cansf: Canada Select Named Freeways

[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.

Followup, now that I'm reunited with my latest (2014-15) Tourism Saskatchewan provincial road map. Its back side does indeed have a fairly detailed city inset for Saskatoon. However, it sheds no light at all on the routing of TCH 16 and SK 11 through the city, or the route designations (if any) for Circle Drive. It does show route markers for TCH 16, SK 11, and other highways, but only in the outskirts of the city. Grrrr.

I plan to drive through Saskatchewan again this summer. I'll probably steer far clear of Saskatoon, but will try to pick up the latest tourist map, and check on whether the new edition says anything meaningful about route designations through Saskatoon. You can also order your own free copy from Tourism Saskatchewan, as I've done ahead of previous visits.

[oscar]

I did pick up the latest Tourism Saskatchewan map, earlier this month. As unhelpful, on Circle Drive or other route designations within Saskatoon, as previous editions.

But driving down SK 11 from Prince Albert, I noticed overhead signs directing SK 11 and TCH 16 traffic to Circle Drive. The overhead for the through lanes showed no route number for Idylwild Dr., which continues beyond the interchange. That indicates that SK 11 follows Circle Dr., and no longer follows Idylwild Dr. Whether clockwise or counter-clockwise on Circle Dr. was unclear, as I saw no signage at the end of that off-ramp saying which way to turn to stay on SK 11. But I saw no SK 11 (or TCH) signage on the northwest quadrant of Circle Dr., from the Idylwild Dr. interchange to the SK 7/14 interchange west of downtown, at which point I left Circle Dr. on SK 7 heading southwest.

[oscar]

I forgot to mention that I took another pass at Saskatoon later that trip. Circle Dr., in both directions at the Idylwild Dr. interchange, has signs indicating SK 11 goes south on Idylwild Dr. The northeast quadrant of Circle Dr., heading clockwise, has some overhead signs indicating that it's either SK 11 south, and others with "To SK 11". Most perplexing, SK 11 northbound approaching the Circle Dr./TCH 16 junction has overhead signs directing northbound SK 11 traffic to either turn left onto Circle Dr. west, or go straight ahead on Circle Dr. north (take your pick). 

Whoever takes on SK provincial routes (which might be me, once I've finished usaak, considering how much driving I've been doing there lately) should call the transportation ministry, to find out where exactly SK 11 officially goes through Saskatoon, and what route numbers if any are officially assigned to each of Circle Dr.'s quadrants. Also, to urge that it fix the total clusterfork that is route signage in Saskatoon.

I also saw some of that in Regina on that trip, with conflicting signage on its Ring Rd. around, and SK 6 around or through, that city. I'll be back in Regina for a few days -- but this time not Saskatoon -- next month, so I can try to clarify the situation there. EDIT: No real issue with route signage in Regina. SK 11 continues on Ring Rd. down ro the southern junction of SK 6 and TCH 1, in a rather useless multiplex with SK 6, but the signage is reasonably clear. I'll later fix this in cansph.

[julmac]

Whoever takes on SK provincial routes (which might be me, once I've finished usaak, considering how much driving I've been doing there lately) should call the transportation ministry, to find out where exactly SK 11 officially goes through Saskatoon, and what route numbers if any are officially assigned to each of Circle Dr.'s quadrants. Also, to urge that it fix the total clusterfork that is route signage in Saskatoon.

The Ministry of Highways doesn't own Circle Drive; it's controlled by the City (which no doubt is contributing to the issue).
I'm hoping that route signage is handled better when the Regina Bypass opens in a few years time, although no indications yet on what the highway routings will be (at least this time, the province has full control over the roadway).

[mapcat]

Bumping...what's still up for debate? From what I can tell, AB, BC, NS, and ON (with the possible exception of the western end of Queensway) appear settled, leaving SK still in limbo. There aren't any potential additions in other provinces, are there? Think we can move this up to preview by the end of the year?

On a related note, since cansph will never be added as a system, what's the logic in displaying it as a "devel" system in the HB? Anything in the list is late-CHM-vintage at best, and therefore likely to be completely revamped when its provincial system is properly drafted.

