autl7: Tyrol Landesstraßen L

[michih]

The preview system has 191 routes for almost 700 miles: https://travelmapping.net/user/system.php?u=michih&sys=autl7
The system is ready for peer-reviewing. Please report issues here!

Additional info can be found under: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1776.msg28949#msg28949
Route list: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=LrT&Gesetzesnummer=20000250

[si404]

L2 - add point for Schartental to match Wie

L3, L4, L5, L6, L7 - fine

L8
 - OSM has a different route between BauGas and SoleGas
 - Add point for Stadtgraben heading east to Mils

L9
 - A12 -> A12(75)
 - add point at A12(67)

L10 - fine

L11 - B171_Tel is off

L12, L13, L14, L15, L16, L17, L18, L19, L21, L23 - fine

L24 - And -> StAnd

L25 - Jak -> StJak

L26 - Kals -> Kod?

L27, L28, L28Wal, L30, L32, L33 - fine

L35 - B171 -> A12? (or extend to A12 for graph connection?)

L36 - fine

L37 - Ack -> AckMauStr

L38, L39, L40, L41, L42, L43, L44, L46, L47, L48, L49, L50, L51 - fine

L52 - Gre -> Gru

L53 - Aus -> LochWeg

L54, L55, L56, L57, L58, L59, L60 - fine

L61 - Arz -> ImstPit? BahImstPit?

L61Rom, L62, L63, L64, L65 - fine

L66 - End -> Spi?

L67 - Inn -> Ine (to match the format of INnerLangsthei for INnerEgg)

L68 - add point for GSJ at Schhann

L69, L70, L71, L72, L73, L74, L75, L76, L77 - fine

[si404]

L202, L203, L204, L205, L206, L207, L208, L209, L210

L211, L215 - Sch/Kuf -> the other L road? There are other cases when this happens, and at them you use the road number, not the border

L212, L213, L216, L218, L220, L221, L222, L223, L224 - fine

L225
 - Hin -> HinArm?
 - Gna -> StMic

L226, L227 - fine

L228 - Kat -> StKat

L229, L230, L231, L232, L233, L234, L235, L236, L237, L238, L239, L240, L241, L242, L243 - fine

L244 - move B171 to actual junction

L245, L246, L248, L250, L252, L253, L254, L255, L259, L260 - fine

L261 - B199 is off

L264 - Guf is off

L265, L266, L267 - fine

L268 - Kra?

L273, L274, L275, L281, L282, L282Hin, L283, L284, L285, L286, L288, L289 - fine

L290 - GeoStr -> StGeoSt

L294, L295 - fine

L297 - move B169 (and corresponding B169 point) to overpass?

L298, L299 - fine

[si404]

L300, L301, L302, L304, L306, L307, L309, L310, L312, L313, L317, L318, L319, L321, L322, L324, L325, L326, L328, L330, L331, L332, L335, L336, L337 - fine

L339 - Wat -> Lec or Bir (everything around is Wat)

L340, L342, L344, L348, L350, L351, L352, L355

L358 - Def -> StVeit (other x in y places you use only the x bit, here you've used only the y bit)

L359, L361, L371, L379, L388, L389, L391 - fine

L393 - Joh -> StJoh

L394, L396 - fine

Note about 'St': 'San' (ie the first three letters of Sankt) would also be fine, though the abbrevation 'St' seems to be the common usage. However they should be included 1) as its an integral part of the village name ('Sankt Johann im Walde' would be referred to as 'Sankt Johann', but never 'Johann'), and 2) because you don't need to drop the word to truncate as you only have two words to shorten.

[michih]

Note about 'St': 'San' (ie the first three letters of Sankt) would also be fine, though the abbrevation 'St' seems to be the common usage. However they should be included 1) as its an integral part of the village name ('Sankt Johann im Walde' would be referred to as 'Sankt Johann', but never 'Johann'), and 2) because you don't need to drop the word to truncate as you only have two words to shorten.

