canmbp: Manitoba Provincial Roads

[yakra]

Yes, it looks like that larger rural municipality is the Municipality of Hillsburg – Roblin – Shell River.
Backtracking, how did I arrive at that name? Aah yes -- from the MB_Municipal_Boundaries shapefiles, which IIRC came from Manitoba Land Initiative. In these files, LEGAL_NAME = "Municipality of Roblin" (Not actually the full legal name, it would appear). The shape of the municipality matches the post-amalgamation boundary shown here.
I like to go with the smaller, more speciic/local placenames in Canada, even if they don't match a de jure municipality.
"Shell River" is given as the placename in the NRN shapefiles, so I'm thinking I'll use that, and rename it MB482She, instead.

[oscar]

A point request on MB 215: please consider adding a point at Mile 40 Road East, about 2 miles west of MB 44/302 and 4 miles east of MB 12. I traveled to Mile 40 Rd. from the east, then probably turned around there, back when I was county-snagging in the province (though the line I wanted to cross may later have been erased by the province's municipal consolidations).

[yakra]

The MB_Municipal_Boundaries shapefiles have the boundary a bit west of James St, as depicted in OSM by the dotted purple line.
It makes more sense to me to have a point at a major junction near the business center, where more traffic would be generated.
Does 1st St work for you? (This would at least allow travelers to clinch something other than 0% or 100%.)

[oscar]

The MB_Municipal_Boundaries shapefiles have the boundary a bit west of James St, as depicted in OSM by the dotted purple line.
It makes more sense to me to have a point at a major junction near the business center, where more traffic would be generated.
Does 1st St work for you? (This would at least allow travelers to clinch something other than 0% or 100%.)

Yes.

[yakra]

Does 1st St work for you?

Yes.

This made me ask,

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.

Across all systems in MB, I found 36 ordinal labels, and 5 cardinal:
mb.mb006      513Rd   L_STNAME_C = "513 Road"
mb.mb275      1Ave    First Ave NW
mb.mb280      1St     L_STNAME_C = "1 Street East"; no GMSV
mb.mb344waw   4St     GMSV: no signs at 4thSt itself; other streets in town signed with ordinal numbers
mb.mb513      1St     First St
I'll give these a closer look to make sure they're appropriate.

OK. I'm going to standardize on ordinal numbers in MB for streets and avenues (MB MB6 513Rd stays as is).
These points will be relabeled, and MB MB215 1stSt will be added.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2162

[yakra]

Non-junctions

MB287: MB10 resynced

Incorrect labels; no intersecting route:
mb.mb255: MB252 -> 159W
mb.mb305: MB336 -> 11W
mb.mb364: MB585 -> 93W
Cases on multiplexes will not be detected. Try a graph-based approach. -> Logging all points with fewer than 3 incident edges. The only additional results were false positives at MB6/MB391.

[michih]

I have some questions before starting the peer-review:

I already asked what's the story behind wp labels  like "1N" @ MB200 when reviewing canmb.

In this case, 1N is not visible on GSV, GM, OSM nor https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/map/
What's your source?

1N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.015449&lon=-97.158952


I usually check the position of the wps. Just whether it "looks fine" on OSM (with maximum zoom minus 2 steps). However, when I check "off" wps with "HERE Hybrid Day" tile, the wp position often looks more accurate than the OSM position, e.g.:
MB200/MB311 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.605944&lon=-97.129236

Have you drafted the routes based on GM back then? Should I report this kind of "off" wps so that they look fine on OSM or should I ignore these minor issues? I thought that I might check it with max zoom level minus 3 but the MB200/MB311 wp still would look off.

[yakra]

I already asked what's the story behind wp labels  like "1N" @ MB200 when reviewing canmb.

In this case, 1N is not visible on GSV, GM, OSM nor https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/map/
What's your source?

1N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.015449&lon=-97.158952

These cases, I assume to be implied by their place in the grid.

I usually check the position of the wps. Just whether it "looks fine" on OSM (with maximum zoom minus 2 steps). However, when I check "off" wps with "HERE Hybrid Day" tile, the wp position often looks more accurate than the OSM position, e.g.:
MB200/MB311 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.605944&lon=-97.129236

Have you drafted the routes based on GM back then?

Coords are ripped from shapefiles using gisplunge, where we have single carriageways. With dual carriageways, coords are from either OSM or QGIS.
This example looks OK in Esri WorldImagery FWIW.

