AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)  (Read 80738 times)

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5167
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 11:35:21 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« on: June 10, 2015, 10:20:28 AM »

Here are a few things I needed to fix up with the import of the last known good CHM data into the new system's database.  I don't know if they should be a concern.

  • CA 44 was in usaca.csv, but no wpt exists.  Removed entry.
  • A whole bunch of usaky4.csv entries had no corresponding wpt file.  Removed entries.
  • In order to avoid name conflicts, I removed NM 599 from usansf.csv.  I expect usanm is among the systems that will go active almost as soon as we have a usable system, so I'm not too worried about that.


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: July 30, 2021, 05:59:28 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2015, 11:06:34 AM »

CA 44's wpt should exist, but somehow it fell through the cracks when I first sent the batch to Tim way back when. I might have a copy floating around. I'll research this when I get home.
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8791
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 10:34:37 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2015, 11:26:14 AM »

Here are a few things I needed to fix up with the import of the last known good CHM data into the new system's database.  I don't know if they should be a concern.

  • CA 44 was in usaca.csv, but no wpt exists.  Removed entry.
  • A whole bunch of usaky4.csv entries had no corresponding wpt file.  Removed entries.
  • In order to avoid name conflicts, I removed NM 599 from usansf.csv.  I expect usanm is among the systems that will go active almost as soon as we have a usable system, so I'm not too worried about that.

Since usaca.csv is for an in-development system, and that csv file needs a lot of other work, can we wait on this for awhile?  I can do some work on this in the short gap between when I get back home from my current trip and when I hit the road again for a month later in Junemonth. But ISTM that our focus for now should be on active systems, and that my efforts for now should be catching up with a lot of updates for active Quebec routes (several Autoroutes, and one related TCH change) plus a few changes on active California and BC routes.

You could remove ak.ak98.wpt from the csv file for the in-development Select Provincial Highways system, to clear the way for putting it back in the in-development Alaska State Highway system, as you're doing for NM 599.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 11:32:06 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: 5167
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 11:35:21 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2015, 12:47:14 PM »

I don't want to rush any in-development system - they're just being read in and added to the DB.  If usaca isn't in the kind of shape we should be doing even that, it's easy enough to take it out for the next DB generation run.  In very preliminary .list processing code, I'm just reporting a log file warning and otherwise ignoring valid entries that refer to in-development systems.
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)

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3545
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 02:35:26 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2015, 01:12:45 PM »

1) lets get it up and running with the old data as was - who cares if usaca needs a lot more work, etc - having CA1 will help with long routes (being the longest) and having indev systems helps test that mapping.

2) obviously updating active systems should be a priority (I'm currently going through Spain checking E roads routes as I'm bored of proofing and updating the Autovia/Autopista files. It's a lot easier if you reject 'signed as such, but not from the mainline' as old routes) over fixing in dev systems.
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2753
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:59:28 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2015, 02:10:54 PM »

CA 1 shouldn't be the longest -- BC 97, TX I-10, CA US 101 and CA I-5 should all be longer (in that order, iirc).
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3545
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 02:35:26 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2015, 03:06:29 PM »

I meant that it is the longest file.

CA CA1 is 49kB / 721.9mi
BC BC97 is 43kB / 1313.6mi
NOR E6 is 42kB / 896.4mi
CA US101 is 41kB / 804.7mi
CA I-5 is 29kB / 806.5mi
TX I-10 is 26kB / 892.9mi
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2939
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:24:08 AM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2015, 11:02:00 PM »

I meant that it is the longest file.

CA CA1 is 49kB / 721.9mi
BC BC97 is 43kB / 1313.6mi
NOR E6 is 42kB / 896.4mi
CA US101 is 41kB / 804.7mi
CA I-5 is 29kB / 806.5mi
TX I-10 is 26kB / 892.9mi

Ontario says hi!

ON ON11 is 32.6kB / 1,118.0mi
ON ON17 is 30.2kB / 1,213.8mi (however, this route will shrink a tad in the first update at the new site, but not by much because of ON417 taking over some more of it)
« Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 11:05:44 PM by rickmastfan67 »
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2753
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:59:28 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2015, 11:43:56 PM »

Forgot about ON 11 and 17, whoops! On that note, AB 2 is nothing to sneer at either...
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2753
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:59:28 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2015, 11:47:24 PM »

I sent Oscar CA 44's file. It's so old, it's the old .ggm version and I can't find the converter we used...
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3545
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 02:35:26 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #10 on: June 11, 2015, 08:01:29 AM »