St is used for writing even more than Sankt in Germany and Austria. And it is never omitted when spoken. However, I've always omitted it from town/village wp labels all over Germany and Austria (I found 3x "St" in street names in Austria). Same for "Bad". My approach was to keep the wp labels short. I don't like to deal different for Tyrol now as I had to revise about 20 other systems too to be consistent. Check all non-route-number wp labels. I think that the individual wp labels are not wrong per se as long as we are consistent. And such wp labels are not that important to users anymore when using the ".list Toolbox" for creating the list file entries.

Is it fine to you to keep it as-is or do you persist on changing it?

[si404]

Is it fine to you to keep it as-is or do you persist on changing it?

If when you say

However, I've always omitted it from town/village wp labels all over Germany and Austria

the 'I' means 'typical German speakers', then that's absolutely fine.

But if you mean you (and perhaps a few others), then it's probably something to discuss further.

[michih]

Is it fine to you to keep it as-is or do you persist on changing it?

If when you say

However, I've always omitted it from town/village wp labels all over Germany and Austria

the 'I' means 'typical German speakers', then that's absolutely fine.

But if you mean you (and perhaps a few others), then it's probably something to discuss further.

Please read it carefully again. It's just a me thing for TM. I omit St and Sankt from Sankt Veit, St. Pölten, St. Johann because I didn't want to deal with exceptions where St or Sankt is preferred - and the other one not accepted. It would mean a lot of research. We also had a "short wp label" approach for street and village/town name labels when I started drafting my first systems, and this was the justification to omit St/Sankt. The "short wp label" approach was also the reason to omit Bad from Bad Vilbel, Bad Kissingen, Bad Waldsee, Bad Homburg, Bad Salzuflen,... for town/village names. I found 3x StXxxXxx in street name in Austria yesterday. I could check Germany + Switzerland too.... stay tuned...

Edit: I checked Austria, Germany and Switzerland. St is used 8 times for street name wp labels:
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=aut.b070c Line 5: StRupStr
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=aut.b070d Line  6: StRupStr
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=aut.l5464 Line 3: StWolStr_S
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=che.gtsbas Line 21: StJakStr
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=che.gtszur Line 125: StGalStr_W
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=deuhh.ring2 Line  1: StPauFis
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=deuni.b003cel Line 15: StGeoGar
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=deuni.b214 Line 69: StGeoGar

Those can be easily removed to be consistent. The other way, checking all non-route-name-labels for missing Bad, St or San manually in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, would be much much more work...

Edit2: btw, I think that France has (omitted) Saint (-> St?) too....

Thoughts?

[si404]

Please read it carefully again.

I didn't know whether you were speaking for yourself with a German-speaker hat on, or just for yourself. As it is, the plain reading ('I' as singular) isn't correct either as you don't always do it, despite you underlining always. You just (almost) always do it in this one situation:

It's just a me thing for TM.

Anyway, I've found something that allows you do this for Sankt (doesn't apply to 'Bad' though) "Titles of people (Dr., Jr., etc.) can also be omitted.". Otherwise the rule is dropping words (save non-essential direction specifiers and prepositions) only when there's going to be 4 or more words in the label. NO CHANGE NEEDED

It's no doubt too much to change the lack of 'Bad' ASAP, but a gradual, when-you-find-them change is perfectly reasonable: eg I've slowly been adding second roads to labels to places in Britain where they ought to have one. That's in the manual as "probably useful" rather than mandated like 'Bad' when it's omission would leave one- or two-word labels, but not rushing to add them seems fine.

Edit2: btw, I think that France has (omitted) Saint (-> St?) too....

I've always sought to include them in France. Either St or Ste. I drop it if it means 'too long a label'. Rue Sainte Jeanne d'Arc would become RueJeaArc*, for instance - just as Rue General Charles de Gaulle would become RueCdG (but Rue General de Gaulle would be RueGenGau). Which typically means that Saint is dropped - not by convention that its disposable, but due to the length rather than because it's instantly seen as something to ditch.