[oscar]

In AB, should the Glenmore Trail in Calgary be added (back)? The plan had been to include it in the AB 8 route file, but before canab was activated, AB 8 was truncated (at my suggestion) to remove a big freeway chunk of the Trail with no posted route numbers.

Are there other freeways that should be added, in other provinces? BC and ON have been kept up to date, nut I'm unsure of the others. SK probably has no candidates for additions, with Regina's Ring Rd. removed long ago since most of it is now part of SK 11. The Manitoba St. Expressway in Moose Jaw is a "probably not" as not long enough, but I want to noodle a little on that. In MB, does Winnipeg have freeway-level "city routes" worthy of addition (I don't recall any)? I'm drawing a blank right now on QC, I doubt NL has anything unnumbered.

[Bickendan]

There were a couple in metro Vancouver that Tim nixed... Knight St and Golden Ears Way.

[yakra]

Bumping...what's still up for debate? From what I can tell, AB, BC, NS, and ON (with the possible exception of the western end of Queensway) appear settled

I wanna say BC could still be sorted. I didn't take Oscar's response WRT GolEarsWay & KniSt upthread as very definitive -- even if he did suggest they were unimportant.

There were a couple in metro Vancouver that Tim nixed... Knight St and Golden Ears Way.

Did Tim nix those? If so, they've remained in the HB to this day. Maybe you're thinking Si & me -- Si gave them both a "maybe", and I pooh-poohed them upthread. But looking back at the routes in the HB again, I don't see why I was thinking "ditch it" for KniSt. It's all freeway (the part plotted, at least). Connects to a numbered route too. Seems pretty cromulent. I'd still wanna ditch GolEars Way though...

In any case, I think some consistency with routes that are only partially freeway would be good. GolEarsWay is plotted in its entirety, even the non-freeway bits. KniSt has only the freeway bits plotted.

leaving SK still in limbo. There aren't any potential additions in other provinces, are there? Think we can move this up to preview by the end of the year?

SK is the sticking point, IMO. It looks like nothing but a headache. I'd hesitate to put that workload on Oscar unless he's ready & willing to assume it.

In AB, should the Glenmore Trail in Calgary be added (back)? The plan had been to include it in the AB 8 route file, but before canab was activated, AB 8 was truncated (at my suggestion) to remove a big freeway chunk of the Trail with no posted route numbers.

Well, it was actually julmac's info that really got me fully convinced. I'm definitely willing to entertain the idea of adding it. The question of "how much to include?" gets to be a rabbit hole pretty quickly, and is best saved for another post.

In MB, does Winnipeg have freeway-level "city routes" worthy of addition (I don't recall any)?

I haven't really looked into how freeway-level things get there, in detail. Probably not much. I've been thinking that the Winnipeg City Routes could be their own Tier 5 system.

I doubt NL has anything unnumbered.

I believe there's nothing unnumbered. Back in the day, Tim proposed NL3A, until I realized it had a number, so it went into cansph instead.

On a related note, since cansph will never be added as a system, what's the logic in displaying it as a "devel" system in the HB?

I think, just in order to have it as a reference and be able to look at it, really. It seems I ginned up the _con.csv file concurrent with the initial canab upload, before this forum existed. ISTR some discussion about this, but I'm not finding anything, either in GitHub issues or on AARoads...
A quick search led to nothing in the GitHub issues; seems then, there was discussion about that on AARoads...

Anything in the list is late-CHM-vintage at best, and therefore likely to be completely revamped when its provincial system is properly drafted.

I actually updated NL2 when it was extended west last year, and have been passively keeping an eye on the NL3A extension under construction.
As far as revamping goes, I think keeping the data around still makes for a good starting point. So why not have it visible; the HB makes for a handy reference & viewer.

[yakra]

"How much of each route to include?"
can lead down a rabbit hole in some cases...

Two sub-questions to try to answer:
1.) How much do we include if a route bearing a given name is only partially freeway, especially with significant at-grade portions beyond the freeway's end? Development?
2.) How much do we include if the route is partially numbered?

It was mostly Glenmore Trail that got me thinking about this, but the answers to these questions could have wider ramifications for other routes in the system.
Of the 13 routes in the HB now (and GleTrl, which isn't), the only ones I'd be 100% confident to green-light without asking any questions would be ns.bedbyp & on.donvalpkwy.

