Mapping 6+ lane freeways

[si404]

Was just an idea.

It's an idea I like, I was just pointing out that there's an issue that means it wouldn't work unless things change in the code.

[Jim]

I'll try to take a look and see if it's more of a site update thing or a mapping thing.  I'd like to make it work appropriately but need to make sure we don't break anything with graphs, including the traveled format graphs.

[the_spui_ninja]

Yeah the biggest limitation here is this will not catch cases where a route is 6 or more lanes on both approaches to an interchange, but does not maintain 6 thru lanes through it. A situation which is fairly common, so this is a nontrivial limitation.

I was thinking about this earlier this morning as I got the ball started before work.  Where there are multiple interchange points to support it, things can be tweaked (I did such with some of the Minnesota routes).  Where the route lists went with 1PPI, we'll just have to live with it.

That said, Jayhawk and I both agreed that where the lanes are strictly auxiliary lanes between interchanges that are not multiple miles apart, they do not count.

What if they're auxiliary lanes that are multiple miles long? I-229 in SD has auxiliary lanes between all the exits except 9 and 10, would that count?

[michih]

Here it is: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=6lane

@si404:
- There are errors for your US and even ENG entries. Don't you use the "list tool" editor?
- German A8 is not yet 6-laned at Pforzheim (u/c by 2026+).
- A8 is also 6-laned from exit 61 to 62b, not 61 to 62a.
- I'd close A7's gap between exit 67 and 70 as it is already mostly 6-laned now, remainders to be opened "soon". autobahnatlas-online.de is only updated once per year ~ February/March.

[si404]

@si404:
- There are errors for your US and even ENG entries. Don't you use the "list tool" editor?

They weren't my US entries - they were copy-pasted from the aaroads thread.

The ENG ones I did off memory of our side of things, checking labels only when I wasn't certain what it would be and copying the label off the browser (rather than waste a load of extra clicks using the list tool to get a single point label - used it in DEU due to the regions, and remembered why I only use it when necessary). I can fix them easily.

German A8 is not yet 6-laned at Pforzheim (u/c by 2026+).
- A8 is also 6-laned from exit 61 to 62b, not 61 to 62a.
- I'd close A7's gap between exit 67 and 70 as it is already mostly 6-laned now, remainders to be opened "soon". autobahnatlas-online.de is only updated once per year ~ February/March.

I see the tiny bit of orange at Pforzheim now on the big map http://autobahnatlas-online.de/AutobahnkarteMitAS.pdf (dated April, so more recent than when you have the annual update) that I used. I'm not perfect, and nor are you - eg occasionally we misread i as l (to take a mistake in your work I found today when peer reviewing - one that I make often too!), and we don't always get 100% when converting data from one form to another.

I've changed them, given you don't seem to want to, instead flagging them here rather than just changing them.
https://github.com/si404/UserData/commit/9f9ae043cf9564a40c1ec1510fb470575484f240

[michih]

I see the tiny bit of orange at Pforzheim now on the big map http://autobahnatlas-online.de/AutobahnkarteMitAS.pdf (dated April, so more recent than when you have the annual update) that I used. I'm not perfect.

No one is perfect. I just had a look into for rating if I like the idea of mapping 6+ lane freeways.
The route pages are better than the map: http://autobahnatlas-online.de/A8.htm just edit the url, use the links at interchanges or open the link via the "Routes" page.

I've changed them, given you don't seem to want to, instead flagging them here rather than just changing them.

I don't like the approach since it is quite inaccurate as long as we cannot map segments between shaping points.

A6 in Baden-Württemberg is not yet 6-laned east of A81. It in planning stage for ages (10+ years) and still far away from construction. There is some permanent shoulder running though. You have mapped it being 6-laned from exit 39 to 40. However, it is partially 6-laned from exit 39 to 42: http://autobahnatlas-online.de/A6.htm#Weinsberg_81

Even if we could map segments between shaping points, what about 5-laned segments, e.g. additional uphill lanes? Look at A6 between exit 49 and 50. It's a mess. I'm not (yet) convinced by the basic idea.

