PA: PA 611 Delaware Water Gap

[Markkos1992]

After driving PA 611 from the Portland-Columbia Toll Bridge to PA 33 Saturday, I am considering replacing some of the shaping points in the Delaware Water Gap with visible points at the outlook areas.

I think I could go DWGRA_N, DWGRA, and DWGRA_S, but I wonder if that looks weird.

[yakra]

Looks weird.

[Markkos1992]

I could also use the outlook point names as abbreviations.  Do we deal with something like this in a park such as Yellowstone?

[yakra]

Don't know about Yellowstone; take a look at the HB and see what you can see.
In my regions, NH112 and AB93 use overlooks, trailheads, campgrounds etc. as shaping points and to break up visible distances.
NH112 may need a bit of work though.

[Markkos1992]

This makes me wonder if I should request a point on NY 73 here.  I did park somewhere in this area to hike Giant Nubble in 2018, but I did not make it to AusRd.

Secondly, if you put PA and NJ in Mapview, you see that at the Point of Gap overlook that the I-80 line goes south of PA 611 briefly.  A shaping point at the curve on I-80 east of I-80_U would easily rectify this.

Thirdly, for PA 611 specifically, I believe I am good then to just go with the overlook names and not use DWGRA or DWGNRA at all.  I will plan to put a draft version of how I plan to put PA 611 in the WP Editor here before I start my Cleveland Meet Trip on Thursday.

Finally, I did check the USPS abbreviation for Trail, and should check to see where I am using Tr instead of Trl and make changes accordingly.

[yakra]

This makes me wonder if I should request a point on NY 73 here.  I did park somewhere in this area to hike Giant Nubble in 2018, but I did not make it to AusRd.

Not something I'd be too enthusiastic about adding, as it's not necessary for shaping or visible distance. That's about the only time I like to make exceptions to https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/includepts.php#attraction
In contrast, NY NY73 +X04 is near CasMouTrl.
Blammo! NY73 gets a recentering & reshaping, with all existing hidden points replaced with visible ones. One new hidden point on the NY9N olap.

Secondly, if you put PA and NJ in Mapview, you see that at the Point of Gap overlook that the I-80 line goes south of PA 611 briefly.  A shaping point at the curve on I-80 east of I-80_U would easily rectify this.

Grumble... Seems kinda minor; less likely to cause confusion...

Thirdly, for PA 611 specifically, I believe I am good then to just go with the overlook names and not use DWGRA or DWGNRA at all.  I will plan to put a draft version of how I plan to put PA 611 in the WP Editor here before I start my Cleveland Meet Trip on Thursday.

For AB93, I went with what was on signage in the field.
For NH113, usanh was my second-ever state system, back when GMSV was (in the US at least) too blurry & lo-res to read road signs, and road names came from then-current shapefiles. It may not be the best example; as noted it needs a touch-up.
I'll see what you come up with for PA611.

Finally, I did check the USPS abbreviation for Trail, and should check to see where I am using Tr instead of Trl and make changes accordingly.

Not a big deal IMO. It's one of those CHM/TM oddities like Tpk for Turnpike, both Pk & Pike for Pike, both Mtn/Crk & the standard truncated Mou/Cre, etc. Sometimes we have >1 commonly used abbrev, other than the the USPS-canonical one. More Trails outside PA will remain.
Of course, if you want to change, hey no problem there either.
Grepped it out of curiosity anyway, so why not paste:

Code: [Select]

./PA/usaus/pa.us322.wpt:OleTr
./PA/usaus/pa.us322.wpt:KiwTr
./PA/usaus/pa.us011.wpt:OldLacTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa259.wpt:McCTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa066.wpt:OleTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa066.wpt:LinTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa423trkpoc.wpt:SulTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa286.wpt:SadPackTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa044.wpt:SusTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa160.wpt:RhoCRTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa861.wpt:OleTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa028.wpt:SenTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa191.wpt:SulTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa054.wpt:SusTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa113.wpt:HorTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa113.wpt:MinTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa940.wpt:SulTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa405.wpt:SusTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa100.wpt:HorTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa238.wpt:SusTr
./PA/usapa/pa.pa346.wpt:StiTr

[Markkos1992]

Current Draft PA 611 from Portland-Columbia Toll Bridge to the Borough of Delaware Water Gap: (beyond my "do not let the line go into the Delaware")

PorTollBri http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.919926&lon=-75.094146
SlaRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.932624&lon=-75.104999
NatParkDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.946813&lon=-75.114115
+X9R http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.953397&lon=-75.119544
ArrIslOve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.958431&lon=-75.121057
+X10R http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.963304&lon=-75.121846
PoiGapOve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.966996&lon=-75.121374
+X11R http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.968157&lon=-75.130836
+X12R http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.969550&lon=-75.134012
+X9 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.973493&lon=-75.137180
ResPoiOve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.978361&lon=-75.138524
+X14R http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.981315&lon=-75.137925
BroSt_B http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.985203&lon=-75.144894

