In no particular order, and I'm just spitballing here. Meant as a talking point.
1) Software stuff
- create map generator
- create highway browser
- create stats pages
- create tools (wpt editor, concurrency check, labels in use,
- create forum
- create .css / site design
- create home page and other static pages (manual, sources, etc)
- create site-wide log in system
- create .list file uploader (for all users)
- create highway data update system (for collaborators only)
- create process that redraws the maps and updates the stats (automatically running daily?, biweekly?, weekly?)
- update highway data so up-to-date
- finish peer review of systems in that process
2) Hardware stuff
- get server
- upload stuff to server
3) People stuff
- contact existing and past collaborators
- contact existing users of the site
- sort out how the project is going to work
4) Moving beyond the basics
- new systems
- new collaborators
- better borders in Eurasiafrica
- .list file creator
Quote from: english si on March 28, 2015, 07:44:28 AM
4) Moving beyond the basics
- new systems
- new collaborators
- better borders in Eurasiafrica
- .list file creator
Expanding on the borders point, re-doing water boundaries, so user maps don't show a lot of highways offshore (as is especially noticeable in New York City user maps). The way CHM did it, tweaking water boundaries was an incredible pain, with lots of processing time needed to redraw the ocean, and so was strongly discouraged. AFAIK, last time we went through that exercise was when we had to dredge up two additional islands from the bottom of the Pacific, for the Hawaii State Highways route set.
Land borders could be improved in some places in North America, particularly for the Arctic jurisdictions. But fortunately not a moving target as with the Eastern Hemisphere.
Is there much interest in expanding geographic coverage of the project into Asia (except for the former Soviet Union and Turkey, which CHM covers), or Africa or South America? I think this can wait awhile, along with any land and water boundaries re-drawing there.
5) Find a way to keep jokers out of this sub-forum, so it can stay more or less on-topic.
Quote from: oscar on March 28, 2015, 09:55:20 AM
5) Find a way to keep jokers out of this sub-forum, so it can stay more or less on-topic.
Sorry about that, I'll lend my time in either moving or deleting posts that don't pertain to the project.
As to everyone else, all forum rules remain in effect for this section. The same penalties will apply to those who break the rules in this section just like the other ones.
Quote from: oscar on March 28, 2015, 08:52:48 AM
Quote from: english si on March 28, 2015, 07:44:28 AM
4) Moving beyond the basics
- new systems
- new collaborators
- better borders in Eurasiafrica
- .list file creator
Expanding on the borders point, re-doing water boundaries, so user maps don't show a lot of highways offshore (as is especially noticeable in New York City user maps). The way CHM did it, tweaking water boundaries was an incredible pain, with lots of processing time needed to redraw the ocean, and so was strongly discouraged. AFAIK, last time we went through that exercise was when we had to dredge up two additional islands from the bottom of the Pacific, for the Hawaii State Highways route set.
Land borders could be improved in some places in North America, particularly for the Arctic jurisdictions. But fortunately not a moving target as with the Eastern Hemisphere.
Is there much interest in expanding geographic coverage of the project into Asia (except for the former Soviet Union and Turkey, which CHM covers), or Africa or South America? I think this can wait awhile, along with any land and water boundaries re-drawing there.
While possibly not Asia or Africa, we probably do want to add Australia (and to an extent, New Zealand?).
What about the possibility of being able to update the routes you have been on while logged in, without requiring emailing a certain person/bot in order to update it?
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 28, 2015, 11:47:57 AM
Sorry, Tapatalk doesn't make subforums obvious and it's thus very rare that I have any idea what section a post is in. Regardless, my obliquely made point was the point of the thread was and is completely lost on me. Carry on.
(To be honest, my misunderstanding of this thread as being "What is on your to-do list?" struck me as no more nonsensical a topic than "What popular items does a store not carry?" and the like.)
On the Android Tapatalk, at least, if you touch the "AARoads" name in the upper left, it will give you a dropdown of all the subforums.
Quote from: 1What about the possibility of being able to update the routes you have been on while logged in, without requiring emailing a certain person/bot in order to update it?
Listed under #4,
.list file creator.
Quote from: Bickendan on March 28, 2015, 12:26:56 PM
While possibly not Asia or Africa, we probably do want to add Australia (and to an extent, New Zealand?).
New Zealand is a country I thought would be nice to have on, even if I never actually make it out there. Adding the Mexican federal routes some day would probably be a good idea as well.
Starting some sort of initial repository for the data should probably be at the very top of the list, just so that the folks developing the systems have some test data to work with. A lot of people have suggested GitHub for this sort of thing.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on March 28, 2015, 11:47:57 AM(To be honest, my misunderstanding of this thread as being "What is on your to-do list?" struck me as no more nonsensical a topic than "What popular items does a store not carry?" and the like.)
I've renamed the thread. I forgot tapatalk doesn't provide context.
As for Eurasiafrica (and Oceania and South America too) borders, obviously as and when - rather than meticulous boundaries for places the project doesn't care about. I see no reason to, if someone is willing to put in the work, we can't expand there. I've got some stuff done.
Tapatalk can provide context depending on which version you use. The tablet version (which I sometimes, but not always, use on my iPad) displays the subforum underneath the sample post except in the manner of a Twitter handle (for example, it might say "@Political Talk" on a board that has such).
I did the Netherlands and Switzerland systems back in 2010, when I was temporarily unemployed.
Unfortunately I currently don't have the time to start another project.
To keep up with new freeway openings, the motorway openings around the world (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1464920) thread on Skyscrapercity may be of help. We try to log all freeway-type openings worldwide, it currently has over a thousand entries in just over 3 years.
Here's a very early proof-of-concept highway browser that I've been working on: http://www.thing342.us/highwayBrowser.html (http://www.thing342.us/highwayBrowser.html)
^^ Other than the lack of map, etc, I quite like.
How much trace fidelity are we looking to have for 2.0? Do we want to continue using 1.0's rough trace or do we want to tighten up for better mileage accuracy?
Quote from: Bickendan on March 30, 2015, 01:47:23 PM
How much trace fidelity are we looking to have for 2.0? Do we want to continue using 1.0's rough trace or do we want to tighten up for better mileage accuracy?
More trace fidelity, and accurate distance estimates, means more shaping points to clog up the server. I was surprised that I was able to trace the curvaceous H! 360 (Maui's Hana Highway, with over 600 hairpin curves in less than 35 miles), using 1.0 standards, with less than two dozen shaping and other points. That threw distance accuracy off by about 25%, but improving that might require hundreds of extra shaping points just for that one route.
I looked at HI 360 and it reminded me of CA 1. That wasn't a fun route to draft.
