PA: US 219 Freeway Opening Meyersdale to Somerset

[rickmastfan67]

Also, what if said person had only traveled Exit 40 to the NJ border on the old I-95 & never had traveled on I-276 (PA Turnpike)?  Why should they be given credit for that?  This is one reason why breaking people's list files due to a reroute is completely acceptable, & necessary when it's something this big.

It's possible to search the UserData repo to see if anyone had PA I-95 40 NJ/PA or PA I-95 NJ/PA 40 .listed. I assume from reading Markkos1992's post that he did this.

What I meant was any of the exits north of 40 between there & the state line.  The way Markkos1992 said it above, he just assumed that anyone who had used any label above 40 (which was the following: 46, 48, 51), didn't have the PA/NJ & 999 (would have been the perfect time to get rid of the 999 label finally) labels on the same line with them.  If a user had "51 999" for I-95, now they have credit for the PA Turnpike segment, which they shouldn't, because we shouldn't be assuming this.  This is what I'm trying to get at.

EDIT: Just did a quick search in the list file depository (using "PA I-95"), and found at least one user that this effects.  jpinyan had the following line: "PA I-95 51 PA/NJ".  sneezy & rlee (who according to the list file, never even traveled on I-276, and now falsely has that segent), also have a similar issue.

[Markkos1992]

Just did a quick search in the list file depository (using "PA I-95"), and found at least one user that this effects.  jpinyan had the following line: "PA I-95 51 PA/NJ".  sneezy & rlee (who according to the list file, never even traveled on I-276, and now falsely has that segment), also have a similar issue.

Yes I was working on a spreadsheet for both I-95 and I-276 here.  Sneezy actually did travel on I-276 but not east of US 1 (Exit 351).

Otherwise, I am good with removing the 46, 48, and 51 alternate labels from I-95.  I'll post in the old thread on the I-95/I-295/I-276 changes those who will need to edit their list files.

Would it be a wise move to consider removing the 0 and 999 labels?  I want to make sure it is emphasized as much as possible for everyone to verify that the right sections of I-95 have been traveled.

Pull Request in Repository: https://github.com/Markkos1992/HighwayData/pull/112

[Jim]

I am not aware of any problems that would be caused by 0-length "clinches", but I'd have to look.  If I'm understanding the situation, given that we're talking about alt labels, the lines in question would be interpreted the same as specifying the same start and end point for a segment

ZA I-50 24 24

[rickmastfan67]

Would it be a wise move to consider removing the 0 and 999 labels?  I want to make sure it is emphasized as much as possible for everyone to verify that the right sections of I-95 have been traveled.

No for '0', as that point didn't change locations.
Yes to '999' IMO, since it DID change locations.

There are several list files that have the '0' label, but don't use the '999' one.  Thus, only people who are still claiming a 'full' clinch of the old route would be properly effected.  Too bad we can't do anything about the 'PA/NJ' label, but at least we can with that 999 one to alert them to double check their list files and correct if necessary.

=====

I am not aware of any problems that would be caused by 0-length "clinches", but I'd have to look.  If I'm understanding the situation, given that we're talking about alt labels, the lines in question would be interpreted the same as specifying the same start and end point for a segment

ZA I-50 24 24

That's correct Jim.

Original:
PA I-95 46 48

New (because of 'alt' labels):
PA I-95 40 40

That's the issue I'm curious about.  I couldn't find anybody's list files that have this issue per say, but I just want to make sure that something like this couldn't break the site if it did happen.

[Markkos1992]

I-95 Removing of Alternate Labels: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2403

=====

I am not aware of any problems that would be caused by 0-length "clinches", but I'd have to look.  If I'm understanding the situation, given that we're talking about alt labels, the lines in question would be interpreted the same as specifying the same start and end point for a segment

ZA I-50 24 24

That's correct Jim.

Original:
PA I-95 46 48

New (because of 'alt' labels):
PA I-95 40 40

That's the issue I'm curious about.  I couldn't find anybody's list files that have this issue per say, but I just want to make sure that something like this couldn't break the site if it did happen.

golubcar has the entry "PA I-276 358 PA/NJ", which I believe would apply to this.  I had left 358, PA/NJ, and 999 as alternate labels for I-95 on I-276 due to its truncation.

[Jim]

That's correct Jim.

Original:
PA I-95 46 48

New (because of 'alt' labels):
PA I-95 40 40

That's the issue I'm curious about.  I couldn't find anybody's list files that have this issue per say, but I just want to make sure that something like this couldn't break the site if it did happen.

There's an old GitHub issue related to this:

https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/issues/5

I would like to run a test to see if it's still behaving as indicated there.

[vdeane]

Not sure if this question was covered, but how are the "traveled on" states processed with respect to zero-length segments?  Do they include the route because of the .list entry, or not include it because of the length?

[Jim]

Not sure if this question was covered, but how are the "traveled on" states processed with respect to zero-length segments?  Do they include the route because of the .list entry, or not include it because of the length?

No, but this is something I've wanted to support.  There are a number of routes I've only driven at all because I made a gas or food stop right off an exit ramp.  Not nearly enough to "round up" to a nearby TM waypoint.

I just created a GitHub issue to help remember this: https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/issues/143

[Markkos1992]

Not sure if this question was covered, but how are the "traveled on" states processed with respect to zero-length segments?  Do they include the route because of the .list entry, or not include it because of the length?

No, but this is something I've wanted to support.  There are a number of routes I've only driven at all because I made a gas or food stop right off an exit ramp.  Not nearly enough to "round up" to a nearby TM waypoint.

I just created a GitHub issue to help remember this: https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/issues/143

I had never even considered to count these on my personal list file.

[michih]

I had never even considered to count these on my personal list file.

Me too. I would not bother...

[yakra]

Me three.

[dave1693]

Because of the exact segment of old US219 that I had traveled, with the north end at BerPlaRd, I ended up receiving credit for the new piece of US219 bypass before having traveled it. I have fixed that now by traveling it, and extended that segment north by one exit, which will show up in my next update.

[Markkos1992]

Because of the exact segment of old US219 that I had traveled, with the north end at BerPlaRd, I ended up receiving credit for the new piece of US219 bypass before having traveled it. I have fixed that now by traveling it, and extended that segment north by one exit, which will show up in my next update.

Yeah I had to keep that point label the same so there was nothing I could do about that scenario.  This was also the same with US219BusMey_N and MudPk.  I am thankful that you took care of it though.   

[Markkos1992]

The linked news release below refers to the old US 219 as SR 2047 (with no reference to a business route).  In any case, if this somehow becomes an extended US 219 BUS, there would most likely not be any signs until after this project is completed in April. As a result, I am marking this topic as solved at this time.

https://www.penndot.gov/RegionalOffices/district-9/pages/details.aspx?newsid=639

[Markkos1992]

I found out this morning that I broke the PA 770 TRUCK Concurrency during the US 219 Shaping Point Reduction Project.  It should be fixed by the next pull request.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2827