Status of Travel Mapping

[mapcat]

Jim, before you go back to teaching, could you provide a general update regarding the active and in-development systems?

I'm curious how many of the current regions (countries and states/provinces) still don't have anyone actively updating them.  Are they orphaned, or have the collaborators just not had the time/ability to master the GitHub updating process?

Beyond that, are the most complete in-development systems (IIRC, this includes AK, MT, NM, UT, VT, the KY 1001-1500 set, and the rest of the GBR A-roads) still undergoing peer-review?  Is the plan still to wait until all the active systems are fully updated, or can these be activated earlier than that?

[oscar]

Beyond that, are the most complete in-development systems (IIRC, this includes AK, MT, NM, UT, VT, the KY 1001-1500 set, and the rest of the GBR A-roads) still undergoing peer-review?  Is the plan still to wait until all the active systems are fully updated, or can these be activated earlier than that?

Just commenting on my own in-dev system on your list (AK), it wasn't peer-reviewed under the old system, and still needs some work to be ready for whatever review process we decide to follow under the new system. At least some of the other systems you listed have cleared peer review, but might need some touch-up work, such as for updates since they were reviewed.

[Jim]

I'm pretty much leaving it to the other collaborators to decide, as a group, when the in-dev systems are good to go.  Activating them will just be a matter of a quick file edit and re-running the update process.  As far as what I need to do to get this ready, I think it's the datacheck system mentioned elsewhere in the forum.

There's a list of who's claimed what on the main wiki page on the HighwayData repository: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/wiki  It might need a bit of updating but that's what's up.

[mapcat]

I'm pretty much leaving it to the other collaborators to decide, as a group, when the in-dev systems are good to go.

OK, thanks. Are you all having this discussion elsewhere?  Seems the only talk about activating them in this forum is coming from the rest of the users.

There's a list of who's claimed what on the main wiki page on the HighwayData repository: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/wiki  It might need a bit of updating but that's what's up.

Thanks.  I've reached out to dfilpus via CHM, so I hope he's still intending to maintain the states he worked on previously.

[Jim]

I'm pretty much leaving it to the other collaborators to decide, as a group, when the in-dev systems are good to go.

OK, thanks. Are you all having this discussion elsewhere?  Seems the only talk about activating them in this forum is coming from the rest of the users

It's been here, I think.  There's no urgent discussion yet because we know there are a few things we need to get past first (catchup on existing systems, datacheck, sources, etc.).

I share your hope that these will be able to activate soon.

[Jim]

The server that houses my domain went down or fell off the network at some point in the last hour or so.  If whatever is causing the problem doesn't resolve itself, I'll check into it on Sunday, but likely not until late.  So until the web server comes back, Travel Mapping is offline.

[michih]

So until the web server comes back, Travel Mapping is offline.

It's back

[Jim]

So until the web server comes back, Travel Mapping is offline.

It's back

Yes, looks like it was a network glitch, and (fortunately) nothing that was my fault or problem to fix.

[oscar]

What still needs to be done for California and/or is it something that others can assist?

One way for others to help out is to keep an eye out for things that might need to be updated on the state routes, including new interchanges, significant realignments, and new, split, truncated, or decommissioned routes (like the unbuilt gap in CA 39 between La Habra and Covina, the CA 78 reroute in Brawley, CA 86S folded into CA 86, and CA 225 in Santa Barbara effectively decommissioned), and post them on a California-specific topic in the Pacific Southwest part of the AARoads forum. If you got access to the old CHM forum before it stopped taking new users, you can post there too, but no assurance how long it will stay alive. Daniel Faigin's site seems a pretty good resource for me on some such issues, but it doesn't cover everything. CHM's Highway Browser, which still works for now, is a good guide to how the CA state routes are currently mapped.

New relinquishments, too, though I suspect we'll find a way to overlook most or all of them (one of the issues we'll need to nail down before major work resumes on the system).

[bejacob]

Speaking of state route updates, is there a place where these should be noted? (I don't have the ability to post in the CHM forum).

I noticed in the CHM forum there is a post about the decommissioning of OH 238 and the realignment of OH 38. http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/clinched-ftopic2383.html&highlight=238

I can confirm that OH 238 no longer exists and that the new alignment of OH 38 follows the entirety of what was OH 238 to the junction with US 62/OH 3. There was still one shield on the old section og NB OH 38 just outside of Washington Court House, but all others appear to have been removed now that that segment has reverted to county control.

This issue looks to already be noted, so I imagine it will show up as updates to existing systems make it into the new database.

[Jim]

Update just complete with my minor tweaks in New York and a few new .list entries.  However, stats might look a lot different as I also fixed a typo in the I-40 Business Spur in Winslow, Arizona.  It had a point that was off by 100 degrees of longitude, which resulted in this 1 1/3 mile spur showing up as several thousand miles long.  A big argument in favor of my next focus with the project being on datachecks!

[Jim]

Update just complete with lots of Europe changes from Si, and a couple of route renames from Oscar, and one or two .list file submissions.

[Sub-Urbanite]

Beyond that, are the most complete in-development systems (IIRC, this includes AK, MT, NM, UT, VT, the KY 1001-1500 set, and the rest of the GBR A-roads) still undergoing peer-review?  Is the plan still to wait until all the active systems are fully updated, or can these be activated earlier than that?

I was doing Utah and thought it was ready to go. We'd addressed all the peer review issues AFAIK.

[english si]

I was doing Utah and thought it was ready to go. We'd addressed all the peer review issues AFAIK.