[yakra]

This adds another point to an area that's already overly dense.
This section is already well within tolerance, and many of these points (+X9R, +X10R, +X11R, +X9) add almost zero lateral offset.
While it's not unheard of to use an overlook as an endpoint to one's travels, I can only imagine it's got to be quite rare to stop & turn around at one rather than keep on in the same direction. These points are of little benefit where points are already closely spaced and there's no need for additional shaping.

Assuming NatParkDr should be kept as a worthwhile point for tourists, this area can be kept within tolerance while still not crossing I-80's trace:
NatParkDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.946813&lon=-75.114115
ArrIslOve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.958431&lon=-75.121057
BroSt_B http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.985203&lon=-75.144894

🔗 Shaping points

  • 🔗 Once the required intersections are added, look at the trace on top of map layer in the Waypoint Editor.
  • 🔗 Identify sections of the route that go outside the thick red line overlaid on the map. Add just enough extra shaping points to your file to re-trace the thick red line so that the centerline of your route as shown in OpenStreetMap stays within the line. All waypoints should be positioned on the highway. The highlight line helps you decide if another shaping point is needed.
  • 🔗 If the route has sharp turns or switchbacks and adding a few more shaping points there would significantly improve the trace, consider adding a few more, but be conservative. Not every curve needs a shaping point. Few curves ever need more than one shaping point.
  • 🔗 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.
  • 🔗 Shaping points that do not coincide with intersections should be added as hidden points beginning with +X and followed by a number, i.e., +X1, +X2, +X3 etc. The plus + hides the point in the Highway Browser. The number does not matter but must make the label unique for the highway. The Waypoint Editor uses random 6-digit numbers, like +X845202.
  • 🔗 With some practice, you can learn to identify where most of the needed shaping points should go on your first pass. Be careful not to add too many shaping points, just the needed ones as described.

(Note: "the thick red line" is long outdated, and needs an update.)

(beyond my "do not let the line go into the Delaware")

While I can see merit in adding the odd shaping point to keep nearby route traces from interfering with one another, I don't think rivers should be any more important than the regular shaping requirements; there won't be roads there to create ambiguity about where a route's alignment is. It's like adding minor shaping points (not major switchbacks) along contour intervals to keep a route trace from going too far up a hillside or into a valley.

[Duke87]

I don't see any issue with the points at the overlooks. Are they particularly necessary? No. But are they hurting anyone by being there? Also no. I'm more than happy to defer to the region maintainer's preference on this.

As for the shaping points, while I am on the record as being a fan of greater anatomical correctness in route traces, even I agree that "keep the route out of the river" is more fussy than need be. If it were me, I would keep +X12R and maaaaybe +X14R but definitely ditch the others (this is assuming the visible points for the overlooks all remain).
That said... once again... "Are they particularly necessary? No. But are they hurting anyone by being there? Also no."
While I have my own preferences for ideal waypoint density I will never strongly insist anyone remove waypoints on the grounds there are more than an arbitrary and subjective determination of what is "too many".

[yakra]

I'd argue that they do cause harm, specifically in mapview.
Every additional waypoint means an additional HighwaySegment. The data for segments are crunched server-side taking several seconds, then transferred to the client. I believe as Javascript text, so fairly heavyweight. Then all that Javascript is parsed & rendered on the client machine, which takes a good chunk of time. Polylines are drawn, sorted by tier based on overlaps, traveler counts calculated, and... A difference of +/-30% in # of points/segments can have a big effect.

[Markkos1992]

I'd argue that they do cause harm, specifically in mapview.
Every additional waypoint means an additional HighwaySegment. The data for segments are crunched server-side taking several seconds, then transferred to the client. I believe as Javascript text, so fairly heavyweight. Then all that Javascript is parsed & rendered on the client machine, which takes a good chunk of time. Polylines are drawn, sorted by tier based on overlaps, traveler counts calculated, and... A difference of +/-30% in # of points/segments can have a big effect.

I am hoping to relook at PA 611 (and following relook at similar routes around rivers such as US 11, US 219, US 322, PA 88, PA 906, etc.) and reshape it to lax this some, but also at the same time try not to cause confusion over the river crossings.  It may still be a day or two as I recover from my Cleveland Meet Trip.

[Markkos1992]

I kept all three overlooks as visible points at the end of the day.  I will allow for further feedback on how I redid PA 611 as I relook at the other river routes.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5085