Non-Road Boards > Travel Mapping
Alberta Primary Provincial Highways (in development)
yakra:
For changes that need to be made on canab routes before activation
Routes can be found here: http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?sys=canab
oscar:
--- Quote from: yakra on November 06, 2015, 12:12:45 AM ---For changes that need to be made on canab routes before activation
Routes can be found here: http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?sys=canab
--- End quote ---
I checked AB 63, mainly to make sure you had a waypoint for my turnaround point north of Fort McMurray (you do, ConWay). Google Maps has the highway extending toward Bitumount, past where OSM places the route end. MQOpenSat also shows a road of some kind extending north toward Bitumount. AB 63's north end (driven by oil development) seems to be a bit of a moving target, and deserves a re-check just before activation.
AB 216 may be complete in fall 2016, which would eliminate your need to map that route in two separate route files. The exits and exit numbering on the north end of AB 216's Sherwood Park segment, which was under massive reconstruction when I was there in July, might stabilize before activation, so I would give this the same "moving target" treatment I suggest for AB 63.
I'll later check out AB 35 and other far northern Alberta routes against my copy of the latest Milepost travel guide. But you might already have all the possible waypoints on those rather lonely highways.
yakra:
--- Quote ---I checked AB 63, mainly to make sure you had a waypoint for my turnaround point north of Fort McMurray (you do, ConWay). Google Maps has the highway extending toward Bitumount, past where OSM places the route end. MQOpenSat also shows a road of some kind extending north toward Bitumount. AB 63's north end (driven by oil development) seems to be a bit of a moving target, and deserves a re-check just before activation.
--- End quote ---
Google uses a yellow line to show the road, but places no route markers on it. Thus I don't call that very definitive. The north end I'm using was taken from the 11.0 GeoBase(GeoGratis?) shapefiles. I'm downloading the newest shapefiles, released 12 days ago, as I type. I'll see what I can see.
Annnnd... The 12.1 shapefiles have the end in the same place.
--- Quote ---AB 216 may be complete in fall 2016, which would eliminate your need to map that route in two separate route files.
--- End quote ---
Of course, I don't really *need* to have two separate files; the road as it physically exists out there is all one segment. I want to link them up at the appropriate point once the route is completed, and avoid the awkward situation of exit numbers resetting mid-route, as they do in NC I-485 (for the same reason, an uncompleted segment when the route file was first created) or GA I-285 (for different reasons).
--- Quote ---The exits and exit numbering on the north end of AB 216's Sherwood Park segment, which was under massive reconstruction when I was there in July, might stabilize before activation, so I would give this the same "moving target" treatment I suggest for AB 63.
--- End quote ---
Aye, this is another thing that's been on my watch list. OSM shows exit numbers, but I don't see them signed in GMSV. I'm also not 100% sure that these are the correct numbers that the exits will eventually receive.
--- Quote ---I'll later check out AB 35 and other far northern Alberta routes against my copy of the latest Milepost travel guide. But you might already have all the possible waypoints on those rather lonely highways.
--- End quote ---
Thanks, Anything useful to break up long segments will be appreciated.
oscar:
--- Quote from: yakra on November 24, 2015, 12:22:55 PM ---
--- Quote ---AB 216 may be complete in fall 2016, which would eliminate your need to map that route in two separate route files.
--- End quote ---
Of course, I don't really *need* to have two separate files; the road as it physically exists out there is all one segment. I want to link them up at the appropriate point once the route is completed, and avoid the awkward situation of exit numbers resetting mid-route, as they do in NC I-485 (for the same reason, an uncompleted segment when the route file was first created) or GA I-285 (for different reasons).
--- End quote ---
The I-485 situation was a pain when I updated its route file after that loop was completed. I wound up placing the begin/end of the loop at I-485 exit 30 (northern junction with I-85), rather than exit 67 (southern junction with I-77, where the exit numbering restarts at 1 west of that interchange), because otherwise several people's list files would've been mismapped to include (and sometimes include only) the newly-opened segment between exits 23C and 30. without generating entries in their error logs. The only alternative I saw was add language to its Updates item telling users that the waypoints would be reordered and that they might need to adjust their list files, but I preferred not to mess up users who aren't constantly reviewing the Updates page.
Using two separate AB 216 route files for now, and merging them later once the loop is completed, heads off that problem and lets the merged file start and end at the most sensible place, AB 216 exit 78 (southern junction with AB 2, where AB 216's exit numbers reset and restart at 2 west of the interchange).
julmac:
--- Quote from: yakra on November 24, 2015, 12:22:55 PM ---
--- Quote ---I checked AB 63, mainly to make sure you had a waypoint for my turnaround point north of Fort McMurray (you do, ConWay). Google Maps has the highway extending toward Bitumount, past where OSM places the route end. MQOpenSat also shows a road of some kind extending north toward Bitumount. AB 63's north end (driven by oil development) seems to be a bit of a moving target, and deserves a re-check just before activation.
--- End quote ---
Google uses a yellow line to show the road, but places no route markers on it. Thus I don't call that very definitive. The north end I'm using was taken from the 11.0 GeoBase(GeoGratis?) shapefiles. I'm downloading the newest shapefiles, released 12 days ago, as I type. I'll see what I can see.
Annnnd... The 12.1 shapefiles have the end in the same place..
--- End quote ---
The End point as plotted is more or less correct. There is no distinguishing feature here and I suggest anyone trying to clinch AB 63 go as far as the Bitumont historic site turnaround: https://goo.gl/maps/LJ6XExiVxtw
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version