AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: New instruction manual  (Read 5884 times)

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8794
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:49 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
New instruction manual
« on: August 05, 2015, 02:05:35 PM »

I'm starting work on an updated instruction manual, with an eye to helping new team members "learn the ropes" on how to draft new route files and systems, as well as maintain existing files and systems which we might need to reassign.

As a first step, I'd appreciate comments from present and former CHM collaborators who worked with the old CHM instruction manual, on things that caused the most heartburn and where we might want to do things differently, or other improvements we should make based on CHM experience. As a late addition to the CHM team, I know about some of the more vexing issues, for example the old manual's insistence on inserting waypoints for roads leading to nearby river crossings. (On that, I'd be inclined to make such points 'suggested" rather than "required".) But I might not be aware of some issues that came up before my time.

Other people who were not CHM veterans will have ample opportunity to comment later, once I have a first draft ready for discussion.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5169
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 08:33:45 AM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2015, 04:16:32 PM »

One issue I'd like to see discussed is the rule about not using exit numbers as labels except on Interstates.  I say if a state/US/whatever else route has its own exit numbers, let's use them.  But either way, it's not a huge issue for me.
Logged
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, weather, sports)

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8794
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:49 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2015, 04:47:30 PM »

One issue I'd like to see discussed is the rule about not using exit numbers as labels except on Interstates.  I say if a state/US/whatever else route has its own exit numbers, let's use them.  But either way, it's not a huge issue for me.

That "rule", not mentioned in the existing manual, might be unique to US routes. I'd be fine with eliminating that exception to the rule normally requiring exit numbers, but not requiring re-dos for existing route files.

This would not affect exit numbers on US routes multiplexed with Interstates, which would keep their existing format, e.g. 13(666).
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2941
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:30:43 AM
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2015, 06:11:15 AM »

This would not affect exit numbers on US routes multiplexed with Interstates, which would keep their existing format, e.g. 13(666).

That format was I-79(67) for US/State Highways on Interstates. The '2(90)' format was only for Interstates on other Interstates.

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3550
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: August 01, 2021, 10:48:34 AM
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2015, 02:13:43 PM »

Can we ditch the requirement for the I-79(67) format for concurrent routes. If it's intersecting then that way round makes sense, but if it's a point for exit 67 of I-79 which you are concurrent with it ought to be 67(I-79).

Another labelling rule I'd like to ditch is the 'if the point has more than two or more routes of the same class meeting, you need to include two of those numbers' rule. There's some cases where it makes a lot of sense, but others where it doesn't really serve much purpose other than making labels longer.

I'd be fine with eliminating that exception to the rule normally requiring exit numbers, but not requiring re-dos for existing route files.
I think this is the way to go about changes to the manual.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: August 01, 2021, 03:25:16 PM
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2015, 02:02:14 AM »

Can we ditch the requirement for the I-79(67) format for concurrent routes. If it's intersecting then that way round makes sense, but if it's a point for exit 67 of I-79 which you are concurrent with it ought to be 67(I-79).
I prefer the consistency of retaining the I-79(67) format.

Quote
Another labelling rule I'd like to ditch is the 'if the point has more than two or more routes of the same class meeting, you need to include two of those numbers' rule. There's some cases where it makes a lot of sense, but others where it doesn't really serve much purpose other than making labels longer.
AGREED. This one always peeved me. It wasn't in the original routedata.html or in manual.php -- seems that over time Tim gradually changed that from "you may do this" to "you shall do this", without reflecting such in the documentation. ...only to drop the bomb on us during peer review. Do over!.
This led to a lot of frustration and burn-out with the process for me, and was a big reason why CANPE was in limbo for a good long time before being activated.
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2941
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:30:43 AM
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2015, 01:01:56 AM »

Can we ditch the requirement for the I-79(67) format for concurrent routes. If it's intersecting then that way round makes sense, but if it's a point for exit 67 of I-79 which you are concurrent with it ought to be 67(I-79).
I prefer the consistency of retaining the I-79(67) format.

Just wanted to mention this, but now all MT US Highways that have multiplexes with Interstates are completely broken (missing '+' to demote label).

Anyways, I though we were all still discussing this possible change for US highways on Interstates and the change hadn't been agreed upon yet.  As above, both me and yakra think we should keep it the same.

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8794
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:49 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2015, 04:10:47 AM »

YES. This discussion is to get started on a new instruction manual yet to be drafted, geared to bringing any future new team members up to speed.

