canab: Alberta Provincial Highways 1-216

[yakra]

The highway 12 bypass of Bentley and Gull Lake has opened.
http://www.lacombeexpress.com/news/395276481.html?mobile=true

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/913

[yakra]

AFAIK, the only thing standing between canab and activation is the issue of whether to keep or ditch AB2TrkCar. It's designated as (Edit: part of) AB501 but not signed as such.
It's another case of the longstanding God Damn Truck Routes.
Signage is here and here. And here's what we have to guide travelers around the corner.
At the moment, I'm leaning ever so slightly toward ditching it.
Longtime watchers of the CHM/TM forums, care to comment?

[Bickendan]

If that's all the signage there is and it isn't in any provincial logs, I'd do up a dummy AB 501 file, don't include it, and activate the rest.

Sorry, I meant to edit my own post instead of yours. Reverted. -yakra

[yakra]

No need to worry about even a dummy AB501 file; AB500+ are a separate system.
I do have a file, around... somewhere. On a hard disk that may or may not be toast.
Anyone else?

[michih]

Why is AB500+ a different system?

[mapcat]

Personally I would not count that as a signed truck route. I thought that the condition for determining whether or not it's signed is a shield of some sort.

[Bickendan]

Why is AB500+ a different system?

AB's routes higher than 216 use a different shield.

[yakra]

Why is AB500+ a different system?

AB's routes higher than 216 use a different shield.

Alberta Provincial Highways 1-216 are tier 4.
Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986 are tier 5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alberta_provincial_highways

[michih]

Ok, got it. Thanks

[julmac]

AFAIK, the only thing standing between canab and activation is the issue of whether to keep or ditch AB2TrkCar. It's designated as (Edit: part of) AB501 but not signed as such.
It's another case of the longstanding God Damn Truck Routes.
Signage is here and here. And here's what we have to guide travelers around the corner.
At the moment, I'm leaning ever so slightly toward ditching it.
Longtime watchers of the CHM/TM forums, care to comment?

If you have excluded "Sherwood Park Freeway" (which is part of the designated "primary" [1-216] network), then AB2TrkCar definitely does not belong.

[julmac]

AB 8 -- I didn't see any AB 8 signage along the Glenmore Trail east of Sarcee Trail. And at the Sarcee Tr. junction, there's only "To AB 8" markings for Glenmore Trail heading west.

Assuming this is a "Highway Connector" route, as julmac described on AARoads, with its resulting spotty signage. GIS shows this as being the extent of the route.

Yes, officially a "connector route" from the City boundary at 101 Street, but it has never been signed east of Sarcee Trail. When the next section of AB 201 opens in a few years, it will supersede the signed portion of AB 8 out to 101 Street. See the guide sign plan here: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/documents/SWCRR-Schedule18-AppE.pdf

[yakra]

It's another case of the longstanding God Damn Truck Routes.
...
Longtime watchers of the CHM/TM forums, care to comment?

Guh. And I didn't even finish my sentence. 'Swhat I get for posting at 1am.
..The longstanding God Damn Truck Routes conundrum/debate that has been plaguing CHM/TM for years. What to include, what not to include, how to decide... yecch. It's a bit of a mess. Those who've been around the forums for a long time have witnessed this headache before.

If you have excluded "Sherwood Park Freeway" (which is part of the designated "primary" [1-216] network), then AB2TrkCar definitely does not belong.

I neglected to mention on AARoads, that although SheParkFwy isn't included as part of canab, it *is* included as part of the cannf "Canada Select Named Freeways" system.
So, I don't view this as a total 1:1 comparison. SheParkFwy isn't signed with its route number; AB2TrkCar *is*, even if just as text on a BGS. As you noted upthread, it's "no[t] signed with the usual route shield."
So it comes down to a matter of the God Damn Truck Route debate...

I thought that the condition for determining whether or not it's signed is a shield of some sort.

I was thinking about -- I had wondered a bit whether that had ever -- formally or informally or what -- been made the case for determining what makes the cut as a truck route. I couldn't even remember if there'd really been any discussion about that. I just don't have the stomach to go find & read thru all our previous truck route threads, here or on the CHM forums or wherever... So hey. I'll just call it good. I was leaning that way to start with, and have gotten enough votes in favour, so....
I'll give AB2TrkCar the axe, and relabel the corresponding point on AB2 as 8St.

-----

Yes, officially a "connector route" from the City boundary at 101 Street, but it has never been signed east of Sarcee Trail. When the next section of AB 201 opens in a few years, it will supersede the signed portion of AB 8 out to 101 Street. See the guide sign plan here: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/documents/SWCRR-Schedule18-AppE.pdf

Interesting stuff. Luckily, I won't have to worry about it for a few years. 
So, AB8 & AB201 will end at one another at 101 St, with neither continuing beyond that point. At least, until the next segment of AB201, northwards along the 101 St corridor to close the gap to TCH 1, opens.
Will AB8 be formally truncated when this all happens? Will the Connector Route cease to exist?

julmac, where would you argue that I should end AB8? Sarcee Trail?

[yakra]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/938
AB63: add AB686 interchange
AB2: AB2Trk_S -> 8St
canab.csv: delete AB2TrkCar
canab_con.csv: delete AB2TrkCar
AB CroTrl: AB8 -> GleTrl
AB8 truncated from AB2 to SarTrl
I've left the vestigial ab.ab002trkcar.wpt in as an unprocessedwpt dummy file.

If there are no more comments after a week, I'll activate canab.

[yakra]

AB58: Mac/Woo was so named because the end of AB58 in the shapefiles coincided with the L_PLACENAM attribute changing from "Mackenzie County" to ""I.D. No. 24 Wood Buffalo". I think I'm going to change it to WoodBufNP instead. Any objections?

[oscar]

AB58: Mac/Woo was so named because the end of AB58 in the shapefiles coincided with the L_PLACENAM attribute changing from "Mackenzie County" to ""I.D. No. 24 Wood Buffalo". I think I'm going to change it to WoodBufNP instead. Any objections?

Makes sense to me to refer to the national park in the point label, rather than the obscure "improvement district" that is coextensive with the park.

I have no other comments. I had thought there would be some highways in northern Alberta that would be short on waypoints, where the Milepost route logs could help. But it looks like the shapefiles picked up all the available points.