CA 18's first draft was also pretty nasty.
Quote from: Thing 342 on March 29, 2015, 12:17:19 PM
Here's a very early proof-of-concept highway browser that I've been working on: http://www.thing342.us/highwayBrowser.html (http://www.thing342.us/highwayBrowser.html)
Looks very promising, but a minor nit (and maybe I'm in the minority): I will say I liked being able to pick a state and have everything in that state listed all at once, whereas the way your drop-downs work seems like you're forced to choose the highway classification first.
Quote from: english si on March 29, 2015, 02:29:57 PM
^^ Other than the lack of map, etc, I quite like.
The OpenLayers API has pissed me off a great deal, so I've been holding back on adding a map.
Quote from: Bickendan on March 30, 2015, 01:47:23 PM
How much trace fidelity are we looking to have for 2.0? Do we want to continue using 1.0's rough trace or do we want to tighten up for better mileage accuracy?
I'd like to wait to see how much computational power this will take before going for finer-grained traces. Initially, I think it makes sense to stick with the CHM project's naming guidelines and point densities.
Quote from: Jim on March 30, 2015, 10:08:35 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on March 30, 2015, 01:47:23 PM
How much trace fidelity are we looking to have for 2.0? Do we want to continue using 1.0's rough trace or do we want to tighten up for better mileage accuracy?
I'd like to wait to see how much computational power this will take before going for finer-grained traces. Initially, I think it makes sense to stick with the CHM project's naming guidelines and point densities.
I agree with Jim. We don't want to go overkill, at least at the start. About the only changes to the current scheme in making the files is the addition of exit numbers on US Highways (excluding where just exit "#'s" are 'A' & 'B') is what I'd agree with. We'd just have to figure out how to deal with states where the exit numbers are duplicated (I know I remember hearing that happens at least in one state).
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 30, 2015, 10:33:16 PM
Quote from: Jim on March 30, 2015, 10:08:35 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on March 30, 2015, 01:47:23 PM
How much trace fidelity are we looking to have for 2.0? Do we want to continue using 1.0's rough trace or do we want to tighten up for better mileage accuracy?
I'd like to wait to see how much computational power this will take before going for finer-grained traces. Initially, I think it makes sense to stick with the CHM project's naming guidelines and point densities.
I agree with Jim. We don't want to go overkill, at least at the start. About the only changes to the current scheme in making the files is the addition of exit numbers on US Highways (excluding where just exit "#'s" are 'A' & 'B') is what I'd agree with. We'd just have to figure out how to deal with states where the exit numbers are duplicated (I know I remember hearing that happens at least in one state).
US 127 has two exit numbered 139: the southern end of Bus US 127 for Mount Pleasant based on US 127's mile markers, and M-106 by Jackson using I-94's mile markers.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 31, 2015, 02:39:54 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 30, 2015, 10:33:16 PM
Quote from: Jim on March 30, 2015, 10:08:35 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on March 30, 2015, 01:47:23 PM
How much trace fidelity are we looking to have for 2.0? Do we want to continue using 1.0's rough trace or do we want to tighten up for better mileage accuracy?
I'd like to wait to see how much computational power this will take before going for finer-grained traces. Initially, I think it makes sense to stick with the CHM project's naming guidelines and point densities.
I agree with Jim. We don't want to go overkill, at least at the start. About the only changes to the current scheme in making the files is the addition of exit numbers on US Highways (excluding where just exit "#'s" are 'A' & 'B') is what I'd agree with. We'd just have to figure out how to deal with states where the exit numbers are duplicated (I know I remember hearing that happens at least in one state).
US 127 has two exit numbered 139: the southern end of Bus US 127 for Mount Pleasant based on US 127's mile markers, and M-106 by Jackson using I-94's mile markers.
That one wouldn't be a problem. We have always had exit numbers along Interstates for US Highways. The I-94 one on US-127 would still be tagged as 'I-94(139)', while the 'converted' one from a road label on the US-127 only segment would be '139'.
The problem we would have to deal with is the states that give exit number to bypasses, but reset them on each bypass.
QuoteThe problem we would have to deal with is the states that give exit number to bypasses, but reset them on each bypass.
Easiest way to do this is to leave things as-is and skip adding exit numbers in such cases.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 31, 2015, 02:49:03 AM
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 31, 2015, 02:39:54 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 30, 2015, 10:33:16 PM
Quote from: Jim on March 30, 2015, 10:08:35 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on March 30, 2015, 01:47:23 PM
How much trace fidelity are we looking to have for 2.0? Do we want to continue using 1.0's rough trace or do we want to tighten up for better mileage accuracy?
I'd like to wait to see how much computational power this will take before going for finer-grained traces. Initially, I think it makes sense to stick with the CHM project's naming guidelines and point densities.
I agree with Jim. We don't want to go overkill, at least at the start. About the only changes to the current scheme in making the files is the addition of exit numbers on US Highways (excluding where just exit "#'s" are 'A' & 'B') is what I'd agree with. We'd just have to figure out how to deal with states where the exit numbers are duplicated (I know I remember hearing that happens at least in one state).
US 127 has two exit numbered 139: the southern end of Bus US 127 for Mount Pleasant based on US 127's mile markers, and M-106 by Jackson using I-94's mile markers.
That one wouldn't be a problem. We have always had exit numbers along Interstates for US Highways. The I-94 one on US-127 would still be tagged as 'I-94(139)', while the 'converted' one from a road label on the US-127 only segment would be '139'.
The problem we would have to deal with is the states that give exit number to bypasses, but reset them on each bypass.
Assuming it's undesirable to label each road as a bypass (example: VA US29CulByp for that road's bypass around Culpeper) because that would lead to problems with tracking one's overall percentage on a particular route within a state, perhaps it would be possible to apply similar labels to the bypass exit numbers (invalid example because there are no exit numbers on said segments: VA US29 CulByp1 WarrByp2 denoting a trip from "Exit 1" on the Culpeper Bypass to "Exit 2" on the Warrenton Bypass further north)–that is, a prefix or suffix denoting
which Exit 1 or whatever it is. In this example I put it as a prefix simply because mentally I found it more useful to distinguish between the particular bypass segments and then deal with the exit number (in other words, I found the exit's overall location more important to narrowing it down than the exit number itself due to the latter being repeated), but I don't think that's necessarily all that important.
After I typed the above paragraph, it occurred to me that the example of I-87 as it's now set up on the CHM site would probably be a useful example, given its repeated exit numbers. I see the database there uses a suffix: NY I-87 1(MDE) for the Major Deegan segment, NY I-87 1(NYST) for the Thruway's Exit 1, and no suffix for the Northway.