Should I report this kind of "off" wps so that they look fine on OSM or should I ignore these minor issues?

It's up to you. It's possible that something could still be significantly off & in need of attention.
I guess, if it's off in both OSM and WorldImagery...

[michih]

Ok,  let's start the peer-review feedback with a general question:
I found SK/MB labels at canmbp routes. In Europe, we always use the country name: USA/CAN. I've checked some MB border labels to USA and also found:
USA/CAN @ US59, MN89, MN310, MN313
ND/Can @ US81, I-29, US83
Don't we have a standard here? Especially Can instead of CAN is quite odd.
Was this discussed before? Any consens?


Comments to routes:

MB201:
59E -> MainSt


MB203:
62E is off
MB12 -> MB12_W

MB205:
FroRd -> FroRd_N (concurrent MB216 too)


MB206:
New wp @ http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.009661&lon=-96.842361


MB207:
Mun32E -> 32E


MB210:
MB52/302 -> MB52 because it's tier 4 and MB302 just tier 5 (I wasn't aware that there are two MB system when I've reviewed the Winnipeg system)
WelRd is off


MB212:
FerRd -> FerRd_N -> FryRd_N ?


MB215:
MB44/302 -> MB44


MB216:
FroRd -> FroRd_M, see MB205
MB311 is off
MB205_E -> MB205_W
MB205_W -> MB205_E


MB222:
MB9/231 -> MB9
122N -> ArnRd or ColRd


MB224:
MB325 is off
3W is off
*1W -> 1W ?
Jac is MB412 on OSM, was the route downgraded (fine) or recently upgraded (to be added)?
FisRiv_N is off
MB325 -> MB17


MB229:
18W off ?
12W is off


MB231:
MB9/222 -> MB9
New wp for Gimli Industrial Park Airport ?


MB233:
MerRd is off
140N is off


MB234:
New wp for Pine Dock Airport ?
MB8 is off
+X10 is off
BeaPt is off
IslFry: Are you sure about the end point? OSM, GM and aerials show another ferry to the west


MB237:
OSM has a different routing. GSV from October 2018 confirms it. The southern route is just on 2009 GSV.


MB238:
Exceeds limits at west end


MB242:
Might get a "(Main)" in city column ? Well, that's how we do it in Europe when there are more than one route (MB291, MB344, MB373, MB482, MB493 too).


MB243:
BorSt -> BorSt_N


MB250:
62N -> SprVlyRd ? When both kind of names are signed, which one do you prefer?
64N -> MayRd ?
MB259 is off
94N and 116W are not signed and not indicated on OSM, GM, Esri nor Here. What's your source and do you wanna keep the wps as-is?
94N is only necessary to avoid a VD error but that's not relevant for active systems.
I've not checked routes MB200-MB248 for this issue but I could check it again when I know how you wanna deal with it.


MB251:
MB256 is off
153W is not signed at all. Source? OSM has it as MB458 (Thunderforest and Stamen too)
148W is only signed Mountain View Rd. Nothing on any map.


I'll continue the review when I know how to deal with the issues.

[michih]

I found SK/MB labels at canmbp routes.

Oh boy! SK is Canada. The MB242 wp label at the border to ND is definitely wrong

[Bickendan]

 SK/MB labels are correct.
ND/Can labels should either be ND/MB or USA/CAN; that could have been my screwup back when I drafted the major routes for Can Select Routes.

[yakra]

Ok,  let's start the peer-review feedback with a general question:
I found SK/MB labels at canmbp routes. In Europe, we always use the country name: USA/CAN. I've checked some MB border labels to USA and also found:
USA/CAN @ US59, MN89, MN310, MN313
ND/Can @ US81, I-29, US83
Don't we have a standard here? Especially Can instead of CAN is quite odd.
Was this discussed before? Any consens?

ND/Can (Yes, "Can", not all-caps) was the original style used on CHM back in the dark ages when we first started drafting United States Numbered Highways. It was later deprecated/superseded. There will still be a lot of these labels around the USA, on usaus especially.
By the time we'd got the first state/provincial systems going, we'd migrated to more of a "MT/MB" style.
The manual says "As an exception, these subdivision border labels can also be used on the USA/CAN and USA/MEX borders instead of using the countries in the label." As an exception. Allowable, but not the preferred first choice.
IIRC @oscar convinced me to switch to MEX/USA when drafting usatx.
I agree that USA/CAN style makes the most sense, with country boundaries tr--used to be a perfectly fine verb. Faust came to Portland in July 2018. Told us to get a new president. overriding subdivision boundaries.
Makes sense to re-examine these in all my regions. I'll have to make a shell script to grep for them.

