AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: Things to do (CHM)  (Read 46895 times)

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16384
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 04:22:06 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2015, 09:11:10 AM »

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.
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3011
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:19:16 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2015, 10:51:46 AM »

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.
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3011
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:19:16 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #27 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?
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3222
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: March 16, 2024, 01:05:30 AM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2015, 08:01:15 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.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14684
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The 518
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:10:05 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2015, 08:26:26 PM »

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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3637
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 05:33:16 AM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #30 on: April 06, 2015, 08:12:30 AM »

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
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12911
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:08:21 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2015, 08:28:23 AM »

Quote
Canada Select Named Freeways: cannf

What did this constitute?  I presume it was a Canadian version of the similar US system we had.

Quote
Break 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)?

Quote
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.

I could see an "NPS system".  Besides Yellowstone, there's also the Natchez Trace, Blue Ridge Pkwy, and a few parkways in DC.
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3637
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 05:33:16 AM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #32 on: April 06, 2015, 09:02:35 AM »

Quote
Canada 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.

Quote
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)?
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.

Quote
I 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 just never seemed to happen, with one key reason. Also, I never got a response to this post. 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)
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10936
  • Age: 68
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:35:29 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2015, 09:33:27 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.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6731
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:01:00 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #34 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.
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, skiing, weather, sports)

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3637
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 05:33:16 AM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #35 on: April 06, 2015, 09:55:22 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?).
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3222
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: March 16, 2024, 01:05:30 AM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #36 on: April 06, 2015, 11:34:07 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.

SSOWorld

  • 'Sconsin
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4227
  • Interstate <Make up your mind!>

  • Location: MAH House!
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:24:47 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #37 on: April 06, 2015, 03:05:40 PM »

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?
Logged
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14684
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The 518
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 09:10:05 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #38 on: April 06, 2015, 06:47:43 PM »

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".
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

SSOWorld

  • 'Sconsin
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4227
  • Interstate <Make up your mind!>

  • Location: MAH House!
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 07:24:47 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #39 on: April 06, 2015, 09:27:25 PM »

Inner Loop? I-490
Logged
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5955
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Stamford, CT
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 10:36:18 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #40 on: April 06, 2015, 11:48:52 PM »

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.

Quote
potential 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.

Quote
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)

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.

Quote
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?

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.

Quote
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.

If someone wants to develop an NPS system in the future for things like Natchez Trace, I see no reason why not.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1320
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: February 13, 2024, 06:39:12 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2015, 12:02:15 AM »

Quote from: english si
Canada 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 si
potential 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 si
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 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: Duke87
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.
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 si
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)
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 si
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?
Yes. I've considered this on the past too. Also: Oklahoma Turnpikes.

Quote from: froggie
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)?
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: Duke87
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.
Agreed: signed with a shield.

Quote from: Duke87
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.
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 si
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.
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...
« Last Edit: April 07, 2015, 12:15:24 AM by yakra »
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

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1320
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: February 13, 2024, 06:39:12 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #42 on: April 07, 2015, 12:31:12 AM »

To touch upon a couple topics visited on the first page of this thread:

Quote
The 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.
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: 3222
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: March 16, 2024, 01:05:30 AM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2015, 01:20:48 AM »

CANONF also has ONQEW (Queen Elizabeth Way); I'm uncertain why that's not in the CANNF set.

From above:

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.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5955
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Stamford, CT
  • Last Login: March 17, 2024, 10:36:18 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2015, 01:41:19 AM »

Quote from: Duke87
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.
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.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1320
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: February 13, 2024, 06:39:12 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #45 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.
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: 3222
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: March 16, 2024, 01:05:30 AM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2015, 03:38:25 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.

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3637
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 05:33:16 AM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #47 on: April 07, 2015, 05:50:55 AM »

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.
Is something redundant just because it the route itself is concurrent with other route?
Quote
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.
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 or the West Approach Road are useful roads to have on CHM, but are definitely not A roads.
Quote
If 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.
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.
Indeed, as am I. Those AB bits scream 'maybe part of phase 3a'
Quote
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?
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). 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.
Quote
Yes. I've considered this on the past too. Also: Oklahoma Turnpikes.
I knew there was one obvious system I forgot. OK Turnpikes - absolutely.
Quote
Disagree 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.
Logged

sipes23

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 181
  • Location: Where US 20 leaves I-25.
  • Last Login: December 12, 2021, 03:11:51 AM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #48 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). 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.
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3011
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:19:16 PM
Re: Things to do (CHM)
« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2015, 11:02:58 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.
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.