Quote from: bulldog1979 on March 31, 2015, 02:39:54 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 30, 2015, 10:33:16 PM
Quote from: Jim on March 30, 2015, 10:08:35 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on March 30, 2015, 01:47:23 PM
How much trace fidelity are we looking to have for 2.0? Do we want to continue using 1.0's rough trace or do we want to tighten up for better mileage accuracy?
I'd like to wait to see how much computational power this will take before going for finer-grained traces. Initially, I think it makes sense to stick with the CHM project's naming guidelines and point densities.
I agree with Jim. We don't want to go overkill, at least at the start. About the only changes to the current scheme in making the files is the addition of exit numbers on US Highways (excluding where just exit "#'s" are 'A' & 'B') is what I'd agree with. We'd just have to figure out how to deal with states where the exit numbers are duplicated (I know I remember hearing that happens at least in one state).
US 127 has two exit numbered 139: the southern end of Bus US 127 for Mount Pleasant based on US 127's mile markers, and M-106 by Jackson using I-94's mile markers.
That's not an issue. US 127's 139 would just be labeled 139, and I-94's would be I-94(139). In fact, the only exit numbers US highways have at the moment are on overlaps with Interstates, using the Interstate's numbers.
Do we want to start copying over the 'open ticket' update threads and the 6 Month Outlook threads over or is it better to wait until we have a functioning system in place before addressing them?
Quote from: Bickendan on March 31, 2015, 04:00:16 PM
Do we want to start copying over the 'open ticket' update threads and the 6 Month Outlook threads over or is it better to wait until we have a functioning system in place before addressing them?
Keep them over at the 'old' forums for now.
If we were use to use a system like Github it would come with a built-in bug/feature tracker that would make keeping track of these things really easy.
The following systems need a good sort through as to policy (what we do with it, what we include, etc)
Canada Select Named Freeways: cannf
Never activated - do we want it?
potential European grab-bag system(s)
Will we continue with grab-bag systems?
United States Future Interstate Highways: usaif
What are the criteria for inclusion? Signed? Approved by AASHTO? Non-interstate freeways that will become part of the interstate network? Any freeway that will become part of the interstate network? How do we define 'will become' (eg I-73 in MI and OH)?
I'd also like to change the colour from yellow to teal (as freeways) on the map, freeing up yellow for 'phase 3a' systems (secondary state/provincial systems, etc)
United States Select Named Freeways: usasf
Break out the NY Parkways and KY Parkways into their own systems? Add in routes like the NYST that has it's own shield but 90% of it is covered by the Interstate network?
Potential US National Parks/Scenic Routes system
Something we never came to a full conclusion on when discussing the lack of US highways in Yellowstone.
Canada Select Provincial Highways: cansph
United States Select Numbered State Freeways: usansf
Merging into provincial/state highway systems
QuoteCanada Select Named Freeways: cannf
What did this constitute? I presume it was a Canadian version of the similar US system we had.
QuoteBreak out the NY Parkways and KY Parkways into their own systems?
I like this concept. A follow-on question regarding New York would be, do we add in those parkways that are at-grade (like the Bear Mtn Pkwy near Peekskill for example)?
QuotePotential US National Parks/Scenic Routes system
Something we never came to a full conclusion on when discussing the lack of US highways in Yellowstone.
I could see an "NPS system". Besides Yellowstone, there's also the Natchez Trace, Blue Ridge Pkwy, and a few parkways in DC.
Quote from: froggie on April 06, 2015, 08:28:23 AM
QuoteCanada Select Named Freeways: cannf
What did this constitute? I presume it was a Canadian version of the similar US system we had.
It's in the browser and yes, sort of.
QuoteA follow-on question regarding New York would be, do we add in those parkways that are at-grade (like the Bear Mtn Pkwy near Peekskill for example)?
I honestly don't have a clue. Yes and it becomes a phase 3 system instead, mapped in brown? I don't know.
Personally I feel that grab-bag highway inclusion (any system with 'select') is a bit more debatable among the group, however NY State Parkways wouldn't a be grab-bag system, and so could be defined by the collaborator maintaining the region.
QuoteI could see an "NPS system". Besides Yellowstone, there's also the Natchez Trace, Blue Ridge Pkwy, and a few parkways in DC.
As can I (I have the Yellowstone routes). The plan (http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?t=739&highlight=yellowstone&mforum=clinched) just never seemed to happen, with one key reason (http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?p=4092&sid=fd59eb831d6dc7bf6870f2066b7bf862&mforum=clinched#4092). Also, I never got a response to this post (http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?p=14768&sid=18e6ffdfdaff7e54cd5c5ffc37c72281&mforum=clinched#14768). I don't see any nos though, so I ought to assume that Yellowstone is a go and sort out the updates and put it in my massive list of updates (I'm on 65 before you add in the ones in Tim's european regions, where I have a similar number of update entries, but still quite a lot to do)
Quote from: english si on April 06, 2015, 08:12:30 AM
Canada Select Named Freeways: cannf
Never activated - do we want it?
I'm not sure why it can't be folded into regular provincial highway/freeway systems when they're activated, like we'd do with Canada Select Provincial Highways. Ontario Provincial Freeways already has three named freeways (QEW, Don Valley, Gardiner), along with the many other Ontario freeways with signed route numbers.
In general, we might want to rethink CHM's insistence on separate systems for numbered and major unnumbered highways. But some systems like NPS highways maybe should remain separate and proceed on a different track from the numbered highway systems in their respective states.
BTW, Select Provincial Highways includes one Alaska state route (AK 98 in Skagway), which can be folded into the Alaska State Highways route set I have under development.
For New York's Parkways, I'd like to see them either folded into the New York State Highways or become their own system. Those portions that are currently in the Select Named Freeways would join the new system, much as the entries from Select Numbered Freeways moved into their respective state systems as those systems have been completed. I don't know as much about Kentucky's Parkways, but I expect they would be handled similarly.
Quote from: oscar on April 06, 2015, 09:33:27 AM
Quote from: english si on April 06, 2015, 08:12:30 AM
Canada Select Named Freeways: cannf
Never activated - do we want it?
I'm not sure why it can't be folded into regular provincial highway/freeway systems when they're activated, like we'd do with Canada Select Provincial Highways. Ontario Provincial Freeways already has three named freeways (QEW, Don Valley, Gardiner), along with the many other Ontario freeways with signed route numbers.
Fair enough, though the ones where there's no Provincial Freeway system is different (so a majority of the routes). Likewise the remains of the US Named Freeway system outside a few states (OK Turnpikes as another system?).
