MD: Proposed Merging of MD 648 (Severna Park) and MD 648 (Glen Burnie)

[Markkos1992]

I am proposing a merger of these two sections as my trip through here Sunday made it clear to me that MD 2 and MD 648 should have an implied concurrency here.

View from MD 648 NB at end of Severna Park Section
View from MD 2 NB just past the north end of the MD 648 Severna Park Section

We already show an implied MD 648/MD 177 concurrency on the Glen Burnie section so I see no issues with including one here.

This does not affect the other portions of MD 648 further south around US 50/US 301/MD 450.

I also recommend the following label changes:

MD 2:
MD648_A>-MD648Arn
MD648_B>-MD648_S
MD648_C>-MD648_SevS
MD648_D>-MD648_SevN
MD648_E>-MD648_N
Farther north in Baltimore, I am unsure if a graph connection with I-83 is viable.

MD 648:
Severna Park:
MD2_N>-MD2_SevS
Glen Burnie:
MD2_S>-MD2_SevN  (MD2_N is fine as-is.)
AsbRd>-AsbDr
Did I check on a graph connection with MD295 at MD295_S previously?  I am unsure if this is viable either.
WenAve>-WenSt

[yakra]

Might be simpler to just keep the _A _B _C _D _E

MD2_N>-MD2_SevS
Glen Burnie:
MD2_S>-MD2_SevN  (MD2_N is fine as-is.)

??

[Markkos1992]

I was using Sev to keep the abbreviation for Severna Park.

The existing MD2_N on MD 648 (Glen Burnie) is at MD648_E on MD 2.  I also accidentally put MD648_SevS for MD648_D instead of MD648_SevN.

[yakra]

What confused me was the "MD2_N is fine as-is" note. Looking over it again I see that this references 2 different points in 2 different routes.

On that note, this could potentially break a lot of .list files, with the old MD2_S & MD2_N point in one file mapping to the same-named point in the other.
Is it worth making the exception to implied concurrencies to avoid .list breakage?

[Markkos1992]

I see 19 travelers (including myself) that have driven or clinched MD648Sev.  Is there a way to see how many have clinched both MD648 and MD648Sev? 

I have two parts of MD648 at the moment (one being the implied MD 177 concurrency).

The only part of MD648 I have at the moment is the northern-most segment.

[yakra]

Is there a way to see how many have clinched both MD648 and MD648Sev? 

Full clinches of both will have their travels unaffected.
Same for anyone using neither MD MD648Sev MD2_N nor MD MD648 MD2_S.

I'm more interested in answering:
• Who's using MD MD648Sev MD2_N but not MD MD648 MD2_N?
  cebarb98 chaddean dcm55343 dlsterner froggie htm_duke JamesMD justjake lkefct mapcat mapmikey mefailenglish ngrier oscar polabare RMA58 vespertine xorodejon (everyone using the former!)
• Who's using MD MD648 MD2_S but not MD MD648Sev MD2_S?
  markkos1992 ngrier jerseyman4 osu97gp

[Markkos1992]

yakra, did you mix things up?  After tonight's update, I will be using MD MD648Sev MD2_N, but I will not be using MD MD648 MD2_S.

So I am currently at the following for both sections of MD 648:

MD MD648Sev MD2_S MD2_N
MD MD648 MonSt MD295_N

[yakra]

I did mix things up. Post edited.

[Markkos1992]

Of course, I am now working on a route plan to finish MD 648 Saturday.   

[Duke87]

Honestly the fact that it's not possible to make this merge without messing up a bunch of people's list files has me leaning no-build.

If going from scratch, sure, I get the implied concurrency argument but this could easily also be interpreted as a missing TO situation and... is it really worth breaking people's lists over? Eh....

[Markkos1992]

I'm more interested in answering:
• Who's using MD MD648Sev MD2_N but not MD MD648 MD2_N?
  cebarb98 chaddean dcm55343 dlsterner froggie htm_duke JamesMD justjake lkefct mapcat mapmikey mefailenglish ngrier oscar polabare RMA58 vespertine xorodejon (everyone using the former!)

I guess the secondary question is how many out of this group have not clinched MD648.  That may reduce the number of truly broken lists to about 5 or so.

I will try to do another search of list files on Github tomorrow and see what I get.

[yakra]

I'm more interested in answering:
• Who's using MD MD648Sev MD2_N but not MD MD648 MD2_N?
  cebarb98 chaddean dcm55343 dlsterner froggie htm_duke JamesMD justjake lkefct mapcat mapmikey mefailenglish ngrier oscar polabare RMA58 vespertine xorodejon (everyone using the former!)

I guess the secondary question is how many out of this group have not clinched MD648.

By definition, all of them. MD MD648 MD2_N doesn't have an AltLabel, and is thus required to clinch MD648.

yakra@BiggaTomato:~/tm$ ./whouses.sh md.md648sev MD2_N | head -n 3 | tail -n 1 | tr ' ' '\n' | grep -vF -f <(./whouses.sh md.md648 MD2_N | head -n 3 | tail -n 1 | tr ' ' '\n')

[Markkos1992]

I'm more interested in answering:
• Who's using MD MD648Sev MD2_N but not MD MD648 MD2_N?
  cebarb98 chaddean dcm55343 dlsterner froggie htm_duke JamesMD justjake lkefct mapcat mapmikey mefailenglish ngrier oscar polabare RMA58 vespertine xorodejon (everyone using the former!)

I guess the secondary question is how many out of this group have not clinched MD648.

By definition, all of them. MD MD648 MD2_N doesn't have an AltLabel, and is thus required to clinch MD648.

yakra@BiggaTomato:~/tm$ ./whouses.sh md.md648sev MD2_N | head -n 3 | tail -n 1 | tr ' ' '\n' | grep -vF -f <(./whouses.sh md.md648 MD2_N | head -n 3 | tail -n 1 | tr ' ' '\n')

Yeah, a merged MD648 under my format would mean that MD MD648 MD2_S MD2_N and MD MD648Sev MD2_S MD2_N would not be a clinch of both.  The technical line for that would need to be MD648 MD2_S MD295_N.

Since we did state that clinching both would have list files unaffected, I guess my question is how many in the first group have not clinched both.  With my list file update last night, everyone that has driven MD648Sev has now clinched it (19 drivers).

EDIT:  Using the Github search feature, the only truly broken list files seem to be the ones listed in the second category (jerseyman4 and osu97gp).

[yakra]

Ooohhhh OK I get it now -- I was thinking MD648 ended at MD2_N. Oops. Nope. Ends at MD295.

So anyone using using MD MD648Sev MD2_N would still be fine as long as they're clinching the Glen Burnie segment from its S endpoint to anywhere N of MD2_N.
This can be figured out.
Edit: .lists broken for: justjake ngrier polabare xorodejon

[Duke87]

OK not as many people as I thought.

Going to go ahead with this after all, and also doing a merge of the two MD 662 segments which, as I observed over the weekend, have an equally implied concurrency with US 50 between them.