Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)

[mapcat]

NM 329: does route also include Mills Ave. between NM 65 and I-25BL? OSM, GM. Bing seem to think so, even though it's not in state AADT log.

I was out there a few months ago, and drove NM 329 according to GMaps. If it wasn't signed along Mills Ave, I believe I would have made note of it, so I suspect there was some signage along that segment, although I can't be certain.

[SD Mapman]

NM 329: does route also include Mills Ave. between NM 65 and I-25BL? OSM, GM. Bing seem to think so, even though it's not in state AADT log.

I was out there a few months ago, and drove NM 329 according to GMaps. If it wasn't signed along Mills Ave, I believe I would have made note of it, so I suspect there was some signage along that segment, although I can't be certain.

It's signed from the Business Loop Southbound, per GMSV.

[oscar]

Some poking around GMSV:

In Farmington, GMSV indicates that US 64 has been rerouted south of downtown (with the old routing now a business route), and also that NM 371 has been truncated to end at the new US 64:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7193753,-108.1803065,3a,75y,271.35h,92.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjoCi1qRbnVrpRxjGGkhlpw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7210877,-108.185031,3a,75y,335.1h,72.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s42KU_M85F_Nep51BemNxUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7193856,-108.1858387,3a,49.8y,289.27h,83.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s75INh7jcM6ZZvi5v5lyFHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7317196,-108.23417,3a,41.3y,117.3h,92.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFFrhyRJlJF5uFSUHYjTbOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7229462,-108.2218459,3a,47.9y,138h,80.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp55I-pm5eYALf4mUXMq8PA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7221445,-108.2224157,3a,25.6y,86.76h,85.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smxIvW4GKTs1Vrs0V7ut59w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

In Grants, NM 547 meets the I-40 business loop:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1499178,-107.8484915,3a,30y,305.81h,93.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3ccp6Mrx_J52CPLWwKT_MA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en

In Artesia, a few of these along what OSM/Mapnik labels US 82 Truck:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8562832,-104.429876,3a,48.2y,15.15h,85.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYJhvdo6G2z2maVN-P2s5YA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8571613,-104.398305,3a,37.5y,271.41h,89.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syOQ22Ro_3XSCa3BLtfFhIw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en-US

GMSV does not confirm the possible US route change I'd spotted in Española, though maybe that happened after the last time GMSV sent a camera car through there, so it'll will need to be checked out some other way. As I've noted above, the situation in Española is confusing enough that contacting NMDOT might be the best way to nail it down.

[1995hoo]

We drove through Farmington yesterday and I can confirm the business/bypass distinction. The signs were a little odd–the "bypass" is still like a regular street and the sign said "Truck Bypass," while the business route indicator appears only as part of the shield for said route (picture an old-style US route shield with "Business" above the horizontal line and "Loop" below it). We took the "bypass" route.

[Jim]

I did not see signage for UT 289 in Cedar City today.  Does it officially exist?  See https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/118

[SD Mapman]

I did not see signage for UT 289 in Cedar City today.  Does it officially exist?  See https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/118

UDOT says it still exists. http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=7057009304316097
Then again, that's from 2008...
Here is a list of all the highways in Utah, for future reference: http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:814,

Also, TM is missing a lot of the higher-numbered routes in that list. Granted, there are several route numbers reserved for "all the roads and parking lots in x", but some of those are actual roads that go somewhere (UT 310, 312, and 314 come to mind)

Aaaand yet another edit, here's a good resource for checking the Utah State Highways set: https://maps.udot.utah.gov/highway/f?p=184:4 (be sure to click show state routes)
This one does include the parking lot highways, so that's kinda neat.

There's a ton of routes that either need to be added or decided firmly not to add them (if that makes any sense).

[SD Mapman]

UT 190 needs troubleshooting too.

[SD Mapman]

So I had a hunch today and looked at the NDDOT Williston Bypass page... and it appears to be done to the point where the truck routes in the HB can be shifted over to the permanent alignment.
http://www.nddotwilliston.com/williston-bypass/

This is all from the Internet.

[mepaulrye]

Hello!
Is this the proper thread to report mistakes on the route list? If so, I would like to add that E22 has a new route in Latvia. A part of it is already added, but a part of it is missing. These are the missing sections.

• https://www.google.lv/maps/dir/56.8458176,24.3908874/56.8586876,24.5650321/@56.8744985,24.3740887,11.5z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
• https://www.google.lv/maps/dir/56.6647445,25.4658897/56.6413162,25.4460269/@56.6519841,25.4395341,14.04z
• https://www.google.lv/maps/dir/56.514885,27.7530454/56.3823355,28.0803269/@56.4514505,27.8650632,11.71z

Also, are there any plans to add other main roads (A roads) of Latvia? Some of them are of much higher standart than some of the E roads that are already added. If so I'd be happy to help in this process as I have great knowledge on Latvian highways.

Thanks!

[english si]

Hello!
Is this the proper thread to report mistakes on the route list?

Hello. It is.

If so, I would like to add that E22 has a new route in Latvia. A part of it is already added, but a part of it is missing.

While I found signs on the new P80, I had found no evidence that the links were signed as E22, so kept the old route, which was still signed after the P80 opened.