Quote from: oscar on April 06, 2015, 09:33:27 AM
Ontario Provincial Freeways already has three named freeways (QEW, Don Valley, Gardiner), along with the many other Ontario freeways with signed route numbers.
Technically, the QEW should stay in the Provincial Freeways (400 series). It's officially ON 451 on paper. The Don Valley and the Gardiner are both freeways owned by Toronto and should be separate from the Provincial set.
Quote from: Jim on April 06, 2015, 09:39:53 AM
For New York's Parkways, I'd like to see them either folded into the New York State Highways or become their own system. Those portions that are currently in the Select Named Freeways would join the new system, much as the entries from Select Numbered Freeways moved into their respective state systems as those systems have been completed. I don't know as much about Kentucky's Parkways, but I expect they would be handled similarly.
What to do with:
NY State Parkways - I consider those state highways, but if we were to have a freeway version of them, break them out to their own group.
NJ - NJ Turnpike, ACE, Parkway: These have hidden state designations so they're essentially state routes. yet - in the same thinking as NY's parkways, I'd consider them on their own group as well. (FWIW the three are not maintained by NJDOT directly)
On both counts - what of the Palisades Interstate Parkway?
For NY, I'd put it in the NY Parkways system. Not sure about NJ. My question concerning NY is "what of the Inner Loop".
Inner Loop? I-490
Quote from: english si on April 06, 2015, 08:12:30 AM
Canada Select Named Freeways: cannf
Never activated - do we want it?
Is there anything wrong with it that would make us not want to activate it? I see no reason not to include those roads although it might make sense to roll them into their respective provincial systems as the time comes.
Quotepotential European grab-bag system(s)
Will we continue with grab-bag systems?
I don't terribly care about this although I would like to see complete systems put online as they are completed rather than doing some stuff here and there first.
QuoteUnited States Future Interstate Highways: usaif
What are the criteria for inclusion? Signed? Approved by AASHTO? Non-interstate freeways that will become part of the interstate network? Any freeway that will become part of the interstate network? How do we define 'will become' (eg I-73 in MI and OH)?
I'd also like to change the colour from yellow to teal (as freeways) on the map, freeing up yellow for 'phase 3a' systems (secondary state/provincial systems, etc)
Here's my question with regards to this: are there any sections of "future interstate" out there that are not concurrent with other numbered state or US routes? If not then this system is completely redundant and I'd be all for just junking it.
QuoteUnited States Select Named Freeways: usasf
Break out the NY Parkways and KY Parkways into their own systems? Add in routes like the NYST that has it's own shield but 90% of it is covered by the Interstate network?
NY and Kentucky parkways could easily make their own systems. As for what to include with NY parkways, I say the criteria for inclusion should not be whether it's completely grade separated, but rather whether it is signed with a shield. That means things like Bear Mountain Parkway are in, but things like Playland Parkway are not.
As for "named freeways" in other states, they warrant inclusion in the project, certainly, but perhaps if there's only one or two of them in a state they can just be thrown in with the state highway system.
QuotePotential US National Parks/Scenic Routes system
Something we never came to a full conclusion on when discussing the lack of US highways in Yellowstone.
If someone wants to develop an NPS system in the future for things like Natchez Trace, I see no reason why not.
Quote from: english siCanada Select Named Freeways: cannf
Never activated - do we want it?
In the long-term, no, IMO. At least not in its present form.
ISTR Tim saying once that a lot of it would be out -- being more expressway than freeway in nature. (True, we're no longer taking Tim's word as Gospel, but I'm just noting that, being that I'm on the same page in this case.)
I'm pretty lukewarm on including the Alberta bits.
OTOH, most of the Ontario stuff seems worthwhile. One should note the DonValPkwy & GarExpy, which duplicate ONDVP & ONGar respectively in the CANONF system. CANONF also has ONQEW (Queen Elizabeth Way); I'm uncertain why that's not in the CANNF set.
I do like the inclusion of the Bedford Bypass in NS.
Discuss...
Quote from: english sipotential European grab-bag system(s)
Will we continue with grab-bag systems?
I don't know enough about Europe to offer a meaningful opinion here. I'll leave this discussion to those who know more.
Quote from: english siUnited States Future Interstate Highways: usaif
What are the criteria for inclusion? Signed? Approved by AASHTO? Non-interstate freeways that will become part of the interstate network? Any freeway that will become part of the interstate network? How do we define 'will become' (eg I-73 in MI and OH)?
I say, leave off wibbly-wobbly "will become" criteria in favor of AASHTO approval.
As for whether something is signed, well... I'm kinda in favor of it... but OTOH, for interstates in the main, we did include routes that are in the FHWA/AASHTO logs but unsigned. OTOOH, Future Interstates are a different animal. Discuss?
Quote from: Duke87Here's my question with regards to this: are there any sections of "future interstate" out there that are not concurrent with other numbered state or US routes? If not then this system is completely redundant and I'd be all for just junking it.
If I add the qualification that it's not concurrent with another numbered route
otherwise already in the HB, there's the Future I-49 Bella Vista Bypass.
Quote from: english siI'd also like to change the colour from yellow to teal (as freeways) on the map, freeing up yellow for 'phase 3a' systems (secondary state/provincial systems, etc)
I like this idea a lot. The teal is a similar hue & brightness to the Interstate Blue, and I find it, visually, much more continuous" with the blue and teal of the rest of the freeway network. The yellow/orange USAIF has now is lighter colored, with a hue closer to the US & state routes. I find this visually jarring. Indicative of less "important" routes, IMO. Yes. I like this idea.
Quote from: english siUnited States Select Named Freeways: usasf
Break out the NY Parkways and KY Parkways into their own systems? Add in routes like the NYST that has it's own shield but 90% of it is covered by the Interstate network?
Yes. I've considered this on the past too. Also: Oklahoma Turnpikes.
Quote from: froggieI like this concept. A follow-on question regarding New York would be, do we add in those parkways that are at-grade (like the Bear Mtn Pkwy near Peekskill for example)?
Yes, IMO. In my mind, this separates out NY Parkways into their own discrete system, removing them from the "needs to be a freeway" constrain of being in USASF. Include NY Parkways & things with NY Parkway shields. I'd love to finally see the Saw Mill River Pkwy included. Other collabs/enthusiasts have suggested other routes that escape me right now.
Quote from: Duke87NY and Kentucky parkways could easily make their own systems. As for what to include with NY parkways, I say the criteria for inclusion should not be whether it's completely grade separated, but rather whether it is signed with a shield. That means things like Bear Mountain Parkway are in, but things like Playland Parkway are not.
Agreed: signed with a shield.