Even if we agree to a new format for multiplex point labels -- clearly we haven't yet -- I think we should still follow the usual meta-rules for such changes:

-- re-dos of existing route files, to follow new labeling rules, should usually be optional (usually no need to create extra work for ourselves)

-- in any case, any changes to existing files should preserve point labels in use so as not to break route files, by making them alternate labels preceded by a + (how our current route file parser identifies alternate or hidden labels).
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 09:10:35 AM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5169
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 08:33:45 AM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2015, 09:22:46 AM »

For what it's worth, the current site update program doesn't care if labels other than the first are preceded with a '+' to mark as hidden.  They'll all be usable labels but only the first on a .wpt line will be the primary label that would show up in the HB for example.  If we'd like to enforce the requirement that any label other than a first (primary) label must have the '+', it's easy enough to add another datacheck that would report those.

BTW, I started work last night on getting datacheck errors into the DB in preparation for being able to flag false positives.  This would let the datacheck.log file be replaced with a PHP page on the web site.  I think this kind of thing needs to be in place before we can add new systems beyond those that already went through peer review on CHM.
Logged
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, weather, sports)

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11816
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:11:06 AM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2015, 11:26:24 AM »

- I don't mind using the I-xx(yy) format if there's more than one point with a given Interstate route, or using that format along Interstate concurrencies for the concurrent route.

- One of my biggest peeves with Tim was how he addressed county/secondary route points when there was more than one route with the same number crossing a given highway.  Minnesota is a big place for this as theoretically every county can have a CR 1, CR 2, CR 3, etc etc.  Changing from using town/county names to suffixes is where I disagreed with him, and I'd like to go back to how we originally had it.
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8794
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:49 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2015, 12:12:15 PM »

- One of my biggest peeves with Tim was how he addressed county/secondary route points when there was more than one route with the same number crossing a given highway.  Minnesota is a big place for this as theoretically every county can have a CR 1, CR 2, CR 3, etc etc.  Changing from using town/county names to suffixes is where I disagreed with him, and I'd like to go back to how we originally had it.

Just to clarify (in case I'm getting it wrong), the original approach was something like CR123_Foo, and Tim wanted to change to something like Foo123, right?

I also disagreed with Tim's approach, and I don't know how widely (if at all) anybody followed it.

This is exactly the kind of aggravating quirk I'm looking for, so it can be left out of the new instruction manual.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: August 01, 2021, 03:25:16 PM
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2015, 12:34:48 PM »

Quote
Just to clarify (in case I'm getting it wrong), the original approach was something like CR123_Foo, and Tim wanted to change to something like Foo123, right?
IIRC, Tim first moved to enforce a CR123_Bar style, where Bar is a town/city in which / near where CR123 intersects, in an IMO over-dogmatic interpretation of a "The three letter suffix is for town/city, and town/city only" rule.
(That one really peeved me; I've kvetched about it in another thread here.)
He later moved to propose that it be Foo123; there was some discussion in that thread but no consensus I believe, and it just kind of fizzled, with nothing being made "official".

Quote
I also disagreed with Tim's approach, and I don't know how widely (if at all) anybody followed it.
I disagreed so much that I kept right on with a couplefew CR123_Foo and BarRd_Baz labels as I went on with Operation Texas, being confident they'd fly under the radar.
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8794
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:49 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2015, 01:02:20 PM »

Reviving part of this discussion, largely to aid my updating of US routes in California:

US 101 in CA has lots of interchanges that now have exit numbers, but are labeled with an abbreviated name for the intersecting road (perhaps when the route file was originally drafted, exit numbering was less prevalent than it is now). I'd like to use exit numbers instead, at least (but not just) for the new interchanges that have been built here and there, for which we need to add waypoints anyway.

I suggest that exit numbers be preferred for US routes, and should be used for new US route alignments, just like for Interstates. But re-doing existing route files to change named exits to numbered exits is up to the maintainer.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3550
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: August 01, 2021, 10:48:34 AM
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2015, 02:25:38 PM »

I suggest that exit numbers be preferred for US routes, and should be used for new US route alignments, just like for Interstates. But re-doing existing route files to change named exits to numbered exits is up to the maintainer.
Isn't this the conclusion we had reached?
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8794
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:49 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2015, 02:55:03 PM »

I suggest that exit numbers be preferred for US routes, and should be used for new US route alignments, just like for Interstates. But re-doing existing route files to change named exits to numbered exits is up to the maintainer.
Isn't this the conclusion we had reached?

That's where we were headed, but just wanted to confirm there's no disagreement.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5169
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 08:33:45 AM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2015, 05:42:10 PM »

I suggest that exit numbers be preferred for US routes, and should be used for new US route alignments, just like for Interstates. But re-doing existing route files to change named exits to numbered exits is up to the maintainer.

This is good with me.
Logged
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, weather, sports)

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2753
  • Last Login: August 01, 2021, 08:03:54 PM
Re: New instruction manual
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2015, 10:50:42 PM »

It's what I did with US 26 in Oregon as I'm going through and redoing all the files.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.