canmbp: Manitoba Provincial Roads

[yakra]

I wanna say those are just old shield styles, and can be disregarded.
I suggest using the one in http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/map/pdf/traffic_signs.pdf as the current, canonical version

When the time comes I can use Inkscape to extract the shield image objects from the PDF, and save as an SVG.
It should be more straightforward than canmb, with no awkwardly-sized or centered characters.

[oscar]

My next pull request for cansk will add the remaining SK primary routes that connect to MB Provincial Roads. My endpoints for those SK routes are tentative. When you've drafted the corresponding MB routes, I'll resynch the SK endpoints to your MB endpoints.

I'm nowhere near finished with drafting the cansk route files.

[yakra]

My endpoints for those SK routes are tentative. When you've drafted the corresponding MB routes, I'll resynch the SK endpoints to your MB endpoints.

255 257 275 283 345 363 394 478 545 547 549 571
283: +X545324

[oscar]

Some of the routes you listed end at SK secondary routes, or SK unnumbered roads. Here are most or all of the ones connecting to SK primary routes (1-399), from south to north:

PR 345 -> SK 361
PR 257 -> SK 48
PR 571 -> SK 308
PR 478 -> SK 22
PR 547 -> SK 381
PR 363 -> SK 5
PR 283 -> SK 9

PR 394 connects to a short and super-isolated 900-series SK secondary route. It'll be a long time, if ever, before I do anything with the 9xx northern secondary routes.

PR 291 appears to cut through a corner of SK, on the south side of Flin Flon. I saw no route number signage on the SK side, when I drove almost all of the route in 2012 (missed about a block or two on the MB side due to construction). I wasn't planning to draft a route file for that segment, but am curious whether the shapefiles include it in PR 291.

[yakra]

PR 291 appears to cut through a corner of SK, on the south side of Flin Flon. I saw no route number signage on the SK side, when I drove almost all of the route in 2012 (missed about a block or two on the MB side due to construction). I wasn't planning to draft a route file for that segment, but am curious whether the shapefiles include it in PR 291.

It's included as PR 291. Oddly enough, in the MB, rather than SK, dataset. None of the ends of the individual arc records appear to correspond to the provincial boundary.
Note how the Google and OSM boundaries differ pretty significantly, with OSM running directly north-south, and Google following a more diagonal path down toward Channing Drive.
Boundary shapefiles downloaded here correspond to the boundaries shown in Google; The boundaries in the GeoBase NRN files (near Channing Drive, or PR 394) more closely correspond to OSM. The difference is pretty significant up by PR 394 too. This could get annoying...
Topo maps on MyTopo also correspond to OSM near PR 394. Imagery isn't available everywhere; no luck near Flin Flon.

[yakra]

SK/MB http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.386964&lon=-101.392608
SK/MB http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.842456&lon=-101.417625
SK/MB http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.328895&lon=-101.477067
SK/MB http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.638862&lon=-101.508849
SK/MB http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.080863&lon=-101.539078
SK/MB http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.404949&lon=-101.570628
SK/MB http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.746463&lon=-101.771246

[yakra]

A couple things to get sorted before the first batch of devel routes hits the HB...
Ping oscar, rickmastfan67, anyone else who might have an opinion here...


System Code:
http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?p=11626#11626

Canadian systems in more detail:
...
canmbs - MB secondary prov. hwys. 200-999; prefix MB

I'm leaning away from using Tim's old proposed canmbs system code, and toward calling it canmbp instead.

The usual convention for secondary systems in the US & Canada is CountryCode+RegionCode+a letter denoting the name of the system.
cannbc (Collector) | cannbl (Local) | cannst (Trunk) | cannsc (Collector) | usatxl (Loop) | usatxs (Spur) | canmbw (Winnipeg) | cannss (Scenic)
For usamts, the system name is "Montana Secondary State Highways", so that's legit.
For usanes, what I had in mind was for the 's' to do double duty and signify both "Secondary" and "Spurs".

Non-secondary systems in specific multi-system regions follow this convention as well:
canqca (Autoroute) | cannba (Arterial) | usakyp (Parkway) | usanyp (Parkway)

usaush (Historic) & usausb (Bannered, even if "Bannered" is not in the system name itself makes sense) also fit into this scheme.

The only real outlier(s) = cannsf (Freeways), and possibly canonf (Freeways again; is there another potentially more appropriate name for this system (not proposing this be changed)?), both so named by Tim in 2009 or so, back before much thought had been given to multiple systems in a state/province, and before the system code conventions we're using now had fallen into place.
In modern times, there's just canabs. Here, "Secondary Highways" is more of a historic designation, with the nomenclature carrying on informally/colloquially. Seemed as good as any system code, with "Alberta Provincial Highways 1-216" and "Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986" being the system names for AB.