Anyone want to do some double checks?

Nick - are you happy to maintain UT? I've been working on the assumption that you would. NV, ID and AZ are yours if you want them also.

[oscar]

I was doing Utah and thought it was ready to go. We'd addressed all the peer review issues AFAIK.

Anyone want to do some double checks?

Also, if he hasn't done so already, Nick should check for any new state routes, or other changes requiring updates to existing route files, after UT was peer-reviewed. A good idea for all the in-dev systems, but especially in a high-growth state like Utah.

[rickmastfan67]

Has anybody talked to dfilpus about this lately?  I know he still reads the 'old' forums and the forums here, yet I haven't seen him post yet in here in this section about the project move.

[yakra]

Wow. I coulda sworn USAUT was already live.

[english si]

I could have sworn usanm was live.

If there's not any objections by Tuesday, usanm and usaut are going live.

usamt, usavt, gbna1, gbna6, gbna8 and gbna9 are very close.

[oscar]

I could have sworn usanm was live.

If there's not any objections by Tuesday, usanm and usaut are going live.

usamt, usavt, gbna1, gbna6, gbna8 and gbna9 are very close.

usanm needs some touch-up work and perhaps updates before it goes live, some of which were flagged as open items on the CHM forum:

-- possibly adding back NM 497 in Deming (an on-again, off-again route that was signed last I was there in 2013)

-- removing references in route files to unsigned routes we're not mapping (for example, NM 11 route file has a waypoint for NM 332, which is not in our DB)

-- some discussion on the aaroads forum suggesting (I'm not sure how convincingly) that there might be some new state routes in the Albuquerque area; as with Utah, this in-dev system has been on hiatus long enough for new routes to pop up in the meantime

It's best that we take care of this stuff before activation, rather than catch up to it later and have to make a bunch of Updates entries on a new system.

Wow. I coulda sworn USAUT was already live.

You can view it in the draft HB (ditto some of the other in-dev systems closest to activation), but you can't yet be credited for mileage on that system.

[Jim]

I know NM's my responsbility, but if anyone has a chance to investigate and make the changes needed to get it ready, I would appreciate the help.

I think we should make sure any system to be activated has a clean datacheck before it happens.  I'll see if I can make some small improvements to the datacheck page to make it easier to use.  For now, "Find in Page" is your friend.

Most of the datacheck errors showing up now in usanm and usaut are very likely FPs, but should be checked out. There are also a few others, like a label missing a right paren in UT 19 (which I fixed as I type this, so it will no longer be an error on the next site update) that might require fixes.

[pnrrth]

Hello everyone.  I was a user on CHM and I am glad to see this new project coming online!  I would like to volunteer to help get  the SC State highways included in this project.  I have looked at the data files in GitHub and have a general idea what is required to get things going.  Does anyone have some tips on how to best construct/maintain these files (i.e. use certain links in Openstreetmap, set points, copy/paste)?

[oscar]

Hello everyone.  I was a user on CHM and I am glad to see this new project coming online!  I would like to volunteer to help get  the SC State highways included in this project.  I have looked at the data files in GitHub and have a general idea what is required to get things going.  Does anyone have some tips on how to best construct/maintain these files (i.e. use certain links in Openstreetmap, set points, copy/paste)?

We haven't yet developed all the tools needed for new team members to draft new route files and edit existing files. Most important is a waypoint editor similar to CHM's, which made route file creation and editing much easier. Also, a new instruction manual to help get new team members up to speed. CHM's manual still required a lot of mentoring and hand-holding for new team members, which we hope a new manual can reduce.

The waypoint editor is one of several things we need to do at the software "front end", in addition to catching up with updates to existing route systems (we're still busy with that process), to make Travel Mapping a fully-functional site, before we start adding new team members and having them develop new route systems.

[mapcat]

Has anybody talked to dfilpus about this lately?  I know he still reads the 'old' forums and the forums here, yet I haven't seen him post yet in here in this section about the project move.

I PM'ed him in CHM and asked if he was planning on maintaining his states on TM as well. His reply was essentially "I don't do GitHub" so it's unlikely he will continue without some additional prompting. There are at least two items in the usaoh set that need attention (OH 38/238 and OH 762) and who knows what with the others he maintained.

[yakra]

I formally handed over VT to froggie a little while back, after my latest VT pull request was merged. I believe the only potential stumbling block to it going live is a (proposed? pending? completed?) reroute of VT100 back onto VT100His, with the bypass to be redesignated as VT100Trk. Froggie, what's your opinion on this?
I don't think there should be any datacheck errors, but it's worth a look-over.

[oscar]

Has anybody talked to dfilpus about this lately?  I know he still reads the 'old' forums and the forums here, yet I haven't seen him post yet in here in this section about the project move.

I PM'ed him in CHM and asked if he was planning on maintaining his states on TM as well. His reply was essentially "I don't do GitHub" so it's unlikely he will continue without some additional prompting.

That's how I felt at first, but slowly stumbled my way through trial-and-error to manage basic GitHub functions. And I'm pretty high on the technophobia scale (for example, I don't do Facebook, and am still using a dumb flip-phone rather than a smartphone).

I'm tempted to patch in the most major updates needed for Dave's other jurisdictions (most notably the completion of I-485, as part of getting us caught up on the Interstate routes), like I did to take over Quebec from Tim and update MD 200 in another of Tim's jurisdictions yet to be reassigned. But aside from my being busy with other stuff, that's no substitute for someone keeping up with lesser updates, including the ones not reported by users.