KY: KY 1428 Minor Point Concerns

[Markkos1992]

1.   I think that DogLn should be hidden.
2.   I think that the shaping point northeast of DogLn should be replaced with a visible point at Stumbo Park Rd (StuParkRd).
3.   I’d recommend a point at the Main St/Beaver Ave for shaping purposes if I could find out what the label should be there.
4.   I think that TraParkRd should be hidden.
5.   I think that IttRd should be hidden.
6.   KnoHolRd should be relocated to nearby 4thSt.
7.   I recommend adding a point at Cliff Rd (CliRd) for shaping purposes.

[yakra]

Prefer an intersection to act as a shaping point location wherever possible. Shaping points that coincide with intersections should be added as normal, visible waypoints labeled in the usual way.

[Markkos1992]

Prefer an intersection to act as a shaping point location wherever possible. Shaping points that coincide with intersections should be added as normal, visible waypoints labeled in the usual way.

This kinda goes into that discussion on whether certain minor roads should have shaping points or not.  Having stated that, mapcat and I have an understanding that this will not be looked at anytime soon.

As I look at Puerto Rico, there are certain times that you just have to go with what is there.  It is not a very common issue though since Puerto Rico seems to throw state route numbers onto everything like Maryland.

[compdude787]

Prefer an intersection to act as a shaping point location wherever possible. Shaping points that coincide with intersections should be added as normal, visible waypoints labeled in the usual way.

This kinda goes into that discussion on whether certain minor roads should have shaping points or not.  Having stated that, mapcat and I have an understanding that this will not be looked at anytime soon.

I personally don't agree with putting intersection points at minor roads, especially when they could be better placed on an arterial nearby. This is a big problem on Washington's state routes, and something I'm planning on fixing in the near future, since I find it to be really annoying. (This will also be done along with recentering points on WA's interstates, many of which are way off, and will of course require updating the corresponding waypoints on state routes that intersect the waypoints, so I figure I should totally review the entire route to add waypoints at arterials where needed.)

[yakra]

If points at arterials adequately shape a route, then nothing more need be done.
If additional shaping is needed, then add points at minor roadways.
If additional shaping is still needed, then add hidden points.

[mapcat]

If additional shaping is needed, then add points at minor roadways.

Why are these preferable to shaping points? Unused points at minor roadways are just clutter.

[rickmastfan67]

If additional shaping is needed, then add points at minor roadways.

Why are these preferable to shaping points? Unused points at minor roadways are just clutter.

Because you never know where somebody might have to U-Turn or there could be a detour in play due to a road closure.

[mapcat]

Because you never know where somebody might have to U-Turn or there could be a detour in play due to a road closure.

Of course. Maybe you've noticed that when people do that, they submit point requests, and it in nearly every case, the collaborator complies. Little is gained by adding these points before they're needed.

[yakra]

If additional shaping is needed, then add points at minor roadways.

Why are these preferable to shaping points? Unused points at minor roadways are just clutter.

In the context of my comment, these points are shaping points -- just visible ones.
Thus "Why are these preferable to hidden points?" would be a better question to ask.

All points, visible & hidden alike, are usable in .list files. If a point is needed for shaping in a general area anyway, why not make it a visible one, so travelers will have the ability to fine-tune their travels. If someone has been to his cousin Bob's house nearby, he can use a minor OakLn type point without having to go to GitHub and find out that +X123456 best represents his travels.

As far as clutter goes, the nature of how the lateral tolerance works naturally limits how dense points are going to get before a route is adequately shaped. IMO the results from shaping won't be super bad, certainly better than a lot of those really short multiplexes that are out there.

Because you never know where somebody might have to U-Turn or there could be a detour in play due to a road closure.

Of course. Maybe you've noticed that when people do that, they submit point requests, and it in nearly every case, the collaborator complies. Little is gained by adding these points before they're needed.

It's useful to draw a distinction between when points are needed by a user, after a system is in Preview, vs. when points are needed for shaping, usually when a route is first drafted.

All that said, ISTM (not checking the HB) that these KY routes are implemented properly as-is WRT points, needed for shaping, included visibly.

[Markkos1992]

All points, visible & hidden alike, are usable in .list files. If a point is needed for shaping in a general area anyway, why not make it a visible one, so travelers will have the ability to fine-tune their travels. If someone has been to his cousin Bob's house nearby, he can use a minor OakLn type point without having to go to GitHub and find out that +X123456 best represents his travels.

I wonder how many users (besides us collaborators) actually realize this.  My goal (as much as possible within reason) is to replace shaping points with visible points when practical (or visible points at minor roads with more major roads).  Of course, there will always be exceptions.  I have no problem using minor roads unless they are private or quickly dead end.  I am back and forth on minor gravel roads, but I do not prefer them.

[Jim]

I don't know that CHM or TM ever really encouraged people to make use of hidden points to approximate travels when one is better for them than a nearby visible point.

The switch to favor minor intersections over hidden points where possible was made a long time ago, wasn't it?  Does that go all the way back to CHM?

[oscar]

I don't know that CHM or TM ever really encouraged people to make use of hidden points to approximate travels when one is better for them than a nearby visible point.

It's kind of an unofficial perk for team members, who can look up hidden point labels in the repositories or local copies thereof.

Indeed, I included a hidden point in my latest list file, for a construction closure on LA 119. The alternatives were to leave a segment unclaimed, or to request a visible waypoint at a non-intersection point (the construction kept me from reaching the nearby Mag(nolia)Pla(ntation) parking lot, which doesn't have a waypoint and doesn't cry out for one).

[si404]

 Hidden points in lists don't work in stats, afaics

[yakra]

Does that go all the way back to CHM?

Yes.

Hidden points in lists don't work in stats, afaics

They work in stats, but not maps.
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=nh.us004&lat=43.641991688840655&lon=-72.251961078961&zoom=17
Compare mapview: https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?units=miles&u=terescoj&rg=NH

[mapcat]

Since there's no immediate benefit to making the suggested changes I am marking this solved, pending a re-examination at some point in the future when I review all usaky routes drafted before I assumed responsibility for the region.