cansf: Canada Select Named Freeways

[yakra]

AB BedTrl - no reason to be in the system
AB GroRd - no reason to be in the system

Agreed.

AB TerDr - it would be worthy of inclusion if the mainline was build, but it isn't. Ditch it.

Yes, ditch it.

AB WayGreDr (Wayne Gretzky Drive) - partially freeway (101Ave - 118Ave) but that's only two junctions at the river crossing. Maybe

If BedTrl is out, then let's ditch this one too.

AB CroTrl - goes a lot further NW (12 Mile Coulee Rd) though this is the unnumbered bit, all but the middle bit (Kensington Rd - 24th Ave) is actually freeway

The only one I'm really iffy about at all. At this moment I'm leaning toward keeping it. Extend NW, concurrent with AB1ACoc to 12MileRd.

AB SheParkFwy - a reasonable inclusion (though is also AB100), though bit east of AB216 doesn't have the name.

Definitely include. Truncate E end to AB216. W end needs sorting.

[yakra]

SheParkFwy W end:

75 St:
The current end in the HB. I see no other evidence that Sherwood Park Freeway should end here. Truncate...

73 St & 82 Ave:
FWIW, this is where the shapefiles make the cutoff between L_STNAME_C = "Sherwood Park Freeway North-west" & L_STNAME_C = "82 Avenue North-west", just east of 73 St. The cutoff for the WB roadway is at the gore of the merge with 82 Ave.
GMSV at 73 St shows "82 (WHYTE) AV". I interpret that as meaning that Sherwood Park Freeway has just ended, merging into 82 Ave by that point.

71 St:
The last at-grade intersection before the freeway-freeway. GMSV reveals that between June and July of 2014, signage was changed from a post-mounted "Sherwood Park Freeway" with an arrow pointing east to an overhead "Sherwood Park Freeway" with no arrows.

ArgRd:
The last interchange before the at-grade bits. Wiki[citation needed]pedia lists the end as here (their 0.9 km figure would put their end at where I'd put the waypoint); I don't really see any other sources to corroborate that. Though I did find this signage, it doesn't convince me of anything. I look at it as being control "cities" using road names; eventual destinations.

Right now I'm leaning toward the merge with 82 Ave.

[si404]

Nope, it's the full route in the HB already.  Maybe need to recenter the eastern end, but that's about it for it.

I hadn't zoomed in enough to see that the wierd eastern end is mapped correctly.

AB SheParkFwy - a reasonable inclusion (though is also AB100), though bit east of AB216 doesn't have the name.

Definitely include. Truncate E end to AB216. W end needs sorting.

My only doubt is that it is another route (AB100). If you consider this named freeway, then you ought to consider named freeways that are, likewise, also entirely covered by provincial highway networks. eg Anthony Henday Drive, which is AB216. I don't have a problem with that, but there is this can o'worms waiting to be opened.

[yakra]

My only doubt is that it is another route (AB100).

I don't see any problems here. While this is, internally, AB100, it is not signed as such, and is thus left out of CANAB. So CANSF would be an appropriate place to keep it.

If you consider this named freeway, then you ought to consider named freeways that are, likewise, also entirely covered by provincial highway networks. eg Anthony Henday Drive, which is AB216. I don't have a problem with that, but there is this can o'worms waiting to be opened.

I don't draw that same line of causality. CANSF is for Canadian Select Named Freeways, and makes no pretense of trying to include all the named freeways. As Anthony Henday Drive is already covered on TM as AB216, there's no reason to include it in this Select set.
(Well... I guess I did just consider it, didn't I? )

[si404]

I don't see any problems here.

Nor do I, other than the can of worms of having a route in two systems, but not others that would also be candidates. I didn't realise, however, that AB100 is unsigned.

[yakra]

Updates to get AB & NS ready for Preview are now in the HB.

Breakdown of status by province:
AB   Ready
BC   Ping Oscar
NS   Ready
ON   Ping James
SK   Needs work

Ping Oscar:
• What's your take on BC GolEarsWay & KniSt? My inclination would be to ditch them; that's just my 2 cents.
• If you'd like, I could bash together an update for Circle Drive and submit it for your approval.

Ping James:
• I looked over the ON routes along with all the others when this thread got started, and everything looked good & mostly ready to go. Right?
• However, Si does bring up a good point about RR174 (Queensway) needing sorting.
• From a stylistic perspective, I don't like the mismatch between Route/Root (RR174) and City (Queensway), used for these named systems to provide the full highway name. I'd prefer they be more consistent, with what's signed. However, there is the existing precedent of NV CR215. Thoughts? (My dislike is not a violent dislike, to be clear...)
• Despite me saying "Shield style ... convincing argument" upthread, I still think that CANNF is the best place for Queen Elizabeth Way. Going back to Tim's third bullet point from this post when the state/provincial systems' scope was first defined...