Quote from: Duke87As for "named freeways" in other states, they warrant inclusion in the project, certainly, but perhaps if there's only one or two of them in a state they can just be thrown in with the state highway system.
Disagree here; for the most part I don't favour cluttering up a numbered system with other stuff of different signage/shield type...
Quote from: english siPotential US National Parks/Scenic Routes system
Something we never came to a full conclusion on when discussing the lack of US highways in Yellowstone.
I'm lukewarm on this. I don't think the states I maintain would really be affected by this? Or...? Maybe those with more "skin in the game" could comment...
To touch upon a couple topics visited on the first page of this thread:
Quote from: froggie on March 31, 2015, 08:43:41 AM
QuoteThe problem we would have to deal with is the states that give exit number to bypasses, but reset them on each bypass.
Easiest way to do this is to leave things as-is and skip adding exit numbers in such cases.
Agreed. No need to reinvent the wheel and introduce new complications in the process.
The US Highway system at least has consistency (if a quirky consistency) in its not using exit numbers.
I don't speak for everyone here, but I know I'm not into going back to change all the labels.
That would take a lot of time and effort, that I believe would be more productive focused in other areas.
--
I also agree with rickmastfan67 and Jim on point density...
• No need to go overkill
• Try not to require too much exacting, precise effort of collabs upon route creation
• Keep DB and computational power constraints in mind
• Keep all the routes at a consistent level of accuracy/precision -- one they already have. Again, a matter of avoiding retreading all our existing work, and focusing efforts on moving forward instead.
Quote from: yakra on April 07, 2015, 12:02:15 AM
CANONF also has ONQEW (Queen Elizabeth Way); I'm uncertain why that's not in the CANNF set.
From above:
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on April 06, 2015, 11:34:07 AM
Quote from: oscar on April 06, 2015, 09:33:27 AM
Ontario Provincial Freeways already has three named freeways (QEW, Don Valley, Gardiner), along with the many other Ontario freeways with signed route numbers.
Technically, the QEW should stay in the Provincial Freeways (400 series). It's officially ON 451 on paper. The Don Valley and the Gardiner are both freeways owned by Toronto and should be separate from the Provincial set.
Quote from: yakra on April 07, 2015, 12:02:15 AM
Quote from: Duke87Here's my question with regards to this: are there any sections of "future interstate" out there that are not concurrent with other numbered state or US routes? If not then this system is completely redundant and I'd be all for just junking it.
If I add the qualification that it's not concurrent with another numbered route otherwise already in the HB, there's the Future I-49 Bella Vista Bypass.
Okay, but that's only a consequence of Arkansas state highways not being done yet - i.e. a problem that solves itself once that system is dealt with. Or you could add AR 549 to the "select numbered freeways" set as a stop gap measure. It's still redundant.
A very good point. In that case, I don't know of any other examples out there that would necessitate keeping USAIF alive. Not to say that they aren't out there -- I just don't know of any.
So on the one hand, the system is redundant and could be done away with.
OTOH, there could still be some use in keeping it around for users who like tracking the future interstate system specifically...
OT3H, the system is by its nature temporary, and the route therein will lapse and be subsumed by the proper Interstates.
Quote from: yakra on April 07, 2015, 02:13:13 AM
A very good point. In that case, I don't know of any other examples out there that would necessitate keeping USAIF alive. Not to say that they aren't out there -- I just don't know of any.
So on the one hand, the system is redundant and could be done away with.
OTOH, there could still be some use in keeping it around for users who like tracking the future interstate system specifically...
OT3H, the system is by its nature temporary, and the route therein will lapse and be subsumed by the proper Interstates.
Well, with NC, they have TONS of routes posted with normal Interstate shields, but that have the word 'future' in them (or above them). I-26 rings a bell. There has to be a way to keep that segment (as well as I-74's several 'FUTURE' segments) that is posted on the site. With I-26, it may be 10+ years till they finally do the new I-240 interchange and then finally make it into a 'true' Interstate. As for I-74 Rockingham, that don't have the section funded from the current construction to where US-220 will split off into Downtown Rockingham and US-74. That also could take to the 2020's till it's built/opened.
I mean, we could just restrict it to routes that have 'true' Future shields posted. That would leave mostly just routes in NC. But still, I think they should stay on the site in some way.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 06, 2015, 11:48:52 PMHere's my question with regards to this: are there any sections of "future interstate" out there that are not concurrent with other numbered state or US routes? If not then this system is completely redundant and I'd be all for just junking it.
Is something redundant just because it the route itself is concurrent with other route?
QuoteAs for "named freeways" in other states, they warrant inclusion in the project, certainly, but perhaps if there's only one or two of them in a state they can just be thrown in with the state highway system.
There is the issue of whether or not they fit in the state system, or are their own thing. I'd argue the latter.
Yesterday, I looked through my 'grab bag other routes in Europe' stuff (mostly UK at the moment, though I've got some French D roads that are freeways, and a couple of other routes too) that will fill in some gaps in the phase 3 networks (I agree about aiming for full systems) and found 5 routes that are mapped as A roads on official maps:
2 signed with the number '(Tunnel)', but are private roads (owned by a public corporation) and can't be A roads. The OS gives them numbers, but they would be unsigned spurs...
1 in official documents as a named A road with no number
1 might be a trap street by the Ordinance Survey, and is given a number by them, but without a field check, I have no idea (but it always stood out like a sore thumb as a Dual Carriageway that wasn't classified). OSM now has it, but I can't find reference on the council's website.
1 that is half spur of the A23 and half spur of M23 that isn't signed according to the strict guidelines for spurs (ie signed away from the mainline) and I got asked why it wasn't included by a collaborator who wanted it added.
These named routes can go in the A road system as they could be argued as being A roads (however I'd probably extract them into a phase 3a system (or a phase 1a system in the case of the Kingsway Tunnel when that happens)
However stuff like Yeadon Way (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Yeadon_Way) or the West Approach Road (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=West_Approach_Road) are useful roads to have on CHM, but are definitely not A roads.
QuoteIf someone wants to develop an NPS system in the future for things like Natchez Trace, I see no reason why not.
I have the Yellowstone routes done, to which we can add Natchez Trace / Blue Ridge, etc as and when files are made for them.
Quote from: yakra on April 07, 2015, 12:02:15 AMISTR Tim saying once that a lot of it would be out -- being more expressway than freeway in nature. (True, we're no longer taking Tim's word as Gospel, but I'm just noting that, being that I'm on the same page in this case.)
I'm pretty lukewarm on including the Alberta bits.
