IA: some changes in eastern Iowa

[bejacob]

The HB tells the user what label to use. Whether it matches the name on paper or the name as signed doesn't materially impact its usability. I say let it be so long as the point is in the correct location and isn't named something totally out of whack.

Seconded. Please end the "minor point concern" posts that seem to be taking over the forum.

I'm all for doing a cleanup from time to time to rename points that might not be 100% "by the book." Likewise, I support fixing point locations when they move to due to construction or some other reason.

In general, I don't care what the points are named and I suspect most users feel the same. Can we stop with all the suggestions to rename points that won't materially improve anything?

[Markkos1992]

I'm all for doing a cleanup from time to time to rename points that might not be 100% "by the book." Likewise, I support fixing point locations when they move to due to construction or some other reason.

In general, I don't care what the points are named and I suspect most users feel the same. Can we stop with all the suggestions to rename points that won't materially improve anything?

I don't see myself doing anything different beyond this with the exception of shaping points and some intersection points,  and even with that I am fine with someone not wanting visible shaping points at insignificant roads that do not connect to anything.  WIth states such as NC and WI, adding exit numbers pretty much can lead to a review of the entire route with the simple fact of exit numbers appearing anywhere (such as US 17, US 70, and US 74).

When I relooked through PA a couple years ago, I personally saw items that I doubt would have ever been caught had I not relooked at those files. (such as this thread: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3168.0)

[froggie]

As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.

I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.

I did not realize Highway63 had this intention when I started looking at exit numbers for WI.  Having stated that, considering that we are going this direction in other states (most specifically NC with routes such as US 17 and US 70), we should be doing it here as well.

FWIW, I'm with Highway63 regarding exit numbers on routes that are not full freeway.  I can see it as an option (and obviously whomever is doing NC and other states is following that), but I don't agree with it being a requirement and I have no intention of mixing things in my states either.

Exit numbers have a certain connotation with the Interstate system and toll roads.  Much less so for state/U.S. highways.

[Markkos1992]

As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.

I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.

I did not realize Highway63 had this intention when I started looking at exit numbers for WI.  Having stated that, considering that we are going this direction in other states (most specifically NC with routes such as US 17 and US 70), we should be doing it here as well.

FWIW, I'm with Highway63 regarding exit numbers on routes that are not full freeway.  I can see it as an option (and obviously whomever is doing NC and other states is following that), but I don't agree with it being a requirement and I have no intention of mixing things in my states either.

Exit numbers have a certain connotation with the Interstate system and toll roads.  Much less so for state/U.S. highways.

I think there is a difference between having an exit number show up once versus an entire freeway/expressway section.  For instance, US 23 in KY only has three exit numbers (15, 23, and 24) so doing them for that route is definitely not very useful. 

US 61 in IA is definitely not full freeway, but it has a decent freeway length section around the Quad Cities heading north of I-80 to DeWitt.  Doing them in this section, but omitting them in sections where there is only one exit, but not many numbers for miles I think are different situations. 

I wonder if it would be useful to have a recommended minimum length of freeway (at least 10-15 miles) to cover this.  Of course, that does not really help routes such as US 12 (mostly freeway but some expressway) around Madison, WI, and WI 29.  The latter is practically ADHS Corridor-like from I-94 to Green Bay.

For PA, the only route I do not plan to add exit numbers at the moment to is PA 309 on the Cross Valley Expressway (sequential starting at 1 farther north in the route similar to what I have seen on US 460 (ADHS Corridor Q)). If I saw mileage-exit numbers on US 30 or PA 283 tomorrow, they would be added here.

[yakra]

Seconded. Please end the "minor point concern" posts that seem to be taking over the forum.

Suggest combining posts by region to reduce clutter:
New York minor point issues
Massachusetts minor point issues
Etc., rather than split up by individual route.

[mapcat]

Is there a reason "minor point concerns" need to be in the forum at all? A PM to the collaborator seems more appropriate, since typically these aren't items up for discussion.

