Non-Road Boards > Travel Mapping

New instruction manual

(1/4) > >>

oscar:
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.

Jim:
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.

oscar:

--- Quote from: Jim 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.
--- End quote ---

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).

rickmastfan67:

--- Quote from: oscar on August 06, 2015, 04:47:30 PM ---This would not affect exit numbers on US routes multiplexed with Interstates, which would keep their existing format, e.g. 13(666).

--- End quote ---

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:
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.


--- Quote from: oscar on August 06, 2015, 04:47:30 PM ---I'd be fine with eliminating that exception to the rule normally requiring exit numbers, but not requiring re-dos for existing route files.
--- End quote ---
I think this is the way to go about changes to the manual.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page