We might start with 8+, 10+ or 12+ user list files first because it's easier to complete as a first shot. Just my 2ct....

[froggie]

Was just an idea.

It's an idea I like, I was just pointing out that there's an issue that means it wouldn't work unless things change in the code.

Maybe put in points in a similar manner as "closed points"?  I can't imagine us having to put in very many...the one that sticks out most in my mind is I-70 on the west side of the Ike tunnels.

Yeah the biggest limitation here is this will not catch cases where a route is 6 or more lanes on both approaches to an interchange, but does not maintain 6 thru lanes through it. A situation which is fairly common, so this is a nontrivial limitation.

I was thinking about this earlier this morning as I got the ball started before work.  Where there are multiple interchange points to support it, things can be tweaked (I did such with some of the Minnesota routes).  Where the route lists went with 1PPI, we'll just have to live with it.

That said, Jayhawk and I both agreed that where the lanes are strictly auxiliary lanes between interchanges that are not multiple miles apart, they do not count.

What if they're auxiliary lanes that are multiple miles long? I-229 in SD has auxiliary lanes between all the exits except 9 and 10, would that count?

I would not count I-229 as those are all still fairly closely spaced together interchanges and the lanes do not continue through the interchanges.

I-29, on the other hand, would count between 229 and 90.

[mapcat]

Anyone who wants to edit the 6lane.list file for my regions (IN, KY, LA, MI, OH, PR, TN) should feel free to do so since I won't have an opportunity before the end of the year.

[Jim]

Related to mapcat's message, I see this little side project as something that the maintainers of various regions are under no obligation to participate in for their regions, and those who wish to add segments are under no obligation to obtain any approval or permission from maintainers of regions in which they'd like to add or update entries in 6lane.list.

Related to modifying the highway data to allow more accurate mapping of segments consisting of 6+ lanes, I would prefer to hold off on that for now except in cases where the change would not result in any violation of our current rules about waypoints to include.

[Jim]

I have created a small, tempoary list file called 6lanetest.list, and populated it with a few segments of I-90 in Massachusetts that use shaping points in various ways to try to claim travels.  You can see that, for example, a portion of the segment between exits 10 and 41 that is claimed by two of the shaping points in between does not show up on mapview or showroute views.

Anyone interested in welcome to experiment with additional entries in 6lanetest.list if you'd like to see how things are handled by our current infrastructure when shaping points are used as segment endpoints.  I would, however, like to remove the extraneous list file when experiments are complete.

[michih]

I have created a small, tempoary list file called 6lanetest.list, and populated it with a few segments of I-90 in Massachusetts that use shaping points in various ways to try to claim travels.  You can see that, for example, a portion of the segment between exits 10 and 41 that is claimed by two of the shaping points in between does not show up on mapview or showroute views.

Anyone interested in welcome to experiment with additional entries in 6lanetest.list if you'd like to see how things are handled by our current infrastructure when shaping points are used as segment endpoints.  I would, however, like to remove the extraneous list file when experiments are complete.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData/blob/master/list_files/6lanetest.list

Code: [Select]

MA I-90 NY/MA +X4
MA I-90 +X19 +X25
MA I-90 +X60 +X66
MA I-90 +X132 +X136https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?u=6lanetest&r=ma.i090
https://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?u=6lanetest&rg=ma

yep, it doesn't work with our current infrastructure.
However, it is interesting that showroute and mapview deal with it differently!

[neroute2]

ssoworld's commit had the side effect of deleting Rhode Island. Why was this able to go through without a conflict?

[Jim]

ssoworld's commit had the side effect of deleting Rhode Island. Why was this able to go through without a conflict?

It didn't show up as a conflict because it simply removed those lines.  I don't know why they were removed in the file he committed.

Thanks for restoring them with the new PR, which I'll merge now and run an extra site update.

[SSOWorld]

How does one want to handle HOV lanes - say you have 2 GP Lanes and 1 HOV each way?

[Markkos1992]

How does one want to handle HOV lanes - say you have 2 GP Lanes and 1 HOV each way?

I believe froggie stated yes to that.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33329.msg2845998#msg2845998)