Comments to routes:

I haven't looked over the comments in detail yet. Spent almost 6 days away from the forum!

Oh boy! SK is Canada. The MB242 wp label at the border to ND is definitely wrong

Will submit with the other similar changes. Most likely will use USA/CAN.

ND/Can labels should either be ND/MB or USA/CAN; that could have been my screwup back when I drafted the major routes for Can Select Routes.

Not your bad. Whoever first drafted ND was following what was at the time standard practice.
While MB/cansph did originally have a 50/50 mix of ND/MB & USA/MB labels, I'd standardized on ND/MB by the time canmb was ready to go.
There are no canmb/canmbp concurrencies at the US border, so none of those points would affect this system.

[yakra]

MB201: 59E -> MainSt
MB215: MB44/302 -> MB44

Changed.

MB203:
62E is off
MB12 -> MB12_W

62E is at the main road's intersection as stored in the shapefiles.
MB12 is sufficient to disambiguate from MB12/89.

MB205: FroRd -> FroRd_N (concurrent MB216 too)

Froese Rd appears to be the name north but not south of that point. I've found that it's pretty common in MB, AB & TX for an otherwise "continuing" local road name to not be the official name on the numbered highway portion, notwithstanding what OSM says. Leaving as-is.

MB206: New wp @ http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.009661&lon=-96.842361

Added FesDr at coords from shapefiles.

MB207: Mun32E -> 32E

Heh. I remember this one. For some reason I thought it wasn't named as part of the grid. It is. Changed, along with TCH 1.

MB210: MB52/302 -> MB52 because it's tier 4 and MB302 just tier 5 (I wasn't aware that there are two MB system when I've reviewed the Winnipeg system)

I'm not always consistent on this. Chose this one to clarify the multiplex split, complementing the adjacent MB302_N.

WelRd is off

That's the only jct we have shown in the shapefiles. Matches HERE.

MB212: FerRd -> FerRd_N -> FryRd_N ?
MB243: BorSt -> BorSt_N

Signed as such in these cases. Changed.

MB216: ...
MB311 is off
MB205_E -> MB205_W
MB205_W -> MB205_E

MB311 matches shapefiles, ESRI & HERE.
MB205 labels swapped.

MB222:
MB9/231 -> MB9
122N -> ArnRd or ColRd

MB9 label changed.
122N is still cosigned, though. I like the cleanliness of this option, along with the other labels in this route.

MB224:
MB325 is off
3W is off
*1W -> 1W ?
Jac is MB412 on OSM, was the route downgraded (fine) or recently upgraded (to be added)?
FisRiv_N is off
MB325 -> MB17

Shapefiles do look a bit goofy at MB325, 3W & FisRiv_N. Changed.
MB325 -> MB17
*1W, MB412

MB229: 18W off ? 12W is off

18W matches ESRI WorldImagery. At 12W, the geometry has changed.

MB231:
MB9/222 -> MB9
New wp for Gimli Industrial Park Airport ?

MB9/222 -> MB9
Gimli Industrial Park Airport was decommissioned as an RCAF base some decades back. Civilian airport now, yes, though it doesn't seem to serve (m)any commuter flights. Interesting history behind it (with a museum... downtown, east of MB9), but meh. If someone requests it specifically.

MB233:
MerRd is off
140N is off


MB234:
New wp for Pine Dock Airport ?
MB8 is off
+X10 is off
BeaPt is off
IslFry: Are you sure about the end point? OSM, GM and aerials show another ferry to the west

Moved MB8 (in both files), +X10 & BeaPt, since OSM lines up with ESRI WorldImagery.
Not bothering with the airport.
Both shapefile flavors and https://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/map/pdf/map5.pdf show the road to the SW as not part of 234. FWIW Google shows "Summer ferry to Matheson Island".

MB237: OSM has a different routing. GSV from October 2018 confirms it. The southern route is just on 2009 GSV.

