AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)  (Read 78373 times)

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2066
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 08:37:25 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #300 on: December 24, 2015, 08:33:13 PM »

Of course, putting new info into your normal .list file does help us find issues to fix. :)

So are you saying that putting unactivated data (in this case VA state routes) would still be able to determine errors in my .list file and not affect the other entries?
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5106
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 11:32:17 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #301 on: December 24, 2015, 09:06:06 PM »

Of course, putting new info into your normal .list file does help us find issues to fix. :)

So are you saying that putting unactivated data (in this case VA state routes) would still be able to determine errors in my .list file and not affect the other entries?

You should be able to put anything you want in your .list file.  You might trigger warnings, but it would not stop your good lines from being processed properly.  And if that ends up not being the case, let me know, because it should be.
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)

bejacob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 49
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Columbus, OH, USA
  • Last Login: May 07, 2017, 02:47:50 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #302 on: December 26, 2015, 06:42:47 PM »

Not sure if this is the best place to put this, but here goes.

I have a couple comments on some waypoints for a few Ohio state routes. Possible corrections (hard to say).

OH117 waypoint 46 is labeled OH366/368. It should just be OH366. OH368 ends at the intersection with OH366 a few miles west.
OH366 waypoint 17 is labeled OH117/368. It should be OH117 (see note above on OH117)

Several routes OH273, OH365, OH368, and OH708 all have non-concurrent terminal waypoints called IndLakeSP. It doesn't appear to cause any issues for the system, I just wondered what is the proper protocol for naming labels. In cases like this where routes just end (either at a body of water or where a county road takes over) isn't 'End' an appropriate waypoint label? I'm always in favor of the shorter option (it means I'm less likely to make a typo ;-))

Again, I'm just curious. Having recently driven these routes, it got me thinking about how waypoints are labeled.
Logged

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5106
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 11:32:17 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #303 on: December 26, 2015, 06:52:57 PM »

You should be able to put anything you want in your .list file.  You might trigger warnings, but it would not stop your good lines from being processed properly.  And if that ends up not being the case, let me know, because it should be.

If you want something in there that's not intended to be a good line and you don't want to have it trigger warnings or errors in your log file, just start the line with a '#' character and the whole line will be ignored (treated as a comment).
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)

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8743
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 09:24:54 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #304 on: December 27, 2015, 05:23:05 PM »

Some of my loose ends in New Mexico are a pair of truck routes (US 380 in Roswell, US 82 in Artesia) that maybe should be added to our data, though I have some doubts about both. Comments are welcome, especially from CHM veterans familiar with some of the arguments we've had then with truck routes.

One thing common to both: there is no record of AASHTO approval for either truck route. NMDOT seems not to bother. It hasn't applied for any AASHTO approval since 2002. Since then, it has rerouted US 64 around Farmington, and established a new US 64 Business on the old alignment.

Also, I couldn't find any official NMDOT route log, or compilation of AADT data, for bannered US routes in the state, or for business Interstates. There are official route lists for state routes, and AADT logs for them and regular Interstates and US routes. But no online resources to confirm the official status from NMDOT's standpoint of Truck US 380 or Truck US 82.

Roswell

There is some of the usual kind of truck route signage (standard reassurance marked, topped with a "truck" or "truck route" banner) we often look for, some of which indicates a US 380 truck route. Here's an example of such signage, on Truck US 70/US 285 in Roswell, the only US truck route we have in our New Mexico data:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3939959,-104.5849683,3a,75y,0.52h,70.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC3Qm-TFe-CM9UQt3_Wlw3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Elsewhere at that intersection are two sign assemblies, indicating a US 380 truck route following Truck US 285 from US 380 southeast to US 285:

Truck US 70 SB at US 70/380

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3946049,-104.5850536,3a,16.6y,172.18h,89.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHypavCFkhJhXh27vHA9WEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

US 70/380 EB at Truck US 70/285:

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3941066,-104.5873065,3a,25.1y,96.4h,83.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXUmb642ult2veKzbunf9GA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

There are several reasons why I'm reluctant to add a Truck US 380 to the HB:

--  The supposed Truck US 380 is completely concurrent with the southern half of Truck US 285, so adding it to the HB adds no mileage to the system.

-- There is not only no other Truck US 380 signage on Truck US 285, but at the south end there is no signage pointing trucks back toward regular US 380. And the truck route ends at US 285, with no road continuing east to connect back to US 380, nor does NMDOT appear to have any plans to build one.