Here's a list of files 20kB (rounded) and over that were on the original CHM site. Just for 'fun'.

ca.ca001 - 49kB / 721.9mi
bc.bc097 - 43kB / 1313.6mi
nor.e6 - 42kB / 896.4mi
ca.us101 - 41kB / 804.7mi
swe.e45 - 37kB / 1052.5mi
nor.e6kir - 34kB / 706.4mi
on.on011 - 33kB / 1118.0mi
swe.e4 - 32kB / 990.9mi
fin.e75 - 31kB / 803.2mi
on.on017 - 31kB / 1213.8mi
ab.ab002 - 30kB / 807.3mi
esp.e5 - 29kB / 757.9mi
ca.i005 - 29kB / 806.5mi
or.us030 - 29kB / 477.9mi
bc.bc003 - 28kB / 518.5mi
fin.e63 - 28kB / 702.0mi
ky.us060 - 28kB / 486.8mi
tx.us087 - 26kB / 808.4mi
tx.us287 - 26kB / 764.3mi
tx.i010 - 26kB / 892.9mi
fin.e8 - 26kB / 779.9mi
on.tchlak - 26kB / 1030.5mi
ca.ca089 - 26kB / 351.1mi
esp.e15 - 25kB / 816.1mi
tx.us083 - 25kB / 904.4mi
tx.us077 - 24kB / 613.0mi
tur.e80 - 24kB / 1114.8mi
ukr.e50 - 24kB / 994.6mi
esp.e90 - 24kB / 636.8mi
ca.ca099 - 24kB / 434.8mi
tur.e90 - 23kB / 1133.2mi
me.us001 - 23kB / 524.8mi
tx.us067 - 23kB / 761.5mi
tx.us090 - 23kB / 771.5mi
tx.us059 - 23kB / 624.0mi
fl.us001 - 22kB / 552.9mi
ita.e45 - 22kB / 893.7mi
ky.ky0080 - 22kB / 476.1mi
tx.us082 - 22kB / 573.2mi
ukr.e40 - 21kB / 964.7mi
bc.tchyel - 21kB / 665.6mi
ca.ca020 - 21kB / 226.2mi
mb.mb010 - 20kB / 508.5mi
fra.e60 - 20kB / 735.8mi
fra.e15 - 20kB / 778.7mi
fra.e70 - 20kB / 624.2mi
ak.ak001 - 20kB / 545.6mi
tx.i020 - 20kB / 645.3mi
Logged

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5167
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 11:35:21 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #11 on: June 12, 2015, 10:06:05 AM »

Fun fact: colocation detection of waypoints reveals 2 (lat,lng) pairs that appear in 10 route files.

(41.499667,-81.693617) is at Public Square in Cleveland, and is part of OH US6, OH US20, OH US42, OH US322, OH US422, OH OH3, OH OH8, OH OH14, OH OH43, and OH OH87, all labeled as "PubSqu".

(35.128262,-90.076736) is the Mississippi River bridge on I-55 near Memphis.  Since it carries 5 routes plotted by our project (I-55, US 61, US 64, US 70, US 79) across a state line, that end of each highway's Arkansas and Tennessee files contains a point there.

There are also 2 examples each of points that appear 8 times and 9 times.
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)

sammi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1148
  • Software Developer, Sign Designer

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Toronto, ON / Baguio, Phils.
  • Last Login: February 13, 2021, 01:36:26 AM
    • SammDOT (under construction)
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #12 on: June 14, 2015, 01:16:36 PM »

Apparently the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in the Philippines released a National Route Numbering System last year. Why did I only find out about this now? :confused:

Anyway, I'd like to add two new systems (national roads and expressways). Other than the following files, what else should I add?

  • systems.csv
  • _systems/phln.csv
  • _systems/phln_con.csv
  • _systems/phle.csv
  • _systems/phle_con.csv
  • phln/*.wpt
  • phle/*.wpt
« Last Edit: June 14, 2015, 01:21:32 PM by sammi »
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3545
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 02:35:26 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #13 on: June 14, 2015, 02:51:00 PM »

Other than the following files, what else should I add?

  • systems.csv
  • _systems/phln.csv
  • _systems/phln_con.csv
  • _systems/phle.csv
  • _systems/phle_con.csv
  • phln/*.wpt
  • phle/*.wpt
Not systems.csv - that shouldn't be a free-for-all file.

asiah/phl.ah26.wpt (and files for the spurs of it)?