Indeed, as am I. Those AB bits scream 'maybe part of phase 3a'
QuoteI say, leave off wibbly-wobbly "will become" criteria in favor of AASHTO approval.
As for whether something is signed, well... I'm kinda in favor of it... but OTOH, for interstates in the main, we did include routes that are in the FHWA/AASHTO logs but unsigned. OTOOH, Future Interstates are a different animal. Discuss?
I'd say add unsigned official routes.
Do we include freeway portions of routes defined by law with an interstate number? After all, many states don't seem to go for future interstates, especially when the number is guaranteed.
Do we include freeway portions that will become interstate with an active plan with a number - eg I-74 across Cincinatti, IL 390, but not I-x69 to Owensboro? Which is, I believe, what we have now.
As such routes are temporary and get folded in (though NC I-26 has lasted a long time) then I'm not sure why not. But at the same time, I'm also not sure why go beyond signed / official. Collaborator's discretion? Like other things (I refer you to the back end of this post of yours (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15210.msg2056146#msg2056146)). Duke87 might feel the system redundant, which is one reason why we don't have the NYST, despite being a signed named freeway. I'd include it, but he's in charge of New York and if he doesn't want to that's fine. Personally, purely for the sack of the mapping looking cool, I'd probably overadd (I'd also include bits entirely concurrent with existing interstates) routes to this system, but I'm also happy if the consensus ends up only including signed routes.
QuoteYes. I've considered this on the past too. Also: Oklahoma Turnpikes.
I knew there was one obvious system I forgot. OK Turnpikes - absolutely.
QuoteDisagree here; for the most part I don't favour cluttering up a numbered system with other stuff of different signage/shield type.
Concur (see above comments about adding named routes to gbna. Also note that I tried to get three of them in it before (the two with (Tunnel) as a number, and the unnumbered A road), but Tim outright refused), so I'm not adverse to including oddities.
If you need yet another interloper's opinion, I'm all for killing weird systems that aren't systems (US Select Numbered Freeways springs to mind). I'm all for adding in systems that actually are systems (NYS Parkways). It gives things a better match to the real world. If that means that some of the Select Numbered Freeways get put into incomplete
That said, there are oddities in the real world. Stuff like Si's occasional tunnel will just have to be tolerated. My gut feeling about Vermont and generally, I suppose, is that the site should match what exists in the field. If an alert person driving on VT 100, to pick a road that may or may not have this problem, would believe that it is the same highway for its whole length despite changes in maintenance, then the site should reflect that it is "one" state highway even if the DoT feels otherwise. (I'm trying to think of a state highway that has a gap that's pretty clear in the field, but nothing's coming to mind from my own travels.)
While it would be cool to have stuff like the Natchez Trace in the system, I'd be far more interested in, say, South Carolina State Highways.
Quote from: sipes23 on April 07, 2015, 10:59:04 AM
If you need yet another interloper's opinion, I'm all for killing weird systems that aren't systems (US Select Numbered Freeways springs to mind).
This system was planned to eventually be rolled into their respective state systems and done away with.
I've just finished dealing with Italy's select named freeway system. I've removed a few routes (that could go back in in a Europe grab-bag freeway system that will be these, a couple of routes in Moscow and St Petersburg, some French D roads and a couple of other routes) and got it down to the RA roads (most of which have a number signed, so I just gave them all their numbers), the FI-PI-LI route (which perhaps could go too into future grab-bag - I've not really looked at it too much) and the Traforo routes that weren't in it, but ought to have been.
Quote from: sipes23 on April 07, 2015, 10:59:04 AM(I'm trying to think of a state highway that has a gap that's pretty clear in the field, but nothing's coming to mind from my own travels.)
In the UK, we have implied concurrencies, and most are signed with 'to' brackets (I might recheck these eventually and cut routes that aren't). Waiting in my massive update pile is the breaking of two lengthy implied concurrencies that I don't think count: the A5 between Elstree and Friars Wash and the A31 between Winchester and Ower.
QuoteWhile it would be cool to have stuff like the Natchez Trace in the system, I'd be far more interested in, say, South Carolina State Highways.
Absolutely zero reason why those would be mutually exclusive!
Quote from: Bickendan on April 07, 2015, 11:02:58 AM
Quote from: sipes23 on April 07, 2015, 10:59:04 AM
If you need yet another interloper's opinion, I'm all for killing weird systems that aren't systems (US Select Numbered Freeways springs to mind).
This system was planned to eventually be rolled into their respective state systems and done away with.
Same for Canada's Select Provincial Highways system, which also includes only numbered routes.
Quote from: english si on April 07, 2015, 11:47:29 AM
Quote from: sipes23 on April 07, 2015, 10:59:04 AM(I'm trying to think of a state highway that has a gap that's pretty clear in the field, but nothing's coming to mind from my own travels.)
In the UK, we have implied concurrencies, and most are signed with 'to' brackets (I might recheck these eventually and cut routes that aren't). Waiting in my massive update pile is the breaking of two lengthy implied concurrencies that I don't think count: the A5 between Elstree and Friars Wash and the A31 between Winchester and Ower.
Ok, that's different from the sort of thing I was trying to think of but couldn't. I'll confess to ignorance on what you're talking about. I've not had to drive on British roads, though I've been on them.
Quote from: english si on April 07, 2015, 11:47:29 AM
QuoteWhile it would be cool to have stuff like the Natchez Trace in the system, I'd be far more interested in, say, South Carolina State Highways.
Absolutely zero reason why those would be mutually exclusive!
Oh, no, not at all mutually exclusive. I guess I was talking about prioritization of tasks, which may be poor prioritization of its own sort. Especially given that I can't do much more than data entry (after training on that point to boot).
Quote from: Duke87 on April 06, 2015, 11:48:52 PM
NY and Kentucky parkways could easily make their own systems. As for what to include with NY parkways, I say the criteria for inclusion should not be whether it's completely grade separated, but rather whether it is signed with a shield. That means things like Bear Mountain Parkway are in, but things like Playland Parkway are not.
So I take it routes like the Robert Moses State Parkway would continue to not be included? Not every DOT region has the same commitment to the shields, and it's not like the reference routes where most people wouldn't know about them.
Technically the Playland Parkway isn't even a state road, so it wouldn't qualify regardless.
Quote from: english si on April 07, 2015, 05:50:55 AM
Duke87 might feel the system redundant, which is one reason why we don't have the NYST, despite being a signed named freeway. I'd include it, but he's in charge of New York and if he doesn't want to that's fine.
I'd include it too, at least so that people could track their travels relative to the Thruway mainline as well as I-90 and I-87. There's also another good reason: that portion of the Berkshire spur that isn't concurrent with anything.
