longer any functional necessity to try to minimize the number of shaping points. I prefer to have the extra points for the sake of increased anatomical correctness of the route trace... unless there is some other reason not to do this which I am not considering.

Okay, makes sense.

Should this be done for UT 210 as well, which has a similar situation near Alta (route going two ways, one not signed very well)?

[yakra]

I'm satisfied with Duke87's explanation, and think it's appropriate to leave UT190 as-is.

K, now that I've got people's attention :
Routes concurrent with themselves

Some changes I'm proposing to the concurrency detection code would change how these routes' self-concurrent segments are counted toward user stats.
Right now, a traveler must manually .list both segments to get credit for both.
Under my proposal, if a traveler claims only one, they'll receive credit for the other.

ut.ut190:

• 4 travelers have UT UT190 I-215 BriRes in their .lists, BriRes being the old label for UT190_C:
      bobcobb, crosboro7, osu97gp, the_spui_ninja
      As things are now, these four travelers have the concurrent segment counted toward their mileage only once.
• 2 travelers have clinched UT UT190: Based8 & roadguy2.
• norheim hasn't travelled the extension to Guardsman Pass, but has UT UT190 I-215 UT190_D .listed, and thus has the concurrent segment counted twice for mileage.

Is there any reason that if a traveler claims UT UT190 UT190_A UT190_B, they should not be credited for UT UT190 UT190_C UT190_D, or vice versa?

[the_spui_ninja]

I don't see a problem with it; that fixes it so they don't have to go in and manually edit the file (like I did).

[neroute2]

I'm satisfied with Duke87's explanation, and think it's appropriate to leave UT190 as-is.

K, now that I've got people's attention :
Routes concurrent with themselves

The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.

[yakra]

Topic moved. Try it now.

[US 89]

Should this be done for UT 210 as well, which has a similar situation near Alta (route going two ways, one not signed very well)?

I didn't even realize Bypass Road was included in SR-210, and I can state from driving it that there is no 210 signage anywhere on it -- though there may be a posted mile marker 13. The reason it's state-maintained is that the mainline between the two Bypass Road intersections closes frequently in the winter for avalanche control, with through traffic directed onto the bypass. You can see the snow gates here and here.

Officially, 210 is discontinuous, just like 190; the only difference is that there's no loop on 210 like 190 has. The referenced mileage for 210 counts up the main canyon road to the upper parking lot at MP 12.524, where the route "temporarily ends". It restarts at 12.525 at the eastern Bypass Road junction and increases to the west, ending at the western junction at 13.618.

[Duke87]

With no loop for the route to double back using, I can't see any interpretation of UT 210 being concurrent with itself. So, the practical options here are just leave it as is, or add a separate route for the bypass road.

Reapplying the same logic that was used with UT 190, but with a self-concurrency ruled out as an option, "just leave it as is" would win on the grounds of lack of signage.

[the_spui_ninja]

That makes sense, I just thought I should bring it up since it was around the same area at UT 190.