I've rerouted it on both routes.

Also, are there any plans to add other main roads (A roads) of Latvia?

I've added the system to the unactivated routes - you'd be able to view them when the next site update occurs, but not count them in your stats yet.

[mepaulrye]

Thanks for clearing things up. If needed I could try to provide some evidence on the E22 new route. 

[english si]

Thanks for clearing things up. If needed I could try to provide some evidence on the E22 new route. 

That would be great, though I've routed the E22 via there anyway, and ditched the A6 route. My (now I read it back) cryptic message about 'both routes' meant the P80 and also the new-build bit of A12 further east, rather than P80 and A6.

[english si]

Latvia routes online now
http://www.teresco.org/tm/devel/hb.php?sys=&rg=LVA

[Jim]

Latvia routes online now
http://www.teresco.org/tm/devel/hb.php?sys=&rg=LVA

It's a small system, so maybe peer review and datacheck cleanup can be done fairly quickly and we can get them active.

[english si]

It's a small system, so maybe peer review and datacheck cleanup can be done fairly quickly and we can get them active.

Sure, though I'd rather focus peer review efforts on gbna1 - mostly for the selfish reason that most of the stuff I'm newly travelling is in that subsystem. I'm sure others would prefer US state routes.

Of course, this system can be short work - there's only 15 routes. I've spotted a few things that mostly have to do with the age of the files and not having updated some of them.

Also, it would be really useful to be able to turn on in-dev systems in mapview.php mode, so that NMP, broken concurrencies (eg missed shaping points), etc can be easily seen and fixed before activation.

Oh, and MPOpen or Mapnik in our Highway Browser, because Google's data is different and what looks like badly placed points are actually correctly placed wrt the open source data we use to make files.

[mepaulrye]

That would be great, though I've routed the E22 via there anyway, and ditched the A6 route. My (now I read it back) cryptic message about 'both routes' meant the P80 and also the new-build bit of A12 further east, rather than P80 and A6.

So here's a project .pdf for A12 from 2008, when half of the new A12E22 route was finished. It states that after full completion of A12's new route (through Nirza), the E22 will be re-routed too. The map is in English, and it pretty much sums up what I wrote. Here is the link http://kartes.lvceli.lv/files/Kohezijas%20projekti_2007_2013/Ludza_Terehova.pdf . I'll try to find more info on the P5/E22 later.

And thanks for the Latvian A routes, can't wait for them to go active. 

[Jim]

Also, it would be really useful to be able to turn on in-dev systems in mapview.php mode, so that NMP, broken concurrencies (eg missed shaping points), etc can be easily seen and fixed before activation.

The way I set things up, it's hard to have in-dev systems included easily, but... I also don't think it's hard at all to set up a second server address operating off a second DB instance, where everything in systems.csv, active or not, is included.

Oh, and MPOpen or Mapnik in our Highway Browser, because Google's data is different and what looks like badly placed points are actually correctly placed wrt the open source data we use to make files.

I added an Issue about this in GitHub to remind me to add that in next time I have a chance to open up the web code.  If anyone else wants to add it and submit a pull request that would certainly make it happen more quickly.

[oscar]

Oh, and MPOpen or Mapnik in our Highway Browser, because Google's data is different and what looks like badly placed points are actually correctly placed wrt the open source data we use to make files.

Mapnik and MQOpen (and MQOpenSat, which we sometimes have to use for point placement) would be good additions. A lower priority (perhaps save for a new waypoint editor) would be to restore other maps in CHM's highway browser (some broken), including standard Mapquest, Yahoo and Bing, which I sometimes find useful for road names to use in waypoint labels.

[michih]

I checked the in-development SRBA system and I think it's currently complete.

I would add a waypoint at the end of srb.a001nov:

Code Select Expand

24 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.718441&lon=20.463109

What's required to get the system online?

[vdeane]

Noticed something interesting on the NY 25 route: the points at Suffolk CR 58 both say NY58.

[Jim]

Noticed something interesting on the NY 25 route: the points at Suffolk CR 58 both say NY58.

Thanks for the report.  An update is running now with these labels fixed.

[oscar]

Noticed something interesting on the NY 25 route: the points at Suffolk CR 58 both say NY58.

Thanks for the report.  An update is running now with these labels fixed.

The route has been updated, but with duplicate CR58_W points.

I hope what should be CR58_E kept NY58_E as an alternate name, since I and perhaps other users had that waypoint in their list files.

[Jim]

The route has been updated, but with duplicate CR58_W points.

I hope what should be CR58_E kept NY58_E as an alternate name, since I and perhaps other users had that waypoint in their list files.

I should know better than to run a quick fix without paying attention to what I'm doing.  The old labels remain as hidden alternates.

Update to update running now.

[yakra]

I should know better than to run a quick fix without paying attention to what I'm doing.

What do you mean US85 multiplexes with ND200? ^_^;

[Jim]

With the new in-development TX systems in the Travel Mapping DB, I think we should work out some steps to follow for peer review of new systems.  Does it need to be more formal than 2 or 3 others giving a fairly detailed look over the files?  And a GitHub issue or a topic here to post the results?