[oscar]

leaving SK still in limbo. There aren't any potential additions in other provinces, are there? Think we can move this up to preview by the end of the year?

SK is the sticking point, IMO. It looks like nothing but a headache. I'd hesitate to put that workload on Oscar unless he's ready & willing to assume it.

SK's Circle Drive is a manageable headache, especially if we deep-six the idea of getting cannf ready for preview by the end of the month, given the holiday season already in full swing. With all the system-wide issues yakra flagged, that looks unrealistic anyway.

Circle Drive has a few issues of its own, none necessarily showstoppers, aside from the easy task of filling in the newly-completed southwest quadrant:

-- much of the eastern half is numbered, at least the part concurrent with active TCH 16, and perhaps also another part concurrent with in-dev SK 11 (as noted above, signage is really confusing on SK 11's routing within Saskatoon, including which parts of Circle Dr. are part of SK 11)

-- much of the northern half is non-freeway, including both part of the TCH segment  and another to the west

[oscar]

Anything in the list is late-CHM-vintage at best, and therefore likely to be completely revamped when its provincial system is properly drafted.

I actually updated NL2 when it was extended west last year, and have been passively keeping an eye on the NL3A extension under construction.
As far as revamping goes, I think keeping the data around still makes for a good starting point. So why not have it visible; the HB makes for a handy reference & viewer.

Some of the cansph route files have been updated here and there. For example, I made some major changes to SK 2 and SK 11, based on what I found on one of my recent visits to that province.

While it isn't critical to keep cansph online, that helps make sure that whoever starts developing the remaining provincial systems (cansk, canqc, cannl) will know where to find the route files on hand to use as a starting point.

[Bickendan]

There were a couple in metro Vancouver that Tim nixed... Knight St and Golden Ears Way.

Did Tim nix those? If so, they've remained in the HB to this day. Maybe you're thinking Si & me -- Si gave them both a "maybe", and I pooh-poohed them upthread. But looking back at the routes in the HB again, I don't see why I was thinking "ditch it" for KniSt. It's all freeway (the part plotted, at least). Connects to a numbered route too. Seems pretty cromulent. I'd still wanna ditch GolEars Way though...

In any case, I think some consistency with routes that are only partially freeway would be good. GolEarsWay is plotted in its entirety, even the non-freeway bits. KniSt has only the freeway bits plotted.

It was a while back when I drafted Knight St and Golden Ears Way. I'd want Knight St to stay, but I'm not as beholden to Golden Ears. However, if it does stay, it'll provide an incentive for me to clinch it the next time I'm able to get up to Vancouver

[yakra]

"How much of each route to include?"
can lead down a rabbit hole in some cases...

Two sub-questions to try to answer:
1.) How much do we include if a route bearing a given name is only partially freeway, especially with significant at-grade portions beyond the freeway's end? Development?
2.) How much do we include if the route is partially numbered?
on.donvalpkwy.

A Question 1A: Should the ends be at the final interchange of the freeway segments? The first at-grade intersection beyond that? Something else in special cases?
And for all these questions, should we try to make hard & fast rules out of the answers, or allow things to be more wibbly-wobbly and do what seems to Make Sense and look nice in individual cases?

Comments, route-by-route
...and thinking things thru and crap.

ab.crotrl
Q1 and Q2 apply. There is a short at-grade segment between two freeway segments.

ab.sheparkfwy
The answer to Q1 could mean a minor adjustment to the western terminus.

bc.golearsway
Q1 applies; significant at-grade portions at both ends.

bc.knist
Q1 applies; Knight St continues north with residential development and tons of at-grades. I would not want to extend it; Q1A raises the idea of lopping off the short northernmost segment.

ns.bedbyp
Looks good.

on.allrd
Q1/1A, a few at-grades at the north end. Extraneous directional suffixes on point labels. WilHeiBlvd should be removed per 1PPI.

on.donvalpkwy
Looks good.

on.ecrowexpy
Looks good? (Why did I not flag it as looking good upthread?)

on.garexpy
The easternmost segment, beyond DonValPkwy, looks a bit off to me. Are we sure the route ends here, and that this shouldn't be considered a ramp?