But I'd hold off for a bit, if I was you - formats are changing, etc.
Logged

sammi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1148
  • Software Developer, Sign Designer

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Toronto, ON / Baguio, Phils.
  • Last Login: February 13, 2021, 01:36:26 AM
    • SammDOT (under construction)
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #14 on: June 14, 2015, 05:44:45 PM »

asiah/phl.ah26.wpt (and files for the spurs of it)?

But I'd hold off for a bit, if I was you - formats are changing, etc.

Alright then. I guess for now I'll be compiling waypoints, before actually putting them in the actual data.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 02:49:56 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2015, 03:11:11 PM »

Here's a list of files 20kB (rounded) and over that were on the original CHM site. Just for 'fun'.

> ca.ca001 - 49kB / 721.9mi

Aah yes, the in-development USACA system. Very dense visible points and shaping points, combined with a very long route, led to CA1 topping off the list. It's what CA89 and CA20 suffer from as well.

> ca.us101 - 41kB / 804.7mi

A long route with dense interchanges on freeway segments. There are a few shaing points and a couple visible points that could be removed, but overall, not bad.

> ab.ab002 - 30kB / 807.3mi

My draft file for the CANAB system is down to 19.2 KB.
446 waypoints: 220 visible, 226 hidden. -> 295 waypoints: 258 visible, 37 hidden.
Average spacing: 1.81 mi -> 2.73 mi
Average visible spacing: 3.69 mi -> Average visible spacing: 3.12 mi

> ca.i005 - 29kB / 806.5mi

A very long freeway with densely spaced interchanges in places. Shaping points are well done; minimal.

> or.us030 - 29kB / 477.9mi

Many of the shaping points, particularly along I-84, can be cut out.
I cut it down to 18.4 K.
422 waypoints: 219 visible, 203 hidden. -> 276 waypoints: 218 visible, 58 hidden.
Average spacing: 1.14 mi -> 1.73 mi
Average visible spacing: 2.19 mi -> Average visible spacing: 2.19 mi
I actually added a few shaping points (10?) in the eastern part of the state on I-84.

> bc.bc003 - 28kB / 518.5mi

A cursory look shows a lot of shaping points could be cut out. Visible ones as well.

> ky.us060 - 28kB / 486.8mi
> ky.ky0080 - 22kB / 476.1mi

Heh. Tons of state routes here. KY needs 4 digits to number `em all.

> on.tchlak - 26kB / 1030.5mi

A long route that's about where it needs to be WRT shaping.

> ca.ca099 - 24kB / 434.8mi

Not as bad as CA1, 20 or 89. Another case of a long mostly-freeway with dense interchamge spacing tying our hands. Although, many of the shaping points could be eliminated. Also looks like there's opportunity to snip out some visible ones on the surface road, such as in the Yuba City area.

> me.us001 - 23kB / 524.8mi

This has always been rather dense on the visible waypoints. I've trimmed down my local copy: 17.6 K / 524.05 mi
347 waypoints: 310 visible, 37 hidden. -> 272 waypoints: 240 visible, 32 hidden.
Average spacing: 1.52 mi -> 1.93 mi
Average visible spacing: 1.70 mi -> Average visible spacing: 2.19 mi

> mb.mb010 - 20kB / 508.5mi

My draft file for the CANMB system is down to 11.2 KB.
285 waypoints: 93 visible, 192 hidden. -> 172 waypoints: 115 visible, 57 hidden.
Average spacing: 1.79 mi -> 2.94 mi
Average visible spacing: 5.53 mi -> Average visible spacing: 4.41 mi
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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8791
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 10:34:37 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2015, 03:46:33 PM »

Here's a list of files 20kB (rounded) and over that were on the original CHM site. Just for 'fun'.

> ca.ca001 - 49kB / 721.9mi

Aah yes, the in-development USACA system. Very dense visible points and shaping points, combined with a very long route, led to CA1 topping off the list. It's what CA89 and CA20 suffer from as well.

Awhile ago, I took a stab at slimming down the CA1 route file, before I got interrupted. I agree, lots of room to cut down on the file size, especially cutting down on visible points on straight sections in the Los Angeles metro area.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2753
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 05:59:28 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #17 on: June 19, 2015, 05:11:05 PM »

Quote from: yakra
> or.us030 - 29kB / 477.9mi

Many of the shaping points, particularly along I-84, can be cut out.
I cut it down to 18.4 K.
422 waypoints: 219 visible, 203 hidden. -> 276 waypoints: 218 visible, 58 hidden.
Average spacing: 1.14 mi -> 1.73 mi
Average visible spacing: 2.19 mi -> Average visible spacing: 2.19 mi
I actually added a few shaping points (10?) in the eastern part of the state on I-84.
Seems like a good time to ask if we're going to put US 30 on what is signed as Hist US 30 through the gorge or leave it on I-84 and draft up a Hist US 30 route.

