Author Topic: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"  (Read 951 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cvoight

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Last Login:June 18, 2020, 02:31:07 pm
AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« on: January 10, 2020, 02:40:00 pm »
I believe these waypoint labels should have a hyphen between I & 10. These points are in use according to pointsinuse.log.

region\system\wpt file : line number : result
AL\usaus\al.us090.wpt:36:I10/US98_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.657683&lon=-87.911466
AL\usaus\al.us090.wpt:37:I10/US98_E http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.654702&lon=-87.912072
AL\usaus\al.us098.wpt:25:I10/US90_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.657683&lon=-87.911466
AL\usaus\al.us098.wpt:26:I10/US90_E http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.654702&lon=-87.912072
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 09:11:42 pm by cvoight »

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:23:12 am
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2020, 11:51:14 pm »
I'm trying to figure out which points you're referring to.

Offline cvoight

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Last Login:June 18, 2020, 02:31:07 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2020, 09:03:15 am »
I don't know how to link waypoints, but if you go to the highway browser for AL US90 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=null&r=al.us090), the waypoints I10/US98_W and I10/US98_E are about 3/4 of the way down. All the other interstate waypoints on those routes have a hyphen in I-10.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2020, 09:05:50 am by cvoight »

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:November 29, 2020, 01:53:31 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2020, 10:46:23 pm »
I'm trying to figure out which points you're referring to.

Waypoints 35 & 36 in the US-90 file.

Plus, I think we should find someway to add a graph connection in there for I-10 Exit #35 for both US-90 & US-98.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2020, 12:01:10 pm by rickmastfan67 »

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Last Login:November 18, 2020, 06:53:54 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2020, 05:52:02 pm »
Merge everything together per 1PPI?

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:November 29, 2020, 01:53:31 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2020, 08:39:53 pm »
Merge everything together per 1PPI?

I would say remove the 'I-10(35B)' point in US-90's file, and put a centered point on the main part of the interchange (& add same point to US-98's file).

This wouldn't be the first time we have points for all parts of the intersection.  Look @ VA US-522's file where it intersects US-17 & US-50 at I-81 Exit 313 as an example.  I mean, would look a little unorthodox, but we can't look past the small, but legit multiplex of US-90/US-98 there.

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
  • Last Login:November 18, 2020, 06:53:54 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2020, 08:42:18 pm »
Why can't we look past the overlap? We do at traffic circles.

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:23:12 am
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2020, 01:23:22 pm »
This isn't a traffic circle.

I'm with James regarding keeping the concurrency.  We have numerous examples of short concurrencies (including shorter than this US 90/US 98 example) that we have kept separate points for.

I'll get around at some point to renaming the points.  As for the OP, my memory's a bit hazy, but I'm pretty sure this was an early example (Alabama being one of the first sets of US routes drafted) of Tim wanting to keep point labels short, and the lack of the hyphen was deemed acceptable here.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 06:53:07 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2020, 01:41:02 pm »
Either that US90-US98 concurrency needs a middle I10 point colocated with the corresponding point on I10 (which is how I was told such things should be done) or the whole thing gets one-point-per-interchange at where I10 has its point.  Either is fine, but the current setup doesn't seem right.

As for I10, the dash is pointless. All the time (not just TM) it's extraneous, but it always (except for here) seems to be put it in anyway for some weird reason. ;)

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2871
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 06:18:15 am
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2020, 02:05:25 pm »
I fully agree with Si!

I'm in favor of one-point-per-interchange here.

Offline cvoight

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Last Login:June 18, 2020, 02:31:07 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2020, 07:47:58 pm »
I don't necessarily disagree re: hyphens in interstate numbers and it certainly is not a critical issue, but the current formatting of waypoints is extremely consistent in favor of the hyphen (see results below) such that the missing-hyphen-waypoints account for only 0.052% of all interstate waypoints. To me, that seems like something worth fixing for consistency (especially since other waypoints on the same routes include the hyphens).

(Get-ChildItem -Directory "*usa*" -Recurse | Get-ChildItem -Include "*.wpt" -Recurse | Select-String -Pattern "^I-").length returns 15,401 results for interstate waypoints with a hyphen.
(Get-ChildItem -Directory "*usa*" -Recurse | Get-ChildItem -Include "*.wpt" -Recurse | Select-String -Pattern "^I[0-9]").length returns 8 results for interstate waypoints without a hyphen.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2936
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:41:50 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2020, 01:02:48 pm »
Definitely keep the concurrency.

This wouldn't be the first time we have points for all parts of the intersection.  Look @ VA US-522's file where it intersects US-17 & US-50 at I-81 Exit 313 as an example.
Well, 2 of 3 parts at least. Same deal as NH US3.

I mean, would look a little unorthodox, but we can't look past the small, but legit multiplex of US-90/US-98 there.
A third, central, point does seem excessive when a traveler can only physically enter the roadway at the adjacent points, where US98 neatly corresponds with the ramp termini.

I would say remove the 'I-10(35B)' point in US-90's file, and put a centered point on the main part of the interchange (& add same point to US-98's file).
We could add a hidden point to US90 & 98, matching the coords from I-10. The resulting graph file would retain a connection usable in Jim's labs. We could still use the "Intersecting/Concurrent Routes" feature to surf from I-10 (with its visible point) to US90 & 98. Just no surfing from US90 or 98 to I-10 though, but I've got tricks up my sleeve to get around that.

Why can't we look past the overlap? We do at traffic circles.
Are you for serious?
This isn't a traffic circle.
This. How would we not overlook an overlap, while faithfully mapping both routes? Can't even be done, from a geometric standpoint. Not a valid comparison.

I'm with James regarding keeping the concurrency.  We have numerous examples of short concurrencies (including shorter than this US 90/US 98 example) that we have kept separate points for.
Ditto. I see no reason to squash down an ordinary, perfectly legitimate concurrency between two surface routes, just because a freeway interchange happens to pass through the mix.

As for the OP, my memory's a bit hazy, but I'm pretty sure this was an early example (Alabama being one of the first sets of US routes drafted) of Tim wanting to keep point labels short, and the lack of the hyphen was deemed acceptable here.
That can't be right, unless as you said, early example. The '-' has always been there, and standardizing the usual United States route prefixes was an early priority. KS7 not K-7, MI28 not M-28 or M28, etc. In any case, why lose that one char when there's an extra "US" after the '/'? Dropping prefixes after the slash goes back to the earliest "routedata.html" days.

As for I10, the dash is pointless. All the time (not just TM) it's extraneous, but it always (except for here) seems to be put it in anyway for some weird reason. ;)
There was a ;) at the end of that sentence, there was a ;) at the end of that sentence...
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 08:33:53 pm by yakra »

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:November 29, 2020, 01:53:31 pm
Re: AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*"
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2020, 06:44:59 pm »
So, since now 'INTERSTATE_NO_HYPHEN' is officially considered an error and needs to be fixed, here's my final suggestion label wise to fix this up in both US-90 & US-98's files and clear this issue once and for all.

US-90:
I10/US98_W -> US98_W
NEW -> +I-10(35)
I10/US98_E -> US98_E

US-98:
I10/US90_W -> US90_W
NEW -> +I-10(35)
I10/US90_E -> US90_E

The I-10 point being hidden is due to the way the interchange is setup due to each highway leaving each other at the I-10 offramps, but needing the missing graph connection with I-10.

Plus, we can get away with using the 'base' _W/_E points in each file for this multiplex due to them not being used anywhere else in either file thankfully.