on.linalepkwy
Point label RHillVPkwy mismatches route name RedHillPkwy. (I prefer RedHillPkwy.)

on.redhillpkwy
Point label LinMAPkwy mismatches route name LinAlePkwy. (I prefer LinAlePkwy.)
Extraneous directional suffixes on point labels.

on.rr174
Upthread, I was batting around these ideas about renaming it on.que / ON Que instead, which would create some Q2 problems about "DO we extend it west along ON417 Queensway, and if so haw far?" Rethinking that some more, I think it's fine as is. Having the route be RR174 sidesteps the "how far to extend it" issue. Sure, it "goes further east as surface" as Si noted, but I don't see a problem here. There's been plenty of precedent for including just the freeway segments of longer routes, such as in USANSF. Keeping this as is is nice & tidy.
Yes. Looks good.

sk.cirdr
I'd be in favor of including the whole route, not just the unnumbered portions. This is on "It's Sensible and Looks Nice" grounds, but it also gets rid of the "what to include" Q2 problem if not including numbered portions. Not knowing for certain where exactly SK16 & SK11 go, this just leaves point labeling as the one remaining hiccup. Which, looking at it some more, isn't so bad. The points where SK16 (and SK11 with it) join & leave the whole mess are pretty clearly defined; labeling is simple enough here. The only sticking point left would be what to label the point where the Idlewyld Freeway leaves Circle Dr.
Related: If SK11 is deemed to not follow Idlewyld, then include Idlewyld Fwy in cannf?

ab.gletrl (Glenmore Trail: theoretical, not yet in HB)
Possibly the biggest PitA WRT Q2.
The west end overlaps with AB8, which has a wibbly-wobbly end, due to this city "connector route" monkey business, and its poor/incomplete signage. My inclination is to include everything that is "Glenmore Trail", out to the City boundary at 101 St. As it was in the original CHM draft.
Mercifully, at least including everything from Sarcee Trail to AB2 is pretty cut & dry.
AB560 picks up east of AB2 -- unsigned AB560, that is. So Q2 would be wibble-wobbled by another "indeterminus" over on this end. Again, it'd make sense to toss out Q2 and just go with what's "Glenmore Trail". The freeway continues east a bit to Ogden Rd / 24 St, as CHM originally had it. Looking at Google Satellite and OSM reveals construction underway to extend the freeway east inna Texas frontage road stylee to Barlow Trail.

[yakra]

Right. After thinking all that through, I'm starting to arrive at some answers to my questions above.

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.

CroTrl can squeak by as-is here, with a short at-grade segment in the middle. It arguably may not meet my "ideal" case above, with a few parking lot & business entrances, but hey. So it's not ideal.

SheParkFwy is the "special case" I have in mind, with one very short segment west of the at-grade 71 St intersection.

GolEarsWay: If keeping it, cut off the N end at BC7. The interchange itself has an at-grade intersection anyway. If wibbly, cut off the S end @ 200St. If wobbly, cut off the S end @ 192St.

KniSt is perhaps the best argument for only including the freeway bits. I like the idea of ending it at MarDr, in the name of cleanliness. Has a bit of a 1PPI ring to it too.

AllRd:

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.

Concur.

RR174: Keep as-is...

CirDr: A short non-freeway segment on the north side. Sensible Exception?

GleTrl: E end would be at Ogden Rd. Extend to Barlow Trail when construction is complete in late 2017.

Q2: Include the whole thing, whether numbered or not.
It seems the most sensible thing to do for CirDr.
Ending CroTrl at AB1A would be, well... just kinda ugly.
RR174 neatly sidesteps Q2, if we just consider the freeway (slash Queensway) segment of numbered route RR174. Yeah man. I'm really starting to like the "leave it as RR174" solution now.
GleTrl would be an ugly rabbit hole if leaving off numbered bits, with a poorly-signed or unsigned "indeterminus" on each end. Yeah, no. Whole thing, please!

[oscar]

The Manitoba St. Expressway in Moose Jaw is a "probably not" as not long enough, but I want to noodle a little on that.

Uh, never mind. Less than 2.5 miles long, only one interchange besides the one at the TCH 1 junction, more at-grade intersections.,