-- I saw no signage on regular US 380 westbound pointing truck drivers south on US 285 toward Truck US 285/380.  Nor is there any signage on US 285 south of Roswell, indicating that the truck bypass is anything other than Truck US 285.

-- There are no truck restrictions on US 380 through downtown Roswell, and indeed my GMSV review showed heavy trucks on US 380 through downtown.

-- The truck detour is rather pointless for US 380 truck traffic, since it takes them far out of their way without completely avoiding downtown Roswell.

Artesia

Artesia has none of the traditional truck route signage that I found in Roswell, along the supposed US 82 truck route as shown in OSM/Mapnik (following 26th St. west of downtown, Richey Ave. north of downtown, and NM 229 returning to US 82 east of downtown).

One additional wrinkle is that the truck route west of US 285 appears not to be state-maintained. 26th Street, AFAIK, was never state-maintained. Richey Ave. west of US 285 used to be part of NM 357, but NMDOT agreed in 2011 to turn that segment to local control. I don't know whether that matters to NMDOT re: designating a bannered US route on a roadway it doesn't maintain, though it appears that the decommissioning of I-40BL Albuquerque followed the transfer of its roadway (Central Ave.) to city maintenance. Then again, I don't know whether NMDOT recognizes the truck route or it's just a local designation, though many of the truck route signs are posted in state right-of-way.

Signage on the supposed US 82 truck route itself

West end of route, on 26th St. at jct US 82:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8432734,-104.4298397,3a,20.1y,182.46h,87.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_TalQfYG-hQLm5YV0ZwWYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

26th St. NB at jct Richey Ave.:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8563114,-104.4298761,3a,23.9y,13.89h,89.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYJhvdo6G2z2maVN-P2s5YA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Richey Ave WB at jct 26thSt:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8571503,-104.4293036,3a,24.9y,276.76h,83.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxanTd-Iu-skA2bQkufYkuQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Richey Ave. WB at jct US 285:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8571615,-104.3982439,3a,25y,277.11h,83.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szXrzU4ub0DqhRwKK7gpwzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Jct NM 229, from EB NM 357 (Richey Ave. E of US 285):

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8571894,-104.361984,3a,25.8y,91.97h,79.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFJFaUpjpVOKG8hijPm1_rQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Jct NM 357, from NB NM 229:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8566486,-104.3609853,3a,15y,4.58h,84.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd3IUfhjyRxX5SISobTOEZw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Signage from US 82 and US 285

The truck route appears to be completely unsigned from US 82 EB. WB signage is not much better:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8426799,-104.3590606,3a,75y,272.03h,72.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAgwsBmr-x4a_RTRkNoujtA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The only truck route signage I saw anywhere on US 285 is SB at jct Richey Ave.:
.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8582625,-104.398986,3a,26.2y,178.36h,80.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sASnK_IOi4KSHOgDWNSWvOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
« Last Edit: December 28, 2015, 09:00:25 AM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

michih

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 55
  • Location: Lower Franconia
  • Last Login: May 07, 2016, 07:54:16 AM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #305 on: December 28, 2015, 08:11:05 AM »

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.

It's implemented meanwhile and it's working fine :). Is it a big deal to add Bing Maps and Bing Satellite? It would be a great help (for Europe) because it's sometimes more up-to-date than Google. It helps to decide if GM and OSM are different. Currently, I have to use http://wikimapia.org/.

In addition, is it possible to rename the "Mapnik" call to the more common name "OSM"?

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: June 20, 2021, 10:37:42 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #306 on: December 28, 2015, 11:43:25 AM »

It's implemented meanwhile and it's working fine :). Is it a big deal to add Bing Maps and Bing Satellite? It would be a great help (for Europe) because it's sometimes more up-to-date than Google. It helps to decide if GM and OSM are different. Currently, I have to use http://wikimapia.org/.
Seconded. Both flavors of Bing would be very useful. I had a look at the code round the time OSM was added, but it was much less obvious how to do it than I anticipated, so I just left it alone.

