cansf: Canada Select Named Freeways

[vdeane]

Thinking about ON route ends and "one point per interchange" as per the previous discussion here, shouldn't that mean the QEW gets truncated back to RR124, given the configuration of the ramps in the area?

[IMGoph]

Question is basically in the subject line. I see two versions of the Gardiner and the DVP in the data (one in cannf, another in canonf).

I'm sure there's a reason for this, but I don't see it. If someone would point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

Thanks!

[vdeane]

Those routes were added way back when canonf was.  Then when cannf entered development, it was decided to include them there.  They basically remain in canonf because to remove them would make them exist only in preview status, not active.  That said, it's a bit odd - the way systems in the US tend to handle such things is to move the route on activation, rather than duplicate it.  Might be because cannf is a "grab-bag" system and was in devel for a really, really long time.

[yakra]

ISTR there was some duplication in usanp, for the same reason, that some active routes would have reverted to preview

[rickmastfan67]

Because we couldn't remove it from an active system to a dev system (at that time) mainly.

I convinced Tim to allow them to be added to the site back in the day, well before 'cannf' was even thought of.  Mainly because of also needing to add the QEW to the site at that time too.

The QEW however, will not be moving officially to cannf when we ever activate it, as it is officially a 400-series highway, so, it's proper place is to stay in the canonf system.  Unlike the Gardiner & DVP, which are controlled by Toronto, and really should only be in the cannf section.

[rickmastfan67]

Yesterday I took a drive on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway and Red Hill Valley Parkway and I noticed that the starting/ending points of both appear to be incorrect in the system here on Travel Mapping.

They appear to start/end west of the Darnall Road interchange, at least that's where it's signed.

Here is a Streetview going towards RHVP

Link: https://goo.gl/maps/3o6NpYJWj9Uf7M4t6

Here is a Streetview going towards Linc:

Link: https://goo.gl/maps/9ZNuxzKTSqvxskg49

This is very interesting.  I see the signage was installed sometime between 2007 & 2009.

I'll work on a fix in the next few days.

[vdeane]

ISTR there was some duplication in usanp, for the same reason, that some active routes would have reverted to preview

Oh yeah, I remember the George Washington Parkway did that.  Granted, in that case, there wasn't 1:1 correspondence... the usasf version pretended the whole thing was in VA and ignored the dip into DC, and IIRC it only included the portion north of Alexandria.  They also had different shaping points.

[rickmastfan67]

Yesterday I took a drive on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway and Red Hill Valley Parkway and I noticed that the starting/ending points of both appear to be incorrect in the system here on Travel Mapping.

They appear to start/end west of the Darnall Road interchange, at least that's where it's signed.

Here is a Streetview going towards RHVP

Link: https://goo.gl/maps/3o6NpYJWj9Uf7M4t6

Here is a Streetview going towards Linc:

Link: https://goo.gl/maps/9ZNuxzKTSqvxskg49

This is very interesting.  I see the signage was installed sometime between 2007 & 2009.

I'll work on a fix in the next few days.

Fixes have been submitted for this.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5932

[mapcat]

cannf has been in preview since August 2020. There are currently 98 users with travels on the system. How would a peer-review of a system managed by 3 contributors (rickmastfan67, oscar, & yakra) work? I'm willing to do it/coordinate it.

[yakra]

One of these three contributors says go for it!

[oscar]

One of these three contributors says go for it!

Me too, WRT cannf routes in BC and SK (none in QC or the Arctic territories).

[rickmastfan67]

Let's rumble!

NOTE: When we're ready to activate, the Gardiner & DVP in Ontario will need to be alt-named in CANNF and removed from the Ontario Provincial 400 series set at the same time to prevent issues, since they're live on the site already under different list names.

[mapcat]

Before I start the review, here are the general guidelines I'll use to determine what merits inclusion, based on usasf (since there is no rule on what consitutes "select" in the manual besides "high importance to travelers", which is rather subjective) and on what yakra said here:

Q1: Include just the freeway portion & leave out surface road beyond, with a bit of wiggle room for short sensible exceptions. Short segments with at-grades can be allowable between two freeway segments. Controlled access & development at a minimum, ideally.

Q1A: Let it be wibbly-wobbly on a case-by-case basis, based on what Looks Nice & Makes Sense. Allow some reasonable special cases.

Q2: Include the whole thing, whether numbered or not.

There was some discussion about routes or proposed routes being too short for inclusion, but I found nothing in the manual regarding minimum length for a select route. Given that there are several routes less than 2 miles long in usasf (and one less than 1 mile long), I don't think it's necessary to eliminate routes from the set based only on length. Nevertheless, I don't think that the system needs routes that consist entirely of one segment (bridges or otherwise) unless they (a) perform important connections between routes in other systems and (b) have widely-known, accepted names.

[yakra]

Agreed. Seems to me that length as a criterion for inclusion is a CHM-era holdover, one that's gotten less consideration over time and has largely gone by the wayside.
When it does get discussed, seems it's often in a "Hey, we don't really pay attention to this anymore, right?" context.

[oscar]

Agreed. Seems to me that length as a criterion for inclusion is a CHM-era holdover, one that's gotten less consideration over time and has largely gone by the wayside.
When it does get discussed, seems it's often in a "Hey, we don't really pay attention to this anymore, right?" context.

That said, length should be a consideration, especially for the shortest routes (like  <1-2 miles long) that aren't otherwise significant for travelers. Not a hard minimum, just a reason for a judgment call to leave out some of the least important routes. A short route that should (and did) make the cut would be the 1.6 mile long Milford Parkway in Connecticut, connecting US 1 and I-95 to CT 15.