67N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.991364&lon=-97.341183
The road seems to have number 236 according to OSM and GM but I couldn't find signs on GSV. However,
I noticed that too. Checking provincial maps from the ministry of transportation, that section of MB236 appears to have been decommissioned. Historic GMSV imagery shows MB236 signage removed between July 2014 and July 2016.
I also couldn't find anything signed "67N". What's the source for "67N" and what's the story behind using name like this?
A good question to ask, yes. I should have thought to put this in the notes upthread...
Manitoba has a province-wide numbering pattern for its survey section line roads. #E or #W is for a north-south road's position relative to
Meridian Road. #N is for an east-west road's position relative to the 49th parallel.
The local jurisdictions responsible for signing these aren't consistent in how they sign them. I've seen signage such as 131W, RD 100 W, ROAD 70 WEST, MILE 54 E, ROAD 26, ROAD 86E, 152 W, 75N Rd, RD 136N, etc. Accordingly, the first drafts of the WPTs had quite a mishmash of label styles. I decided to use a consistent labeling format for these province-wide, and after thinking about it a bit decided on using the "67N" style. It gets the most information across (relative to the grid numbering pattern) in the fewest characters.
The good thing about this system is that if I can find a road's position in the grid relative to something else I do see marked or signed, I have a visible waypoint label if I need one.
Compare section line roads in Oklahoma.
MB4:
Shouldn't MB9 be called MB9/9A? The same wp @M9 is called MB4/9A.
Two route numbers in a label are permitted, but not required. I find that sometimes it makes sense to include two of them, and sometimes not. I generally, but not always, trend toward more simple (fewer characters) labels. I don't like to include both parent and child route numbers together in a label; IMO it's just kinda ugly, a bit redundant/extraneous; not really adding needed info at that point. MB9 trumps MB9A.
It's called MB9_N at MB9 which should be MB9/9A too.
I assume you meant "at MB9A" (MB9ASel).
As MB9A is a child route of MB9, I'm following the usual convention of child routes, bannered routes, etc., and having the waypoints at both termini just list the parent route, and a cardinal direction.
MB5A:
Shouldn't MB5_N and MB5_S be called MB5/10_N and MB5/10_S?
I don't like to include both a slash (ie, two route numbers) and a directional suffix together in a waypoint label; I prefer to keep labels shorter/cleaner. So, in situations like this where two routes leave together at both ends of a multiplex (and a directional suffix is thus required) I'll just list the primary route. Thus, MB5_N & MB5_S.Edit: DERP! I read your post too fast, and didn't notice that this was for MB5A. So, in this case, the point labeling is a simple case of following the convention for labeling endpoints of child routes.
MB6:
Exceeds limits just north of 513Rd according to OSM which is our source, isn't it?
If I zoom all the way in in WPTedit, I see that this is still within tolerance. *Tightly* within tolerance, but it's in there.
However: canmb isn't based on coords from OSM, but rather, from the GeoBase shapefiles.
Here's a trace dumped from the shapefiles. It more closely matches Google and Bing:
51259-29 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.039730&lon=-98.828502
51259-28 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.040197&lon=-98.828325
51259-27 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.040763&lon=-98.828031
51259-26 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.047296&lon=-98.825513
51259-25 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.047754&lon=-98.825424
51259-24 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.047952&lon=-98.825277
51259-23 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.048177&lon=-98.825262
51259-22 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.049084&lon=-98.824937
51259-21 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.049830&lon=-98.824788
51259-20 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.050235&lon=-98.824758
51259-19 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.051089&lon=-98.824798
51259-18 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.051980&lon=-98.825013
51259-17 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.052897&lon=-98.825360
51259-16 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.053374&lon=-98.825489
51259-15 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.054813&lon=-98.826038
51259-14 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.055290&lon=-98.826240
51259-13 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.055767&lon=-98.826501
51259-12 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.056253&lon=-98.826630
51259-11 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.058736&lon=-98.827598
51259-10 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.059752&lon=-98.828002
51259-9 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.060256&lon=-98.828278
51259-8 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.069315&lon=-98.831832
51259-7 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.069729&lon=-98.831991
51259-6 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.070133&lon=-98.832062
51259-5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.070790&lon=-98.832308
51259-4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.071051&lon=-98.832467
51259-3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.071573&lon=-98.832655
51259-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.071951&lon=-98.832858
51259-1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.072589&lon=-98.833103Exceeds limits north of MB60 according to OSM/GM/GS
Visibly within the highlight line in WPTedit with OSM imagery, with even more wiggle room.
Sure looks like it's signed "Road 67N" to me.
However this tells me it should probably be labelled "MB236_W".
I see that particular shot doesn't have imagery from 2016 available. Look around the area from some other angles, and you'll see signage was removed between 2014 & 2016. The provincial map from the MOT also indicates it was decommissioned. I had MB236 labels in an earlier draft, but determind that route number is gonzo at this location.
Those odd labels and waypoints reflect when GM, not OSM, was our primary source drafting our datasets, and very clear that back then, GM's data was incomplete and the fidelity has increased quite a bit since then.
Not quite -- The labels, I've explained above. I've gone thru everything with a fine-tooth comb and given it all a pretty big reworking.
As far as waypoint coords, that's all based off of the shapefiles.
I wrote a program, "GISplunge", that takes an input WPT file, compares each point against an input shapefile, and outputs a WPT with new coords for each point, using the closest point coords contained in the shapefile. (This came in handy back in 2010 when working on cannb, back when OSM coverage was inaccurate, out-of-date, or just plain nonexistent -- I used it to "scrub" WPTs full of coords from Google Maps, and replace them with coords from a free source.) Thus, there's no more Google in canmb.
