Norway Riksveier (norrv)

[si404]

This system is ready for review

[cinx]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a lot of the Rv55 missing, for example.
I can't really see which roads are Rv and which are Fv, seems like 2 digit roads can be both...

[si404]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a lot of the Rv55 missing, for example.

No, for the reason that you yourself explain:

I can't really see which roads are Rv and which are Fv, seems like 2 digit roads can be both...

Indeed and to makes matters worse they only recently downgraded (200x?) the other roads making it confusing as mapping is confused.

Rv have white-on-green numbers, Fv have black-on-white numbers.

[michih]

I've started a review.

I couldn't find any source for routes, which is why I've checked https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksvei for a list of all routes. I've compared the list of the navigation block to the plotted routes.

Not on wikipedia list:
Rv/Fv21, GSV shows bk/wh and wh/gn, most wh/gn
Rv/Fv509 but GSV shows wh/gn
Rv/Fv706 but GSV shows wh/gn

Additional routes on wikipedia list:
Rv/Fv162 but GSV shows bk/wh Ring 1 only
Rv/Fv651 but GSV shows bk/wh only

Conclusion: I think you're right


Rv2:

• Duplicate Label error "Fv530" is marked FP but I think Fv530_Her and Fv530_Kve could be used. Generally, is it allowed to mark DL errors as FP?
• HenIbsVeg --> odd location and route exceeds the red lines of the editor (Mapnik and GM)
• Add wp at Fv395 in Kongsvinger (concurrent to E16) b/c it's a shortcut

Rv3:

• Exceeds limits north of Fv215 wp (Mapnik and GM). There's an interchange w/o wp!
• I would add more wps near Alvdal at Fv681, Fv684 or Fv691

Rv4:

• I would add a wp at Fv53 in Jaren b/c it seems to be an interchange u/c

Rv5:

• Add some shaping points b/n KauVeg and Fv55
• Sup wp: couldn't find anything called Sup... there. Maybe Ske (Skeie) or Ska (Skarestad)
• Boy wp: couldn't find anything called Boy... there.
• Sog wp: couldn't find anything called Sog... there.
• Ovr wp: couldn't find anything called Ovr... there. The road is called Fv454 and the village Alhus.
• Berg wp: I think that no wp is required there

Generally, what's your wp labels source?

Rv13:

• I think about 13 instead of 22 shaping points b/n ArmVeg and BoeVeg should be enough
• The segment from Dragsvik to the north is not plotted. I've checked wikipedia, the segment is not mentioned there. OSM indicates it like south of the ferry but GM shows it different as Fv13. I've checked GSV and I only saw bk/wh signs all the way... from Sandnes in the south!

Rv15:

• Is it really according to the rules to add 2 shaping points per curve? There are 25 shaping points b/n Fv228_W and Fv720_N. Visible distance: 6,13mi, thereof 23 wps within 3mi.

http://cmap.m-plex.com/tools/manual_includepts.php
If the route has sharp turns or switchbacks and adding a few more shaping points there would significantly improve the trace, consider adding a few more, but be conservative. Not every curve needs a shaping point. Few curves ever need more than one shaping point.

If rules have been changed, I think we really need a new manual asap.


I've not checked Rv21+ except

Rv509:

• wp at interchange west of E39_S missing

If the general issues are clarified, I'd like to review the entire system.

[si404]

Rv5:

• Sup wp: couldn't find anything called Sup... there. Maybe Ske (Skeie) or Ska (Skarestad)
• Boy wp: couldn't find anything called Boy... there.
• Sog wp: couldn't find anything called Sog... there.

All are from signage.

[michih]

Thanks. It seems that you've made modifications as suggested but I'm still not sure about the "shaping point" rule. You've reduced the number of shaping points but there are still a lot. I think Rv13  b/n ArmVeg and BoeVeg and Rv15 b/n Fv258_W and Fv720_N still have too much shaping points according to the rules:

http://cmap.m-plex.com/tools/manual_includepts.php
If the route has sharp turns or switchbacks and adding a few more shaping points there would significantly improve the trace, consider adding a few more, but be conservative. Not every curve needs a shaping point. Few curves ever need more than one shaping point.

