irlorb: Ireland Orbital Routes

[michih]

The preview system has 7 routes for about 27 miles. 15 TM users have travels so far. The routes are perfectly signed!
Please report issues here!

[michih]

I was not sure if it should be a tier 5 system but I agree on it now

I'll peer-review the system down the road

Edit: Is there a route list? I mean, I don't know if the system is complete with the seven routes in HB.

[neroute2]

I'm not sure that it's a bad idea, but why are the two directions split on one-way pairs? We normally use one route between the two directions. I see that Ireland has other instances of this.

Also, the J (junction) should be removed; we don't name points e.g. Exit5.

[yakra]

R138Dub should definitely not exist.

[michih]

Also, the J (junction) should be removed; we don't name points e.g. Exit5.

I think it's fine because the signs show the J prefix! We agreed on this long ago:

Perhaps I should put J in front of the inner Dublin exit numbers?

Good idea!

[michih]

R138Dub should definitely not exist.

I fully agree! There should be one wp within the block of buildings for all routes.

[michih]

DubOO:
J78 is slightly off, concurrent R101 too
Add wp b/n J74 and J75 to match R802's J37, concurrent R101 too


DubIOAnt:
Add wp b/n ShawSt and J43, concurrent(?) R802 too(?)


R114:
Add wp b/n J16 and R137_N to match DubIOClo's J18


R291:
Add wp b/n J4 and J8 to match R870's and SliCityLp's J6


R811:
Add wp b/n J63 and R110 to match R111's and DubOO's HerRd
Add wp b/n R137 and R110 to match R111's and DubOO's DonAve


R815:
Add wp b/n J54 and R118_N to match R111's and R118's R816



I don't wanna judge if we should have CW and CCW routes but since they are really signed that way (signs with junction numbers at the junctions are routing the routes as we have in HB at all locations I checked), I tend to keep them.
I'd prefer renaming the routes to CW and CCW. Sure, BE is more appropriate for Ireland than AE but CW and CCW are shorter

I think tha all NMPs can be marked FP.

[si404]

The inner orbitals are split because the directions do not pair, but do all sorts of odd stuff. There's messes with concurrencies, etc if not split by direction, and the routes are not followable on the map if conflated (similar goes for many of the R roads, though those are also split to deal with the concurrencies with the inner orbitals) as the trace doesn't relate to anything on the ground.

The multiple junctions (not just J14, J45, J46) are not one interchange for 1ppi with the R138Dub. Similar at other similar locations. Furthermore, collapsing that into a point makes routings unclear - eg does R840 run on Earlsfort Terrace, Hatch Street Lower, or both? With 1 point centred on Loreto College, its not clear where that road runs. Given it was in the last week or two when someone asked me to split an interchange up, and gave examples where different exit numbers had meant different points (despite being identical the example of 'one interchange' in the description of 1ppi), it seems that I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't!

I've tried the alternatives suggested, and it doesn't work well. There's good reasons why this all looks the way it does!

I'd prefer renaming the routes to CW and CCW. Sure, BE is more appropriate for Ireland than AE but CW and CCW are shorter

I've gone with CW and ACW instead of Clo and Ant to describe directions. Oh, and it's not 'BE' that I'm using but 'IE' ;P

[michih]

Fine to me.

I think that all NMPs can be marked FP.

Data errors likely too. I think the system will be good to go then!

[yakra]

Given it was in the last week or two when someone asked me to split an interchange up, and gave examples where different exit numbers had meant different points (despite being identical the example of 'one interchange' in the description of 1ppi), it seems that I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't!

Do you mean here? I was glad to see you mention I-97 & pals, so I didn't have to.
Another good example of 2 exit numbers that's clearly 1PPI is exits 8 & 9 on NY I-278.

collapsing that into a point makes routings unclear - eg does R840 run on Earlsfort Terrace, Hatch Street Lower, or both? With 1 point centred on Loreto College, its not clear where that road runs.

This shouldn't be an issue though. Losing some clarity when a route is split between a couplet is SOP.
It's just what is done, and to do otherwise is a tremendously slippery slope to go down. The implication is, if one has clinched R138 southbound, they've not clinched R138, and that one has to clinch both directions of a couplet to clinch a route. And by extension, a system or region. That's a big change to the underlying mechanics of how the site works.
It'd seem to beg for changes -- or cause users to beg for changes -- like, "XYZ was done with route ABC, why isn't XYZ done with route DEF?"

There's been some occasional precedent for just picking one direction and plotting that -- NY5 & pals in Buffalo come to mind -- this solution could work picking northbound R138.

[si404]

It's just what is done, and to do otherwise is a tremendously slippery slope to go down.

True, and it wasn't a decision I took lightly.

There's been some occasional precedent for just picking one direction and plotting that -- NY5 & pals in Buffalo come to mind -- this solution could work picking northbound R138.

That's a good solution. I'll look at implementing that.

[si404]

Having implemented the removal of splitting one-ways, the system is being activated with pull request #6000.