Also, I'm very certain that it's pointless to ask if any removed shape points US 30 were also removed from I-84 along the concurrency?
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 02:49:56 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2015, 01:15:07 AM »

Also, I'm very certain that it's pointless to ask if any removed shape points US 30 were also removed from I-84 along the concurrency?
I did not make any edits to I-84. I only loaded US30 into WPTedit and went to town, and put the results on my server becuz hay guise look at dis. My edit should not be considered canonical. I do (did?) not maintain Oregon. Looks like it was last officially left in Si's hands.
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

mapcat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 80
  • Last Login: June 19, 2019, 05:35:22 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2015, 11:01:14 AM »

Just curious...what's the rationale for reducing the number of waypoints and/or shaping points for the files?  Are large files overtaxing the server in some way, or unnecessarily difficult to maintain?
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8791
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 10:34:37 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2015, 11:27:02 AM »

Just curious...what's the rationale for reducing the number of waypoints and/or shaping points for the files?  Are large files overtaxing the server in some way, or unnecessarily difficult to maintain?

Mainly the former. But trying to keep waypoint density within reason at the outset also makes route file drafting easier. Certainly when I drafted the file for the curvaceous HI 360, I was grateful I didn't have to shape all 600+ hairpin curves in a 30-mile span. I was able to get by with only about two dozen points for that file.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

mapcat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 80
  • Last Login: June 19, 2019, 05:35:22 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2015, 03:00:18 PM »

Mainly the former. But trying to keep waypoint density within reason at the outset also makes route file drafting easier. Certainly when I drafted the file for the curvaceous HI 360, I was grateful I didn't have to shape all 600+ hairpin curves in a 30-mile span. I was able to get by with only about two dozen points for that file.

I see.  So then there's no motivation to maintain route length integrity within x%?  HI 360 is 26.4 miles long in CHM, but a Google Maps trace of the route from end to end comes out at 34.9 miles, or a little more than 32% longer.
Logged

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5167
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 11:35:21 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2015, 03:10:58 PM »

Mainly the former. But trying to keep waypoint density within reason at the outset also makes route file drafting easier. Certainly when I drafted the file for the curvaceous HI 360, I was grateful I didn't have to shape all 600+ hairpin curves in a 30-mile span. I was able to get by with only about two dozen points for that file.

I see.  So then there's no motivation to maintain route length integrity within x%?  HI 360 is 26.4 miles long in CHM, but a Google Maps trace of the route from end to end comes out at 34.9 miles, or a little more than 32% longer.

I believe the CHM system had a fixed amount by which route lengths were multiplied to get our line segments approach to come close to actual length.  One of the things I'd like to see and do in the new project is to have a mechanism by which a route's scale factor (or maybe just especially curvy parts) could have an actual length specified that would override the default approximation.
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: July 30, 2021, 11:40:27 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2015, 09:17:41 PM »

Quote
I believe the CHM system had a fixed amount by which route lengths were multiplied to get our line segments approach to come close to actual length.  One of the things I'd like to see and do in the new project is to have a mechanism by which a route's scale factor (or maybe just especially curvy parts) could have an actual length specified that would override the default approximation.

This would also be useful for transit systems when we get to that point, especially since many have mileages between stations already documented.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: July 30, 2021, 02:49:56 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2015, 11:23:07 PM »

Just curious...what's the rationale for reducing the number of waypoints and/or shaping points for the files?  Are large files overtaxing the server in some way, or unnecessarily difficult to maintain?

Mainly the former. But trying to keep waypoint density within reason at the outset also makes route file drafting easier. Certainly when I drafted the file for the curvaceous HI 360, I was grateful I didn't have to shape all 600+ hairpin curves in a 30-mile span. I was able to get by with only about two dozen points for that file.

A route file with too many waypoint marker overlays can be veryu slow to load, display and zoom/pan, depending on a user's system. But more importantly, as Tim pointed out back in 2010:
Quote
- Some web scripts in the site necessarily have execution times roughly proportional to the number of points to be searched or plotted. Raising the shaping point count by a factor of 5 while raising the number of supported routes will eventually have a crippling effect.
Multiplex detection comes to mind. (Jim, what's the Big-O of the quad table routine you posted about in another thread?)
I thought I remembered some mention of O(n^2) routines, but a few quick searches thru the CHM forum turn up nothing. Either I remembered incorrectly or am confusing it with another discussion entirely.
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

 


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.