Non-Road Boards > Travel Mapping

South Carolina State Highways (in development)

<< < (2/5) > >>


--- Quote from: Jim on December 26, 2015, 11:44:25 AM ---A first thing to note here is several "LABEL_SLASHES" datacheck errors.  CHM's rule, which we have continued to follow so far in TM, is that when a waypoint label is at a place that suggests inclusion of 3 or more route numbers, we select two of them and use only those numbers.  So something like SC 21's "US21/176/321" would become "US21/176".

Personally, I have no problem changing this guideline and using all three (or more) numbers for labels like this, but that's a discussion for the larger group to have.

--- End quote ---
I feel strongly that the guideline should be kept, in the name of brevity.
If 3 or more route numbers had been allowed from the get-go, label brevity would never have existed in places like Maine or Oklahoma.
Trying to imagine a world in which US201/8/11/27/100 is followed by US201/202/9/100/105. Et cetera.
No thanks; I'll keep them as US201_S & U201_N. Simple; elegant; clean.

Which brings me to another point:
I would even move things a bit in the other direction: The "we select two of them" was something that wasn't originally codified in the beginning, but Tim gradually became more insistent on enforcing it.
I think a collaborator should have the choice of whether to use one route number or two in a label, at his discretion, based on whatever makes the most sense and looks best in the context of a given route file.
For example, instead of US202/9_W or US202/9, just US202_W is OK. Instead of US201/100, just US201.
I have always labeled waypoints this way, and continue to do so.


--- Quote from: Mapmikey on December 26, 2015, 03:49:48 PM ---I don't know the genesis of the 'slash' rule or what it is meant to prevent.  While I can see leaving off the state route (e.g. US 76/123 and SC 28), I am fuzzier about why to do this with an all-US route waypoint.  But if the prevailing opinion is to stick with the 2-route rule, I can fix the 9 wpt files that have this, no problem...

--- End quote ---

I agree with yakra. Two route numbers are enough, and sometimes more than enough.

--- Quote from: Mapmikey on December 26, 2015, 03:49:48 PM ---For both SC41 and SC107, these are stretches of highway through National Forests that have nothing but tiny dirt roads as intersections
For SC125, this stretch is through the Savannah River Site which does not have publicly accessible intersecting roads.
--- End quote ---

Same advice as I gave Nick on Utah routes -- review the long gaps in the readily available online maps (including Google Maps, and Bing -- latter is available through CHM's HB even though not yet ours or CHM's Waypoints Editor) for cross-roads with names or route numbers on them, and try to match them up with intersections shown in OSM/Mapnik. If that gets you nowhere, just write off the long gaps as false positives. Looking at topo maps, maps on national forest or government installation websites, etc. is optional and probably overdoing it.

For SC 125, Google Maps and Bing show numbers on some of the intersecting roads within the Savannah River complex. Even if the general public can't use them to enter the complex, its workers probably can. I-5 exit 62 in California, within the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base, is kind of like that (civilians can use the exit for turnarounds), but still gets a waypoint.

I have submitted to Jim fixes for all files identified by the datacheck error algorithm (except SC6trkmon which is a false positive)...

SRS does have an alpha and numerical numbering system for its main roads, sometimes posted in pentagons like county systems in other states.  Some roads are not posted well, though.


Does anyone know of any significant issues with the usasc as currently in TM that should delay its promotion from "devel" to "preview"?  Once that happens, we'll need some volunteers to do a more thorough peer review.

Curious about waypoints 2 and 3 on SC18. It appears that waypoint 2 (MaiSt) might better be named SC49, while waypoint 3 (SC49) might be removed in favor of a shaping point at N Pickney St or just renamed. It's been a few years since I drove through there, but I do recall picking up SC49 at Main St.

The way it is now is confusing (at least to me).


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version