Do a find and see if you want. I'd imagine there's a fair few 'St' and 'Ste' for Saint and Sainte dotted around France even as you've gone and redone the N roads for D and M systems. There are certainly a few 'St' and 'Ste' in Corsica.

*I've not dropped the 'Ste', as much as I want to, because I view Joan, the person who fought her rightful king - the saintly Henry (who would have been formerly canonised by the Pope had another Henry sought his divorce a little later) - for racism reasons, as the witch she was rightly found to be (though I have issues with her trial and execution).

[michih]

Thanks. Fine. I'll remove the eight "St" mentioned above to be consistent - including the one in autl4 system to be actived soon.

[michih]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6076

L8
 - OSM has a different route between BauGas and SoleGas

I know. All routes in Austria have names. L8 is called "Dörferstraße". I have the route along the street what OSM calls "Dörferstraße".

https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=LrT&Gesetzesnummer=20000250
L8 Dörferstraße
Innsbruck/Mühlau (B 171 Tiroler Straße)-Arzl-Rum-Thaur-Absam-Hall in Tirol/Unterer Stadtplatz (B 171 Tiroler Straße)

btw, do you think I should add the route names to csv files like we did for auta, auts and autb systems? autl4 also misses them.

L37 - Ack -> AckMauStr

AckMautStr (toll road)

L66 - End -> Spi?

No, the short road starts and ends in Spiss. It would be odd.

L225
 - Hin -> HinArm?

HinAlm (mountain pasture)

L244 - move B171 to actual junction

I thought a lot about it when drafting the route. It feels wrong but since the B171/L244 junction is within the motorway exit ramps, I considered it as 1PPI. I'm not happy with it but if I would add a L244 wp on B171, I add to add two more for the A12 ramps.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.220344&lon=10.755980

L268 - Kra?

Kragenegg. The houses 10 + 11 to the south. I cannot name both wps Kai for Kaisers (everything around is Kaisers). Should I rename the other wp to Ede or Bod instead?

L297 - move B169 (and corresponding B169 point) to overpass?

No, since it is not an interchange but just one single ramp. We always deal like this, don't we?

[Duke87]

L297 - move B169 (and corresponding B169 point) to overpass?

No, since it is not an interchange but just one single ramp. We always deal like this, don't we?

It would be preferred to have a graph connection nonetheless.

[michih]

L297 - move B169 (and corresponding B169 point) to overpass?

No, since it is not an interchange but just one single ramp. We always deal like this, don't we?

It would be preferred to have a graph connection nonetheless.

I fully agree but I was convinced long ago that it's not what we want nor implement. Is it this rule?

There are common exceptions to positioning at centerline crossings, such as interchanges where ramps connect nearby, non-intersecting highways, or where a short access road connects a road to another with a trumpet or similar interchange. In these cases, the waypoints for the same interchange on the separate highways cannot be at the same coordinates. Instead, the waypoints should be where the connecting ramps or access road interchange with each highway.

[Duke87]

It would be preferred to have a graph connection nonetheless.

I fully agree but I was convinced long ago that it's not what we want nor implement. Is it this rule?

There are common exceptions to positioning at centerline crossings, such as interchanges where ramps connect nearby, non-intersecting highways, or where a short access road connects a road to another with a trumpet or similar interchange. In these cases, the waypoints for the same interchange on the separate highways cannot be at the same coordinates. Instead, the waypoints should be where the connecting ramps or access road interchange with each highway.

I think the intended application of this rule was for the sorts of interchanges typically found on closed toll roads where all ramps merge before reaching the other route, or other interchange designs where the intersection of the ramps with one road is similarly completely offset from the other. It was not intended to break graph connections at what is essentially 1/4 of a diamond interchange.

[si404]

I thin the quarter interchange thing where you put the ramp at the diverge is where it's a ramp to a road that doesn't cross.

[michih]

So, what do you suggest? Move to overpass or keep as-is? The latter means, check for similar situations too….. simpler than the Bad thing but still….

Edit: How -> Move (I wrote it on by cell)