Quote from: SSOWorld on April 06, 2015, 09:27:25 PM
Inner Loop? I-490
The Inner Loop really is separate, though I'm not sure exactly what will happen to it once Rochester finishes filling that one part in.
Quote from: vdeane on April 07, 2015, 07:31:47 PM
So I take it routes like the Robert Moses State Parkway would continue to not be included? Not every DOT region has the same commitment to the shields, and it's not like the reference routes where most people wouldn't know about them.
It's probably fair to include Robert Moses Parkway although that's a special case.
QuoteTechnically the Playland Parkway isn't even a state road, so it wouldn't qualify regardless.
Neither is the Bronx River Parkway north of the Bronx/Westchester line, and yet it still has its shield and is included in CHM currently.
QuoteQuote from: english si on April 07, 2015, 05:50:55 AM
Duke87 might feel the system redundant, which is one reason why we don't have the NYST, despite being a signed named freeway. I'd include it, but he's in charge of New York and if he doesn't want to that's fine.
I'd include it too, at least so that people could track their travels relative to the Thruway mainline as well as I-90 and I-87. There's also another good reason: that portion of the Berkshire spur that isn't concurrent with anything.
I'd include just the NY 912M portion of the Berkshire Spur as its own route, but let the rest of the Thruway system just sit as part of its respective interstates. As with "future interstates", I'd prefer to avoid having stuff that is completely redundant to other systems on there because it creates unnecessary clutter on maps when rendered.
But then I am of this line of thinking based on the current interface. If we can include the whole Thruway system for the purpose of generating stats but make it not render on maps except for the small independent section, then I can think of no good argument for not doing so.
Also, I believe Jim Teresco is responsible for New York currently. Though I am honored to be deemed worthy of the task. :-P
Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2015, 01:18:25 AMI'd include just the NY 912M portion of the Berkshire Spur as its own route, but let the rest of the Thruway system just sit as part of its respective interstates. As with "future interstates", I'd prefer to avoid having stuff that is completely redundant to other systems on there because it creates unnecessary clutter on maps when rendered.
Other than the labels, how so? Here's the NJTP and I-95 concurrency. You can't see the teal NJTP cluttering up the map, just some labels that aren't really clutter.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcmap.m-plex.com%2Fmaps%2Fcentermap.php%3Fu%3Doscar_voss%26amp%3Bsys%3Dall%26amp%3Bc%3Dusa%26amp%3Brg%3DNJ%26amp%3Bmv%3D144185&hash=c25666f32dd0aae7c5d87f1187cd39f52012e653)
Of course it is up to terescoj (sorry Jim!), not any of us, to choose to put in the NYST if he wishes to do so.
For completeness, here's (http://cmap.m-plex.com/maps/centermap.php?u=oscar_voss&sys=all&c=usa&rg=TN&mv=148615) a future interstate / interstate concurrency (I-69 through Memphis). You'll note the lack of clutter. And here's Kentucky (http://cmap.m-plex.com/maps/centermap.php?u=oscar_voss&sys=all&c=usa&rg=KY&mv=0), where the yellow looks silly, but you can't see the teal underneath. With Future Interstates as teal then that wouldn't look as silly.
PS - I'm using Oscar in an absence of 'all'
That pink on grey is really bad and hard to see.
Out of curiosity, why does Hamilton show up instead of Trenton? I noticed that on the old CHM site and I never understood it. Trenton is the state capital - it should be shown regardless.
I think it's orange/light brown - as you can see below, the pink/light red is a bit easier to see.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcmap.m-plex.com%2Fmaps%2Fcentermap.php%3Fu%3Dsi404%26amp%3Bsys%3Dall%26amp%3Bc%3Dusa%26amp%3Brg%3DNJ%26amp%3Bmv%3D144185&hash=8ef3fbdcae9d040e3128a23cf8315c733d7e9f18)
Quote from: Zeffy on April 08, 2015, 11:16:01 AM
Out of curiosity, why does Hamilton show up instead of Trenton? I noticed that on the old CHM site and I never understood it. Trenton is the state capital - it should be shown regardless.
The cities shown on the map (including not just Hamilton, but also the obscure Princeton Meadows) are just the center points of a set of local maps that collectively cover most or all of the state. Trenton and Princeton might be alternate center points, but at risk of creating gaps with the maps for adjacent local areas.
Quote from: english si on April 08, 2015, 11:17:47 AM
I think it's orange/light brown - as you can see below, the pink/light red is a bit easier to see.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcmap.m-plex.com%2Fmaps%2Fcentermap.php%3Fu%3Dsi404%26amp%3Bsys%3Dall%26amp%3Bc%3Dusa%26amp%3Brg%3DNJ%26amp%3Bmv%3D144185&hash=8ef3fbdcae9d040e3128a23cf8315c733d7e9f18)
Might be room to tweak the background color, to make the untraveled routes more visible, though there might be readability issues using just a stark plain white background, which led Tim to go with a light pastel background instead.
Darkening the untraveled routes would be another option, but that would reduce the contrast between traveled and untraveled routes. I would leave that as is, much more important to highlight where the user has been than what s/he hasn't yet traveled.
I think decisions about whether to include something like the New York Thruway as a route in its own right would be based on project-wide guidelines not the preferences of a single region's maintainer. Personally, I could go either way on it. I'd like to get the 912M connector from the Thruway mainline to I-90 at B1 into the system, but that alone isn't enough for me to think the whole road needs to be included as the Thruway instead of just its various numbered portions. That said, it's easy enough to do since we have all the points already. It's just a matter of putting them into a handful of .wpt files.
As far as readability, I'm hoping that down the road we can add user-controllable options to create maps of many different sizes, over arbitrary regions, with various systems selected or not for inclusion, and with customizable color schemes, font sizes, labeling options, etc. Of course, first we need to get the basics down, but many of these are pieces that might be made possible by having many people able to contribute to the core code base.
Quote from: Jim on April 08, 2015, 01:00:48 PM
I think decisions about whether to include something like the New York Thruway as a route in its own right would be based on project-wide guidelines not the preferences of a single region's maintainer. Personally, I could go either way on it. I'd like to get the 912M connector from the Thruway mainline to I-90 at B1 into the system, but that alone isn't enough for me to think the whole road needs to be included as the Thruway instead of just its various numbered portions. That said, it's easy enough to do since we have all the points already. It's just a matter of putting them into a handful of .wpt files.