Oct 2018 GMSV confirms what's in the HB you mean, right? All other signage I can find confirms the HB too. The sign in the 2009 link, I can make out in the background of the 2018 imagery if I back up to MB6.
Worth noting that the two shapefile flavors differ here, with OSM agreeing with Geobase NRN, and LRN agreeing with field signage. This is pretty common throughout the province, with LRN generally being more accurate. OSM can in places be pretty wildly out of date, often showing old extensions of now-truncated routes. MB248 is a prime example. (I'd thought about fixing up all this stuff in OSM after finishing the system...)
Please keep comments like this coming, though. Better to check over something and find it needs no action than to miss something altogether.

MB238: Exceeds limits at west end

Fixed.

MB242: Might get a "(Main)" in city column ? Well, that's how we do it in Europe when there are more than one route (MB291, MB344, MB373, MB482, MB493 too).

Allowed but not required for chopped routes CSVs. I'm not much of a fan of including (Main) city names, especially when there are only 2 pieces of a same-numbered route.
OTOH, rereading the manual, it looks like the Name field is required for connected routes CSVs. Hm. Interesting. If that's the case, I may need to review my systems. Query the DB, write a temporary addition to siteupdate, mumble mumble...?

MB250:
62N -> SprVlyRd ? When both kind of names are signed, which one do you prefer?
64N -> MayRd ?

It'll usually be the 62N style when both are signed. It's possible my opinion could be different based on what else is going on label-wise nearby, but not likely. Probably not worth reporting these cases.

MB259 is off

Moved in both files.

94N and 116W are not signed and not indicated on OSM, GM, Esri nor Here. What's your source and do you wanna keep the wps as-is?

These cases, I assume to be implied by their place in the grid.

94N is only necessary to avoid a VD error but that's not relevant for active systems.

I won't remove it, though. The idea of having the datacheck is to find and eliminate these segments as we're best able. Removing a point because the error will no longer be reported once the system is active rather defeats the purpose of the datacheck.

MB251: MB256 is off

Moved in both files.

153W is not signed at all. Source?

Another place-in-the-grid-case.

OSM has it as MB458 (Thunderforest and Stamen too)

Notably, "458" and not "PR 458" as per OSM SOP. Interestingly, the NRN shapefiles list both L_STNAME_C & R_STNAME_C as "458 Highway", though MB458 itself is elsewhere. This may be a vestigial trace of an old decommissioned route. I'll have to check out Historical Highway Maps of Manitoba and see what I can see.

148W is only signed Mountain View Rd. Nothing on any map.

Changed.

Note to self: A lot of color-coded items upthread either still need to be addressed, or were never coded as such.

[michih]

Thanks, so I'll continue the review tomorrow.

I think I should report everything as I did except of cases like "MB12 -> MB12_W" and "MB52/302" (tier 4/5 mix)?

I've reported points being off when they were not accurate compared to OSM and HERE Hybrid Day. I'll check OSM and Esri WorldImagery now.
Rather signed place-in-the-grid labels than other signed road names.

[michih]

MB254:
MB1_W is off
OSM indicates that the route extends at north end concurrent to MB259 and even farther north, OSM error?


MB255:
MB256_S is off
MB85 -> MB83


MB256:
3N_W is off
MB3_E is off
OSM does not indicate it being numbered b/n MB445 and MB345, and again from 85N to MB41 (just for the records, I guess that we just see typical OSM errors)


MB261:
East of MB50 is missing on OSM


MB264:
Different route on OSM b/n MB355 and 90N_E


MB265:
Extends at east end on OSM


MB268:
149W is correct but incorrect on OSM (150W)


MB269:
New wp @ http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.536589&lon=-100.393184 to match MB10A's wp MainSt
+X129800X looks like you wanna replace it with a visible wp, nothing on GSV though
MB276 is off


MB274:
I'd rename MB5 to MB5_W
I'd rename MB10 to MB10_N


MB276:
156N_W is road 585 on OSM


MB279:
224N is between the junctions. Is this intended?


MB280:
Does +x95008-8 have a meaning?


MB282:
LaJRd -> LaJamRd ?
+X545324X looks like you wanna replace it with a visible wp, nothing on GSV though
+X168237X looks like you wanna replace it with a visible wp, there is a sign on GSV but I cannot read it
MB10/285 -> MB10 ?


MB285:
MB10/283 -> MB10 ?
KryRd_W -> LapRd_N ? because there is already a LapRd_S label and I prefer using the same


MB291:
MB10 is off