- In general, most states should have a well defined system of numbered state highways, with their own designation type and highway shield, which are often called something like "trunk" or "touring" or "traffic" routes. ... The scope of the system is not the same as "all state-maintained highways". Each state defines their highway system differently.....

(Italics as in original)

[yakra]

Oscar, since I can't leave well enough alone, here's a working draft of SK CirDr I've put together:

Code: [Select]

SK11/16_A http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.089454&lon=-106.604635
TaySt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.104766&lon=-106.604462
8thSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.114623&lon=-106.604462
14thSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.121817&lon=-106.604075
SK5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.129352&lon=-106.607723
108thSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.136596&lon=-106.612058
AttDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.150133&lon=-106.613259
PreAve_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.152477&lon=-106.624031
+X01 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.154478&lon=-106.637936
+X02 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.157690&lon=-106.641111
WarRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.158032&lon=-106.646733
SK11/16_B http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.157901&lon=-106.670079
AirDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.154346&lon=-106.681795
33rdSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.143813&lon=-106.702223
SK7/14 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.129326&lon=-106.719818
11thSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.114685&lon=-106.715237
ValRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.104548&lon=-106.713370
SK219 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.092665&lon=-106.670423
SK11_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.092504&lon=-106.662473
ClaAve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.089896&lon=-106.646562
PreAve_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.089633&lon=-106.622615
SK11/16_C http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.089454&lon=-106.604635

A few caveats:
• SK TCHYel SK11_S & SK SK11 SK16_S have different coords. Recommend replacing the coords in the SK11 file with the coords from the TCHYel file. I've used the TCHYel coords above.
• I've left in +X01 & +X02 to avoid breaking the multiplex with (active) TCHYel, but I recommend deleting them from both files.
• On the new segment, I've broken the multiplex with (in-dev) SK11: I removed +x37, and recentered SK11_N (labeled ToSK219 in the SK11 file).
• Signage for SK11 and TCH16 are a bit... odd. I'm not 100% certain the routes still follow what's in the HB, but for now I've left the labels as if they do. This will take some investigation, GMSVing around and such. It looks at first glance like a case of spotty signage, missing TOs, and the like... Maybe.
Edit: TCH16 is confusingly signed along both the NE and SW legs of Circle Drive. Signage for SK11 seems to be a bit more indicative of following the western leg; thru travelers attempting to follow signage for the route are going to have a hell of a time. (Well -- NB is confusing but still doable. SB, traffic is directed to exit Idlewyld at the Circle Drive interchange, where there's no signage at the ramp terminus, so good luck.)

[julmac]

Ever since the southwest leg of Circle Drive opened, the routing of SK11 and TC16 has been ambiguous. It appears that SK11 and TC16 are intended to be routed both ways around the circle, with SK11 removed from Idylwyld Drive. I suggest that to minimize changes in the HB, TC16 be kept along the east leg of Circle Drive and SK11 be route along the west leg. Idylwyld Drive (the freeway portion) should be added to CANSF.

[yakra]

Ever since the southwest leg of Circle Drive opened, the routing of SK11 and TC16 has been ambiguous. It appears that SK11 and TC16 are intended to be routed both ways around the circle, with SK11 removed from Idylwyld Drive. I suggest that to minimize changes in the HB, TC16 be kept along the east leg of Circle Drive and SK11 be route along the west leg. Idylwyld Drive (the freeway portion) should be added to CANSF.

This is also what I was thinking to do, TCH16 on the east and SK11 on the west.
Oscar, what's your opinion on adding Idylwyld Drive to CANSF?

Edit: Might be worthwhile to email SK MoT for clarity...

[oscar]

Just a few cents from the road (julmac, does that cliche still exist up there, with the removal of the penny from circulation in Canada?). I'm going to be really busy the next few days, mainly helping my sister in southern California move.

On Circle Drive and Idylwild Drive:

I think the signage for the TCH around the northeast quadrant of Circle Drive is clear enough for TCH travelers to follow, and any TCH signage on other parts of Circle Drive is probably just missing "TO" banners.

As for SK 11, there is probably still a fair amount of remnant SK 11 (and even TCH) signage on Idylwild Dr. to really confuse things on GMSV. A look at the online official highway map (which I don't have time for right now) would be more definitive.

On the BC unnumbered routes:

I have zero familiarity with those routes, and never bothered to travel them on multiple visits to Vancouver, which should tell you something about their (un)importance.

On Queen Elizabeth Way in Ontario:

Leaving aside the metaphysics of which system it belongs in, the most important thing is that it remain in an active system. It's too important and well-traveled a route to move from an active to an inactive system. That means leaving it alone until CANNF is activated. I don't feel as strongly about the unnumbered Don Valley and Gardiner routes, which I have traveled and are in my list file.

[yakra]

I think the signage for the TCH around the northeast quadrant of Circle Drive is clear enough for TCH travelers to follow, and any TCH signage on other parts of Circle Drive is probably just missing "TO" banners.

