Author Topic: A route follows a one-way pair, each half of which also has its own number  (Read 1448 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
  • Last Login:Today at 06:00:00 pm
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=mexnl.mex040
Zoom into Monterrey and note the long section with no points. Here 40 eastbound follows the south side of the river and 40 westbound follows the north side. Usually I'd just put a point in the middle of the river for each junction. The problem is that Monterrey has its own system of numbered routes, which I've drafted (but not yet pushed to devel status yet). Eastbound Federal 40 is also Monterrey 20, and westbound Federal 40 is also Monterrey 22. There's no way to have one line for Federal 40 and separate lines for Monterrey 20 and 22 while making them overlap.

Are there any existing cases that are anything like this?

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2643
  • Last Login:Today at 03:49:24 pm
I've not checked our rules on that but I'd draft MEX40 concurrent to M20 eastbound (because that's the waypoint order of MEX40) and draft a MEX40 (Monterrey) route concurrent to M22 westbound.

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1830
  • Last Login:Today at 05:32:06 pm
Forgetting for the moment the restrictions of our current TM implementation related to concurrency detection...

- A traveler who lists 20 should also get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping 40.
- A traveler who lists 22 should also get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping 40.
- A traveler who lists 40 should not get credit through concurrency detection for 20 or 22, since we can't know which one they meant.

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2768
  • Last Login:Today at 06:22:21 pm
- A traveler who lists 40 should not get credit through concurrency detection for 20 or 22, since we can't know which one they meant.
This traveler will at least still have the option of adding 20 or 22 manually.
I'm not gonna look at this too closely; I just woke up & kinda can't parse it. I don't envy neroute2 :P

Not sure if either of these would help, how related they really are, but:
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=tx.us087&lat=35.210809&lon=-101.832147&zoom=14
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=ma.us006&lat=41.722339&lon=-71.152568&zoom=15

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1830
  • Last Login:Today at 05:32:06 pm
I'm thinking a wrinkle here from the data processing and stats points of view are that a traveler who lists either 20 or 22 should get credit for that segment of 40, but if they list both, should only get credit for 40 once, not twice.

There's probably not a good solution without changes to the data processing/stats/maps infrastructure.

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 321
  • Last Login:June 30, 2020, 07:25:08 pm
I'd recommend Michih's solution as probably the simplest.

Offline bhemphill

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • Last Login:June 19, 2020, 08:07:47 am
That's kind of similar to Amarillo, Texas where US60, US87, and US287.  US60 uses a one-way pair with US287 northbound vs US87 southbound through that stretch of town.

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2768
  • Last Login:Today at 06:22:21 pm
That's kind of similar to Amarillo, Texas where US60, US87, and US287.  US60 uses a one-way pair with US287 northbound vs US87 southbound through that stretch of town.
I'm thinking a wrinkle here from the data processing and stats points of view are that a traveler who lists either 20 or 22 should get credit for that segment of 40, but if they list both, should only get credit for 40 once, not twice.

There's probably not a good solution without changes to the data processing/stats/maps infrastructure.
Someone who's driven US60 in Amarillo has also driven... something else, but we don't know what.
Eastbound on Buchanan, it's US287 north.
Westbound on Pierce, it's US87 south.
Here, there's no multiplex to be detected, as 87 & 287's traces fall between their respective couplets a block west. Users will need to also .list their section of US87 or US287 as appropriate.
Travelers on US87 or US287 may not have also traveled US60: US87 NB on Fillmore & US287 SB on Taylor.

- A traveler who lists 40 should not get credit through concurrency detection for 20 or 22, since we can't know which one they meant.
Amarillo & Fall River are like the OP in this regard...
- A traveler who lists US60 should not get credit through concurrency detection for US87 or US287, since we can't know which one they meant.
- A traveler who lists MA138 should not get credit through concurrency detection for US6 or MA79, since we can't know which one they meant.

- A traveler who lists 20 should also get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping 40.
- A traveler who lists 22 should also get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping 40.
Amarillo & Fall River are un like the OP in this regard:
- A traveler who lists TX US87 should not get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping US60, because it may have been NB on Fillmore.
- A traveler who lists TX US287 should not get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping US60, because it may have been SB on Taylor.
- A traveler who lists MA US6 should not get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping MA138, because it may have been SB on the western frontage road.
- A traveler who lists MA79 should not get credit through concurrency detection for overlapping MA138, because it may have been NB on the inner roadway.

This makes the OP really unique. I'm not aware of anything else quite like it.



Don't think I'm on board with michih's solution.
IMO, the greater good is to keep routes' traces & points close to the centerline where practicable; to plot routes faithfully, and this outweighs the desire to get multiplexes nailed down in more places. I say give users the option.
Thus so far I'm leaning to more of an Amarillo-style solution, where each route has a trace along its own center.
While each route would still have its own correct mileage, the downside is that the system & region would have slightly inflated mileage, as we see in Amarillo & Fall River. (But hey, that'll happen sometimes.)
Michih's solution wouldn't add more mileage to the system & region, but in a way, it does to a route. Or group of routes if you will; MEX40 + another MEX40 (even if it's something we can't filter for on the maps & stat pages.)

But most importantly,
if they list both, should only get credit for 40 once, not twice.
In my view, that's what would in effect be happening.

This would create an extra fake MEX40 route that's already part of MEX40 proper, really.
There's no ME5 (Saco) to overlap I-195 & US1.
I left out NH4 Trk (Dover), because it overlaps what's already half of NH4 proper.
There's of course nothing in Amarillo for an alternate direction of 60, 87 or 287.
Nothing in Watertown NY. Or Holyoke MA for US202.
This idea of creating an alternate route file for just an alternate direction of a single route is a slippery slopy, one hell of a Pandora's Box to open.



Looking at the situation in Monterrey some more, ugh, what a mess. It may or may not help me to have a clearer understanding of what 20 & 22 do here. Are these one-way routes? Is something else going on? I may check out neroute2's drafts of these and see what I can see. Not right this moment though.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2020, 11:31:21 pm by yakra »