That could go with a named route system overlay on the numbered routes -- California (SoCal especially)'s named freeways that don't stay with their numbers (San Diego Freeway: I-5->I-405); Oregon's Highways vs Routes; Alaska and it's non-numbered highways... but that's something for down the line if it's even worth exploring, IMO.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2015, 01:18:25 AM
Neither is the Bronx River Parkway north of the Bronx/Westchester line, and yet it still has its shield and is included in CHM currently.
It does have a reference route number, though obviously no reference markers are posted. I've been using the definitions in this Wikipedia article for keeping track of my own travels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkways_in_New_York
Quote from: Jim on April 08, 2015, 01:03:07 PM
As far as readability, I'm hoping that down the road we can add user-controllable options to create maps of many different sizes, over arbitrary regions, with various systems selected or not for inclusion, and with customizable color schemes, font sizes, labeling options, etc. Of course, first we need to get the basics down, but many of these are pieces that might be made possible by having many people able to contribute to the core code base.
That would be awesome. It should work quite well with the new JavaScript/HTML5 based maps.
Quote from: vdeane on April 08, 2015, 08:06:56 PM
Quote from: Jim on April 08, 2015, 01:03:07 PM
As far as readability, I'm hoping that down the road we can add user-controllable options to create maps of many different sizes, over arbitrary regions, with various systems selected or not for inclusion, and with customizable color schemes, font sizes, labeling options, etc. Of course, first we need to get the basics down, but many of these are pieces that might be made possible by having many people able to contribute to the core code base.
That would be awesome. It should work quite well with the new JavaScript/HTML5 based maps.
I'll just reiterate what Valerie said: It should work quite well with the new JavaScript/HTML5 based maps.
Easily. It just takes a little coding. But the sky's the limit.
And while the server itself will need to spit out the Javascript, we have the advantage of the rendering itself being done client-side, saving on server CPU time.
Do we have anyone well-versed in the advantages and disadvantages of the various open-source licenses out there? I think we'll want to choose a license before anything goes up on a public-facing site. I think we'd want both our code and data to be tagged with an appropriate license, whatever that ends up being.
Quote from: Jim on April 11, 2015, 02:50:13 PM
I think we'd want both our code and data to be tagged with an appropriate license, whatever that ends up being.
If by "data" you mean route files, the "appropriate licenses" could vary by route system and contributor. We need to be comfortable with what we're operating under, but do we need to formalize that with licenses?
Also the code.
Here's a link with some popular licences: http://opensource.org/licenses
Quote from: oscar on April 11, 2015, 03:58:02 PM
Quote from: Jim on April 11, 2015, 02:50:13 PM
I think we'd want both our code and data to be tagged with an appropriate license, whatever that ends up being.
If by "data" you mean route files, the "appropriate licenses" could vary by route system and contributor. We need to be comfortable with what we're operating under, but do we need to formalize that with licenses?
Maybe not. I throw it out there for discussion.
Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2015, 04:49:47 PM
Also the code.
Here's a link with some popular licences: http://opensource.org/licenses
Thanks, Val. I'm not well-versed in the licenses' advantages vs. disadvantages (or whether there even are any that might matter to our choices -- there might not be). I expect that people in the field who work with the various open-source programs would know much more on that subject than a retired lawyer who practiced in a completely different and unrelated specialty. But I could take a look anyway, once the choices are narrowed down, if it might help.
I'm not sure where Google APIs, which CHM uses a lot, fit in the picture. Might be, as a practical matter, in the "permission to use freely granted, so long as you don't do anything to piss off Google" category.
Google APIs are not open source, Google has their own license terms for use of maps (Implementation must be public and be free)
There are, however, several restrictions on availability and quality for the free version.
https://developers.google.com/maps/licensing
Quote from: oscar on April 11, 2015, 08:25:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 11, 2015, 04:49:47 PM
Also the code.
Here's a link with some popular licences: http://opensource.org/licenses
Thanks, Val. I'm not well-versed in the licenses' advantages vs. disadvantages (or whether there even are any that might matter to our choices -- there might not be). I expect that people in the field who work with the various open-source programs would know much more on that subject than a retired lawyer who practiced in a completely different and unrelated specialty. But I could take a look anyway, once the choices are narrowed down, if it might help.
I'm not sure where Google APIs, which CHM uses a lot, fit in the picture. Might be, as a practical matter, in the "permission to use freely granted, so long as you don't do anything to piss off Google" category.
We might want to check into using the OpenLayers API, which uses OSM data and has more features than Google's API, IIRC.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on April 06, 2015, 11:34:07 AM
Technically, the QEW should stay in the Provincial Freeways (400 series). It's officially ON 451 on paper.
Just to clarify to save y'all some time now than changing things later -
For the QEW, the Highway 451 and Highway 1 numbers are only used as a placeholder for instances where a system will only accept a numerical input. And 451 has kind of fallen into disuse it appears. That highway's official designation is the Queen Elizabeth Way, and is considered to be a 400-series highway.
Didn't know that it was also Highway 1 in some records. Is the QEW the reason there was never an ON 1?
Quote from: vdeane on April 18, 2015, 12:36:50 AM
Didn't know that it was also Highway 1 in some records. Is the QEW the reason there was never an ON 1?
No, the decision to omit 1 was made longer before the idea of the QEW was ever conceived.
Quote from: cbeach40 on April 19, 2015, 03:31:55 AM
Quote from: vdeane on April 18, 2015, 12:36:50 AM
Didn't know that it was also Highway 1 in some records. Is the QEW the reason there was never an ON 1?
No, the decision to omit 1 was made longer before the idea of the QEW was ever conceived.
I always wondered why ON 17 (Trans Canada main route) was never ON 1. It would be nice for the whole country to assign the Trans Canada as such.
Because New England Interstate 1.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 19, 2015, 12:10:51 PM
I always wondered why ON 17 (Trans Canada main route) was never ON 1. It would be nice for the whole country to assign the Trans Canada as such.
Because
1. that route was Highway 17 long before the TCH was ever routed onto it
2. The TCH route is a non-entity in this province. Even in areas where it's the dominant route, it's not referred to as such. The only reason it's signed at all is to provide continuity, not because anyone really cares about it.
Quote from: cbeach40 on April 20, 2015, 10:08:01 AM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on April 19, 2015, 12:10:51 PM
I always wondered why ON 17 (Trans Canada main route) was never ON 1. It would be nice for the whole country to assign the Trans Canada as such.
Because
1. that route was Highway 17 long before the TCH was ever routed onto it
2. The TCH route is a non-entity in this province. Even in areas where it's the dominant route, it's not referred to as such. The only reason it's signed at all is to provide continuity, not because anyone really cares about it.
Also, as for numbering the entire TCH system as highway 1 -- the TCH has multiple branches, with each province except PEI and NL having two or more different TCH routes.