Agreed.

As for SK 11, there is probably still a fair amount of remnant SK 11 (and even TCH) signage on Idylwild Dr. to really confuse things on GMSV.

I haven't seen any TCH without TO plates. SK11, yes, there's still plenty of that. (First random former-11 interchange I plopped Pegman down at.) Including at the northern Idlewyld/Circle interchange, and the aforementioned ramp terminus, which still signs the old route.

A look at the online official highway map (which I don't have time for right now) would be more definitive.

All I found was this stuff. Nothing with any good "zoomed-in" detail, and nothing with enough info to find a definitive route.

On the BC unnumbered routes:

I have zero familiarity with those routes, and never bothered to travel them on multiple visits to Vancouver, which should tell you something about their (un)importance.

Si says "Maybe"; I'm leaning toward "Ditch'em" -- do you have a strong opinion?

On Queen Elizabeth Way in Ontario:

Leaving aside the metaphysics of which system it belongs in, the most important thing is that it remain in an active system. It's too important and well-traveled a route to move from an active to an inactive system. That means leaving it alone until CANNF is activated. I don't feel as strongly about the unnumbered Don Valley and Gardiner routes, which I have traveled and are in my list file.

Agree 100% -- let's leave this active in CANONF until CANNF is activated. Same for the others.

[oscar]

A look at the online official highway map (which I don't have time for right now) would be more definitive.

All I found was this stuff. Nothing with any good "zoomed-in" detail, and nothing with enough info to find a definitive route.

What I had in mind was from Tourism Saskatchewan. As it turns out, its online map (.pdf of only one side of a paper map) both predates the completion of Circle Drive, and has zero detail about anything within the Saskatoon city limits. But I recall that the most recent paper version has a Saskatoon insert on the back side. I'm three time zones away from my copy for a few weeks, but maybe julmac can help here since IIRC he's from Saskatchewan.

[rickmastfan67]

Ping James:
• I looked over the ON routes along with all the others when this thread got started, and everything looked good & mostly ready to go. Right?

Pretty much.

• However, Si does bring up a good point about RR174 (Queensway) needing sorting.

ON RR174 (Queensway) - Queensway goes further into Carlington (as 417 Freeway), RR174 goes further east as surface. Needs sorting, but general idea is a keeper

If Ontario wouldn't have gone on their download binge in 1997, this would have still been part of ON-17 (the RR-174 part at least) and this wouldn't have been a problem.  Anyways, I'd just keep it to the expressway part of RR-174.  Sure, a little bit to the east it changes to RR-17 because of a district change, but I'd just leave it as is.

ON AllRd (Allen Road) - Allen Rd goes a mile further north as surface street. Keep?

I'd have no problems even shortening the northern end down to the Transit Road point and leave just the expressway part.  Probably could even take out the 'WilHeiBlvd' point.  Plus, I would need to update the labels to the current standards by taking out the 'W'/'E' at the end of some of them.
Anyways, Allen Road (Spadina Expressway) was suppose to be part of a big Toronto Expressway system, however, only this part got constructed as well as the DVP and Gardiner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Road

[yakra]

If Ontario wouldn't have gone on their download binge in 1997, this would have still been part of ON-17 (the RR-174 part at least) and this wouldn't have been a problem.  Anyways, I'd just keep it to the expressway part of RR-174.  Sure, a little bit to the east it changes to RR-17 because of a district change, but I'd just leave it as is.

Yes, just keep the expressway part of RR-174. Though how about this -- extend it west, concurrent with ON417, to include all of the highway that bears the "Queensway" name? Precedent: NJ NJTpk got extended to include all of the NJ Turnpike, even the I-95 bits, sometime before CHM went inactive. I recently did the same with AB CroTrl, extending it along the Crowchild Trail portion of AB1ACoc. Doing this could sort out the Queensway/RR174 City/Route/Root mismatch -- it wouldn't be all RR174, but it would be all Queensway, thus ON Que.

[rickmastfan67]

If Ontario wouldn't have gone on their download binge in 1997, this would have still been part of ON-17 (the RR-174 part at least) and this wouldn't have been a problem.  Anyways, I'd just keep it to the expressway part of RR-174.  Sure, a little bit to the east it changes to RR-17 because of a district change, but I'd just leave it as is.

Yes, just keep the expressway part of RR-174. Though how about this -- extend it west, concurrent with ON417, to include all of the highway that bears the "Queensway" name? Precedent: NJ NJTpk got extended to include all of the NJ Turnpike, even the I-95 bits, sometime before CHM went inactive. I recently did the same with AB CroTrl, extending it along the Crowchild Trail portion of AB1ACoc. Doing this could sort out the Queensway/RR174 City/Route/Root mismatch -- it wouldn't be all RR174, but it would be all Queensway, thus ON Que.

If I could maybe figure out for sure what the Western end is, maybe.