Have the rules been changed or do I misunderstand the rule?

Afterwards, I would proceed peer-reviewing Rv21+

[si404]

Have the rules been changed or do I misunderstand the rule?

"Not every curve needing a shaping point" doesn't mean "don't put a shaping point on every curve if the alignment warrants it" - I feel that those switchbacks do warrant it.

Though we have relaxed on this rule somewhat as it was mostly to do with a lack of processing power, specifically about following a route tightly when only making minor curves.

[michih]

Rv22:
Fv763 wp position should be moved a little bit

Rv25:
Add wp to avoid VD errors:
- OrbVeg http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=61.051037&lon=11.937000
- Tor http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=61.133002&lon=12.111247

Rv35:
Exceeds limits north of Fv62_N wp
GamSigVei is not an interchange

Rv36:
RabKro wp should be removed
MenBrua wp is signed Fv32 although it seems to be a branch only but you've also labeled Fv356 3x
PorVeg wp is Fv59 on OSM
Fv535 wp typo --> Fv353 (GM/OSM)
Fv52 - Fv51: 2 shaping points per curve?
+X188498 should be replaced by HolVeg or BreVeg; VD error eliminated

Rv70:
Exceeds limits east of Fv305 but on GM and GS only; OSM is fine (but likely wrong)
Add wp to aviod VD error: VagVeg http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=62.835011&lon=8.499652

Rv80:
Rv80Bod wp should be Rv80 only, shouldn't it? SELF_REF FP.

Rv85bog:
Couldn't find any Rv85 sign there

Rv93:
Exceeds limits north of +X639930

Rv706:
Add a wp: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=63.427448&lon=10.363283

Rv827:
Exceeds limits east of Hau wp
Exceeds limits south of Hau wp

[michih]

Of course, data check errors must be eliminated. Some have been caused by yesterday's modifications but seem to be FPs only.

btw: That's a general issue. We make modifications which cause data check errors. We always have to check the next day and submit another pull request. If we'll implement a general data check for contributors one day, not only checks to ensure that a site update runs properly should be implemented but also this data check. I thought about adding this note to the Github feature issue this morning but I couldn't find the issue. We had one, hadn't we?

[si404]

Any more?

[michih]

No, I'm done with norrv. However, I still don't like Rv/Fv issues. Some Rv drafted are partially signed Fv...
I think the best way would be adding tier 5 norfv system asap

Anyway, I think norrv can be activated once the last 4 data check errors are eliminated.

[si404]

No, I'm done with norrv. However, I still don't like Rv/Fv issues. Some Rv drafted are partially signed Fv...

Which ones?

[michih]

No, I'm done with norrv. However, I still don't like Rv/Fv issues. Some Rv drafted are partially signed Fv...

Which ones?

Rv13:

• I think about 13 instead of 22 shaping points b/n ArmVeg and BoeVeg should be enough
• The segment from Dragsvik to the north is not plotted. I've checked wikipedia, the segment is not mentioned there. OSM indicates it like south of the ferry but GM shows it different as Fv13. I've checked GSV and I only saw bk/wh signs all the way... from Sandnes in the south!

However, I've not checked all routes. I've just checked Rv13 b/c the "missing" northern segment.

[si404]

There are a few green signs (eg pointing north from E16), but yes indeed.

I'm going to do some more investigation wrt signage before activating this.

[si404]

Looking at Rv13.

There are quite a few green [13] signs on GMSV (eg). These signs are on newer GMSV, with white signs on older GMSV (and where there's two passes the older one will have white, with the newer ones green). None of the GMSV with white signs is more recent than 9 months after the road was redesignated. This sign is very explicit as to the Rv status of the road.

Activating the system...