In addition, is it possible to rename the "Mapnik" call to the more common name "OSM"?
I downvote this though. I think Mapnik is appropriate as the specific flavor of OSM data, OpenMQ being another OSM-based flavor.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2015, 01:39:52 PM by yakra »
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

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: June 20, 2021, 10:37:42 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #307 on: December 30, 2015, 01:26:50 AM »

I suggest:
Things to do for each:
• Add/copy new file to usansf/
• delete old (va.va007fwy.wpt, etc.) file from usansf
• fix line in usansf.csv
• fix line in usansf_con.csv
• delete line in usava.csv
• delete line in usava_con.csv

While at it, a quick peer review of the extensions of each affected route wouldn't hurt.
I've made a branch of the HighwayData repository containing these changes.
I'm holding off on making an actual pull request pending some peer review of the extended routes.
Directing further discussion to the Virginia State Highways (in development) thread.
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

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: June 20, 2021, 10:37:42 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #308 on: December 31, 2015, 01:42:31 PM »

I've made some proposed changes per mapcat's post.
https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/compare/OK-cleanup

US283:
OK6_A label demoted in favor of OldUS283
OK44 point deleted, resulting in US283 following the diagonal between OldUS283 and...
OK6_B label demoted in favor of OK6_N
OK6_C label demoted in favor of OK6

OK6:
US283_A label demoted in favor of US62/283
US283_B label demoted in favor of OldUS283
US283_C -> US283_N
US283_D label demoted in favor of US283
Removed from N 2020 Rd and E 1340 Rd and relocated onto a divided four-lane diagonal between N 2020 Rd and the closed intersection with Old OK 6.
N2020 added
E1340_W & E1340_E deleted
*OldOK6 added

OK44:
US283 label demoted in favor of OldUS283.
Sure, there's a stable, modern road name there in E1490, but I think given the context that OldUS293 might be less confusing.

It doesn't all feel quite right to me, but I don't think in these circumstances it CAN be quite right.

Thoughts? If no objections, I'll put in a pull request.
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 #309 on: January 01, 2016, 09:56:34 AM »

Yakra: looks good!

Is there any reason to keep US521ConSum in South Carolina, now that US521's mainline is (poorly) signed along that route?
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2927
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 10:14:38 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #310 on: January 01, 2016, 08:29:30 PM »

Yakra: looks good!

Is there any reason to keep US521ConSum in South Carolina, now that US521's mainline is (poorly) signed along that route?

I knew there was something I forgot to do when I rerouted US-521.  Yes, it should be deleted.  I'll go submit a pull request in a few minutes to do that.

ntallyn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16
  • Last Login: March 30, 2016, 06:55:18 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #311 on: January 01, 2016, 09:34:33 PM »

There seems to be some inconsistency in naming routes around Opp, AL.

In the US84 file, the point it labeled BUS84Opp_W.
US84BusOpp mentions BUS331_N and BUS331_S.
The US331 file uses BUS331Opp.
However, the route in the browser is labeled US331AltOpp, and it has points labeled US84Alt_W and US84Alt_E.

I suspect both the route (file) name for "Alt331" and in it, the labels of US84Alt should be changed to Bus.
Logged

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5106
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 11:32:17 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #312 on: January 02, 2016, 08:13:35 AM »

There seems to be some inconsistency in naming routes around Opp, AL.

In the US84 file, the point it labeled BUS84Opp_W.
US84BusOpp mentions BUS331_N and BUS331_S.
The US331 file uses BUS331Opp.
However, the route in the browser is labeled US331AltOpp, and it has points labeled US84Alt_W and US84Alt_E.

I suspect both the route (file) name for "Alt331" and in it, the labels of US84Alt should be changed to Bus.

I've added a GitHub issue for this, thanks.
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)

bejacob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 49
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Columbus, OH, USA
  • Last Login: May 07, 2017, 02:47:50 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #313 on: January 03, 2016, 10:07:17 AM »

US62/68 rerouting in OH/KY.

Old topic from CHM. http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/clinched-ftopic1764.html&highlight=us62. The new site is still showing the old routing.

Here's the best I can do finding signage https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6537576,-83.7574047,3a,49.4y,27.44h,90.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk_LZKfgSDHpVSM4U6M_Feg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656. Here is a link that has a few photos http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/oh/bus_62/.

Having just driving the route, I looked through the HB as I didn't recall seeing any Business routes in Ohio for US62.

Anyway, I suspect someone may wish to explore the issue further for both KY and OH.
Logged

mapcat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 80
  • Last Login: June 19, 2019, 05:35:22 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #314 on: January 05, 2016, 12:33:26 AM »

In Kentucky, KY16 has been rerouted in Taylor Mill along Pride Pkwy. The bypassed segment of KY16 is now KY3716.

In Missouri, MO364 begins at I-64 now.

Also in Missouri, the western end of I-44BLPac is at Exit 253, not Exit 257.

In North Carolina, US421 bypasses Sanford and the former route is signed as Business 421.

« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 02:04:06 PM by mapcat »
Logged

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2066
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 08:37:25 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #315 on: January 05, 2016, 06:24:52 AM »

Has anyone mentioned the PA 441 relocation in Columbia here yet?  Basically it follows Front St instead of Locust St and 3rd St through downtown and connects to 3rd St at the north end of the US 30 interchange.  From a short field visit on Christmas Eve, it seems that PA 441 is exclusively being posted that way now (coming towards Columbia I saw 3rd St being posted as "TO PA 462", I did not check the borough itself.

In result, PA 441 does not intersect PA 462 anymore so that point will need to be moved (maybe where it used to turn onto Locust St) and the US 30 point should be moved to the north end of the interchange.

Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: June 20, 2021, 10:37:42 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #316 on: January 05, 2016, 02:30:11 PM »

In Kentucky, KY16 has been rerouted in Taylor Mill along Pride Pkwy. The bypassed segment of KY16 is now KY3716.

In Missouri, MO364 begins at I-64 now.

Also in Missouri, the western end of I-44BLPac is at Exit 253, not Exit 257.

In North Carolina, US421 bypasses Sanford and the former route is signed as Business 421.
Has anyone mentioned the PA 441 relocation in Columbia here yet?  Basically it follows Front St instead of Locust St and 3rd St through downtown and connects to 3rd St at the north end of the US 30 interchange.  From a short field visit on Christmas Eve, it seems that PA 441 is exclusively being posted that way now (coming towards Columbia I saw 3rd St being posted as "TO PA 462", I did not check the borough itself.

In result, PA 441 does not intersect PA 462 anymore ... and the US 30 point should be moved to the north end of the interchange.
I've added GitHub issues for these.
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

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2066
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 08:37:25 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #317 on: January 06, 2016, 10:27:04 PM »

Two comments from entering data from a last-minute road trip today:

DE 273:  All indications seem to be that it officially ends at the intersection with DE 9 and DE 141, but it seems that it might be posted along DE 9 to 6th St in New Castle (which was the case at one point, the final point heading east for DE 273 is at 6th St and not at the DE 9/DE 141 intersection).

US 13 (PA):  This is missing a point at PA 320 (just east of PA 352 which is the better road), PA 320 does have a point at US 13 (and is fully posted in Chester despite its oddities).
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

mapcat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 80
  • Last Login: June 19, 2019, 05:35:22 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #318 on: January 09, 2016, 06:52:55 PM »

Not sure if this is the best place to put this, but here goes.

I have a couple comments on some waypoints for a few Ohio state routes. Possible corrections (hard to say).

OH117 waypoint 46 is labeled OH366/368. It should just be OH366. OH368 ends at the intersection with OH366 a few miles west.
OH366 waypoint 17 is labeled OH117/368. It should be OH117 (see note above on OH117)

I've changed both in my local files.

Quote
Several routes OH273, OH365, OH368, and OH708 all have non-concurrent terminal waypoints called IndLakeSP. It doesn't appear to cause any issues for the system, I just wondered what is the proper protocol for naming labels. In cases like this where routes just end (either at a body of water or where a county road takes over) isn't 'End' an appropriate waypoint label? I'm always in favor of the shorter option (it means I'm less likely to make a typo ;-))

Again, I'm just curious. Having recently driven these routes, it got me thinking about how waypoints are labeled.

The old CHM manual (perhaps due for an update?) puts meaningful names such as park names, city limits, etc ahead of simply "End". However, since the ends of these highways seem not to coincide with current state park boundaries, it seems that the names of the roads continuing from these end points would be more appropriate candidates. I'll hold off on renaming these until others have weighed in.
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8743
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 09:24:54 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #319 on: January 09, 2016, 07:34:11 PM »


My qSeveral routes OH273, OH365, OH368, and OH708 all have non-concurrent terminal waypoints called IndLakeSP. It doesn't appear to cause any issues for the system, I just wondered what is the proper protocol for naming labels. In cases like this where routes just end (either at a body of water or where a county road takes over) isn't 'End' an appropriate waypoint label? I'm always in favor of the shorter option (it means I'm less likely to make a typo ;-))

Again, I'm just curious. Having recently driven these routes, it got me thinking about how waypoints are labeled.

The old CHM manual (perhaps due for an update?) puts meaningful names such as park names, city limits, etc ahead of simply "End". However, since the ends of these highways seem not to coincide with current state park boundaries, it seems that the names of the roads continuing from these end points would be more appropriate candidates. I'll hold off on renaming these until others have weighed in.