Outside North America, IIUC this same convention largely holds, with most system codes being Country/RegionCode+a letter or 2 denoting the name of the system. (Right?)

I don't anticipate there being any strong objections to calling the Provincial Roads canmbp instead of canmbs.
Thoughts, comments?


Route names & point labels:
Oscar has consistently used a "PR 555" style nomenclature when posting about these routes on this forum. (Although he did say "MB 391" on AARoads once...)
This seems to be the prevailing convention in Manitoba from what I can see, and FWIW OSM/Mapnik also uses "PR 555" style.

Should I keep with the existing MB555 convention, or use PR555 style route names & point labels?

If we do go down that road, relabeling points on active systems, including accounting for in-use labels, can by done via a program, similar to the TNs -> TN relabeling in Tennessee. An easy task.

[si404]

Changing the system name is a good thing - I approve.

I did the same change from MTs123 to SR123 on waypoint names and have done similar changes in Europe. I'd say yes, go for it - as you say it's an easy task!

[oscar]

I see no problem with the system name change, or the label changes, for Manitoba provincial roads. But I have no interest in following suit in Saskatchewan, which has two secondary systems (municipal roads 600-799, provincial roads 900-999). For waypoint labels where they intersect provincial highways (1-399), I've been using SK___ and plan to stick with that.

The online mapping of both secondary route systems is particularly iffy (especially the northern 9xx routes), and diminishes any interest I might have in developing them as new systems.

[yakra]

I see no problem with the ... the label changes, for Manitoba provincial roads.

Are you in favor of the changes, or do you simply not object?

I don't suggest similar relabeling be done in SK. SK is a different beast, and different naming/labeling conventions will be appropriate there -- SK___ may in fact be the best one. You know more about SK than I do.

[julmac]

Out of simplicity, my preference is to refer to all systems in SK and MB as SK*** and MB*** in the waypoints, regardless of the official system name, as there are no overlaps in the numbers.

For what it's worth, I also prefer "Twp Rd" and "Rge Rd" over TR and RR. The "TR274" format has no meaning to me. The "Twp Rd 274" format is also consistent with how it appears on road signs.

[yakra]

Out of simplicity, my preference is to refer to all systems in SK and MB as SK*** and MB*** in the waypoints, regardless of the official system name, as there are no overlaps in the numbers.

One vote to use MB***, one "I see no problem", and one "yes, go for it"... Anyone else?
I don't have any problems with continuing to use MB*** either, hence putting it before the group. FWIW I've been continuing to use this style labeling as I draft more Provincial Roads.

For what it's worth, I also prefer "Twp Rd" and "Rge Rd" over TR and RR. The "TR274" format has no meaning to me. The "Twp Rd 274" format is also consistent with how it appears on road signs.

Unfortunately, the TR/RR conversion is already a done deal in Alberta; these changes were merged on January 22.

[yakra]

Devel/Preview ToDo:
NMPs
datacheck except VISIBLE_DISTANCE
list all +X123456X points; attempt to find names
Did I standardize around cardinal numbers (as I did in AB), ordinal numbers, or use mixed based on local convention? Write program to detect labels.
Check for MB### labels where no route intersects. QuadTree! Brute Force!
VISIBLE_DISTANCE: check draft MB MB304 AnnSt coords
425: intersecting routes vs false-positive graph connection

[yakra]

Look for labels
for these shaping points at intersections.
Try Google, GMSV, MyTopo, toponymic_layer_utm,
nearby section line roads in graph / HDX.

MB234: +X8X +X12X
MB269: +X129800X
MB280: +x25x +x57x
MB282: +X606335X
MB283: +X545324X +X168237X
MB287: +X614052X
MB304: +X553449X
MB307: +X351319X +X780453X
MB312: +X448823X
MB315: +X583008X +X984853X
MB330: +X747794X
MB354: +X234093X +X797883X
MB365: +X866364X
MB367: +X797637X +X988603X +X669686X +X272689X
MB384: +X255250X
MB391: +X563282X (Old MB399? Check shapefiles & historic maps. Satellite: Not bloody likely!)
MB404: +X855912X
MB416: +X848838X
MB424: +X917980X
MB453: +X531602X
MB470: +X826095X
MB481: +X852312X
MB482: +X533239X
MB500: +X756230X
MB503: +X562863X
MB513: +X889904X +X218680X
MB566: +X269783X +X492361X
MB568: +X310665X
MB579: +X928961X +X665299X +X841191X +X478455X +X264049X
MB593: +X683375X
MB594: +X136041X +X391505X +X859414X

[oscar]

SK482's "Municipality of Roblin" segment, SK482Rob, should be relabeled as "Roblin". Roblin Municipality is now an unincorporated community, folded into a larger rural municipality as part of Manitoba's 2015 consolidation of many of its smaller municipalities.