[neroute2]

Is there a reason "minor point concerns" need to be in the forum at all? A PM to the collaborator seems more appropriate, since typically these aren't items up for discussion.

Apparently in cases like this the collaborator has their own nonsensical rules about how things should be.

[Markkos1992]

I have been wondering if a subforum would be useful for items (whether minor or not) that the collaborators consider low priority.

[mapcat]

I have been wondering if a subforum would be useful for items (whether minor or not) that the collaborators consider low priority.

Possibly, although speaking for myself, it would be okay if these posts didn't happen at all except when specifically requested.

[bhemphill]

Is there a reason "minor point concerns" need to be in the forum at all? A PM to the collaborator seems more appropriate, since typically these aren't items up for discussion.

Apparently in cases like this the collaborator has his own nonsensical rules about how things should be.

There was a point in time on CHM where there were some US highways that had exit numbers and I believe Tim said they had to be changed to the crossroad names instead.  So I can understand that some are not really wanting to go through to rename the points again.

[bejacob]

Wasn't there some guidance against making significant changes to 'active' systems to prevent breaking user list files? My recollection was that making changes for 'preview' systems need not consider how point label changes affected users. This allows for peer review to happen unimpeded.

Once a system is activated, I thought users could/should report errors or make point requests, but that other changes were at the discretion of the collaborator who maintains a particular region. I've noticed a few cleanup operations (TX and AR come to mind) from time to time. Seems like a good practice to continue. Personally, I'd like to see an end of the unsolicited peer reviews on active systems. If a maintainer wants someone to perform a review as part of a future 'Operation Cleanup' I have no doubt the request would be made.

[SSOWorld]

WI 29 and the US Routes in WI have the same structure as US 61 here.  I see no need to change to exit numbers here.  Essentially you're breaking list files

Remember the golden rule...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

The ones in the minor point threads are not broken!

[Markkos1992]

WI 29 and the US Routes in WI have the same structure as US 61 here.  I see no need to change to exit numbers here.  Essentially you're breaking list files

Remember the golden rule...

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

The ones in the minor point threads are not broken!

Actually, you are not breaking list files by changing to mileage exit numbers.  All of the in-use labels can easily become alternate labels here.  Yes, this can cause an influx of unused alternate labels down the road, but that is a minor issue.

The reason that there have been broken list files in MA is that the exit numbers are changing from sequential to mileage-based (meaning that some of the sequential numbers are being reused in other places).

[si404]

Wasn't there some guidance against making significant changes to 'active' systems to prevent breaking user list files?

These "minor label changes" are not significant changes, and that's the primary objection to them - that they aren't that important.

The guidance is to take care when making changes to not needlessly break stuff, rather than not to break lists:
Care must be taken to ensure that changes do not "break" a user's list file.
If a waypoint label is in use by current TM users we should add alternative labels if possible.
If a .list name label is in use by current TM users we should add alternative route names if possible.
In many cases, however, the changes needed will break user lists. In those and other situations, changes are newsworthy and require an updates entry for active systems.

Not that any of the proposed changes would break lists - as long as in-use labels get alt labels, so as not to break lists, it's explicitly not a newsworthy change to fix an erroneous label.

edited again, so it's clear what's being applauded

[yakra]

Actually, you are not breaking list files by changing to mileage exit numbers.  All of the in-use labels can easily become alternate labels here.

The guidance is to take care when making changes to not needlessly break stuff, rather than not to break lists:
Care must be taken to ensure that changes do not "break" a user's list file.
If a waypoint label is in use by current TM users we should add alternative labels if possible.
If a .list name label is in use by current TM users we should add alternative route names if possible.
In many cases, however, the changes needed will break user lists. In those and other situations, changes are newsworthy and require an updates entry for active systems.

Not that any of the proposed changes would break lists - as long as in-use labels get alt labels, so as not to break lists, it's explicitly not a newsworthy change to fix an erroneous label.

edited again, so it's clear what's being applauded

editing my own post in turn, for the same reason