My quick take from the road:

There's a preference for using an intersecting road to name the waypoint, as with two of these routes. If the route ends at a non-intersection point, but the road name or route number changes where the numbered route ends (as appears to be true for another route), using the continuation road name is appropriate, and is something Mapmikey has been doing for Virginia state routes (in part to fend off my suggestion to switch some route endpoints to county line-based waypoint names). IndLakeSP is a legitimate option where all else fails. I've used "End" in similar circumstances, though I prefer to reserve "End" for when I'm desperate, when a route ends at no logical place for no obvious reason. "IndLakeSP" is certainly more meaningful than "End".

As you might gather, there are style differences among team members (such as that I'm madly in love with using parks to place and name waypoints). But none of these options likely will confuse or otherwise aggravate users.

The multiple non-concurrent IndLakeSP points won't confuse the system, so long as there is only one in each route file.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2016, 12:12:53 AM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

bejacob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 49
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Columbus, OH, USA
  • Last Login: May 07, 2017, 02:47:50 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #320 on: January 09, 2016, 09:32:18 PM »

Good feedback from both oscar and mapcat. Both answers satisfy my curiosity. Field research often lead to questions (like when I saw US62Bus and US62Bus signs along the Ohio River and didn't recall seeing any such route in the highway browser).

It's one thing when a waypoint is clearly mislabeled. It's another when the label is long (i.e. IndLakeSP), but correct. Certainly no need to rename without good reason.

Thanks for the replies.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11730
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 07:39:29 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #321 on: January 11, 2016, 09:05:39 AM »

In my travels between DC and Vermont this weekend, found two apparently-new truck PA routes that will require further investigation:

TRUCK PA 625 is south of Reading and utilizes US 222 and the PA 568 exit.  I don't recall where it hopped on/off 222 north of there.

TRUCK PA 512 is southwest of Wind Gap and utilizes a short bit of PA 946, Cherry Hill Rd coming off PA 946, and Bushkill Center Rd to connect back to PA 512.  I do not know how it gets between Cherry Hill Rd and Bushkill Center Rd.

GMSV will not be helpful in either case as it's not new enough.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: June 20, 2021, 10:37:42 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #322 on: January 11, 2016, 10:09:56 AM »

Oy gevalt! :D
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

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2066
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 08:37:25 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #323 on: January 11, 2016, 07:02:23 PM »

In my travels between DC and Vermont this weekend, found two apparently-new truck PA routes that will require further investigation:

TRUCK PA 625 is south of Reading and utilizes US 222 and the PA 568 exit.  I don't recall where it hopped on/off 222 north of there.

TRUCK PA 512 is southwest of Wind Gap and utilizes a short bit of PA 946, Cherry Hill Rd coming off PA 946, and Bushkill Center Rd to connect back to PA 512.  I do not know how it gets between Cherry Hill Rd and Bushkill Center Rd.

GMSV will not be helpful in either case as it's not new enough.


There are a lot of these "ALT TRUCK ROUTES" (at least in District 6-most specifically Chester and Montgomery Counties) that I would have absolutely no idea what their routings were if it were not for whoever updates the PA/US Routes on Wikipedia.   There is even a "US 30 BUS ALT TRUCK" route in Downingtown that partially uses the US 30 Bypass.
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

mapcat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 80
  • Last Login: June 19, 2019, 05:35:22 PM
Re: Highway Data Discussion (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #324 on: January 22, 2016, 06:01:08 PM »

US62/68 rerouting in OH/KY.

Old topic from CHM. http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/clinched-ftopic1764.html&highlight=us62. The new site is still showing the old routing.

Here's the best I can do finding signage https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6537576,-83.7574047,3a,49.4y,27.44h,90.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk_LZKfgSDHpVSM4U6M_Feg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656. Here is a link that has a few photos http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/oh/bus_62/.

Having just driving the route, I looked through the HB as I didn't recall seeing any Business routes in Ohio for US62.

Anyway, I suspect someone may wish to explore the issue further for both KY and OH.

I got down there today before the snow and it seems that the Business signs are a mistake.

Traveling east on US 52 (and west on US 62 and south on US 68), at the newer bridge the signs point 68 onto the bridge and 52 and "Business 62" on ahead towards Aberdeen. There is no mention of any other 62, either going forward or across the bridge. "Business 62" continues on along 52 to the older bridge and turns and crosses the river to Maysville, KY. All signage in KY calls the road "US 62" (no business banners can be seen on 62 signs anywhere). I followed it all the way to the US62/US68Bus intersection and saw only bannerless 62 signs. No mention of a Business route appeared on KY 8 or the AA Hwy either.

So I believe that the best course of action is to leave things as they are.
Logged

 


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.