Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[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]

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

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]

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.

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.

AB 216 may be complete in fall 2016, which would eliminate your need to map that route in two separate route files.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Thanks, Anything useful to break up long segments will be appreciated.

[oscar]

AB 216 may be complete in fall 2016, which would eliminate your need to map that route in two separate route files.

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).

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]

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.

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..

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

[julmac]

Good. A few items:
1. There are no "Primary" highways anymore in Alberta, only "Provincial Highways". The former secondary and primary highway networks were amalgamated in the late 1990s when direction, management, and control for the former secondary highways was transferred from the municipalities (mostly) to the province. The basic shape of the route shields were retained (with "SECONDARY") removed from the oval shaped shields. The proper name for the former primary network is "Provincial Highways 1-216" and "Provincial Highways 500-986" for the former secondaries, as per the control section maps available here: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/2015_PROVINCIAL_HWY_1-216_CONTROL_SECTION_MAP.pdf
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType329/Production/2015_PROVINCIAL_HWY_500-986_CONTROL_SECTION_MAP.pdf
The term “Secondary Highway” is still often used colloquially.

2. In general, highways through cities are controlled by the respective city not the province (and therefore not officially Provincial Highways) except for those highways which are part of the National Highway System (NHS). There are, however, exceptions to both cases. For example, AB 22X (east of AB 201) is a Provincial Highway despite not being part of the NHS, while AB/TCH 16 between either end of AB 216 and AB/TCH 1 between Calgary west boundary and AB 201 (east) are controlled by Edmonton and Calgary respectively, despite being part of the NHS. There are official "Highway Connector" routes which provide provincial highway continuity through cities. Funding is provided by the province to the cities to maintain and sign these roadways, except in Calgary and Edmonton, where a separate transportation funding scheme was negotiated a number of years ago - rendering the official Highway Connector routings in these cities meaningless. In either case, highway route signing in cities is sometimes spotty. “TO” tabs are also sometimes used. All roadways in national parks are controlled by the federal government and, therefore, highway segments there (parts of AB 1,1A,5,6,16, and all of AB 93 and 93A) are not official Provincial Highways, with the exception of Elk Island National Park where AB/TCH 16 right-of-way is not within the Park.

Not sure what all the CHM/Travel Mapping “rules” are wrt highway system definitions but I don’t recommend many changes to the draft HB data set. Here are a few:
a.AB1AChe could be omitted. It has been entirely relinquished to the municipalities (City of Calgary and City of Chestermere are now abutting). Unfortunately it is signed from AB 201 but not AB/TCH 1.
b.There are three unsigned segments of AB 3A. I don’t recommend they be included.

• The road to Lundbreck Falls near JCT AB 22
  
• A small portion of Westside Rd from AB 3 to Lethbridge boundary. (west of AB 25)
  
• The old AB 3 alignment through Barnwell.
  

c.AB11ASyl should be truncated to AB20.
d.A realignment of AB12 past Bentley and Aspen Beach Provincial Park is under construction. The entire realignment is visible on GM Satellite view.
e.AB41A through Medicine Hat could use a few more waypoints – unless the exact routing is meant to be purposefully vague much like the signing is.
f.Sherwood Park Freeway is part of the Provincial Highway System.


3. Alberta generally does not co-sign highways. A “TO” shield is often used to indicate continuity of the less prominent highway. I notice that AB53 is the only highway in the draft HB data set that has been segmented – this is a good call due to the “TO” signs along AB 20A. 

[yakra]

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for the detailed review!

Don't mind the color coding -- I use it to keep my to-do lists organized.

1. I'll put in a pull request to change the name to "Provincial Highways 1-216".
2. This reminds of of the "City Connecting Link" setup that Kansas uses. It wouldn't change what routes are included for the most part, being one cohesive system with one consistent style of signage that the traveler sees. Useful to know, however, and can explain some of the spotty signage at termini that were hard to pin down.
A. I'll take a closer look at AB1AChe. This partial signage looks like a pain... 
B. These were left out due to being unsigned.
C. Yeah, AB11ASyl was a headache. I'll give it a think-over. GMSV at the AB20 jct has signage for AB11A West, but I don't see anything west of there. OK, so... if it continues west, then how far? (Sylvan Lake Highway Connector yadda yadda?)
D. Thanks. I'll keep this on my radar.
E. I took the minimalist approach to keep the route trace within lateral tolerances, but not much more. I agree, AB41A could use a few more waypoints to clarify the routing.
F. This was left out due to not being signed with its own route number. Same situation as with the NS Bedford Bypass, which is unsigned NS30.
3. Usual practice is to consider short "TO" segments as an "implied concurrency", and connect the routes. AB53 was a bit of a pain. I originally had it in one file, connected via AB20 proper, but split it due to the TO signage via the more direct connection on AB20A.

[yakra]

I've submitted a pull request including the following changes:
• Renamed system "Alberta Provincial Highways 1-216"
• Deleted AB1AChe, and relabeled corresponding point in TCHMai & AB1.
• AB41A: points added to clarify routing
• AB11ASyl -> AB11ARed; truncated to AB20

AB11ASyl:
Interesting case, here. I chose the terminus as shown in the GeoBase shapefiles. The AB1A designation ends where the L_PLACENAM attribute changes from "Sylvan Lake" to "Red Deer County". Speculating here that this is a Highway Connector thru Sylvan Lake, which just doesn't connect to provincial highway at one end. (Maybe it did at some point in the past?) julmac notes that "highway route signing in cities is sometimes spotty"; this is certainly what I saw in GMSV.
I agree that AB11ASyl should be truncated to AB20.

GMSV at the AB20 jct has signage for AB11A West, but I don't see anything west of there.

Reminds me of when I first drafted the Nova Scotia Trunk Routes. Originally, there was a Bible Hill segment of NS4. At the time, I wrote, "There are signs *at* the NS104(23) interchange clearly indicating NS4 does continue east from there, but the trail immediately goes cold. No other signs past that point to be seen the rest of the way into town". Later updates to GMSV showed signage had appeared, and NS4Bib was ultimately merged into NS4NGl, but that notwithstanding, based on this precedent, why not do the same here and truncate AB11A to AB20.

With the truncation, there won't be much mileage left to speak of in Sylvan Lake, and I'm inclined to name it after Red Deer instead.

Edited to add: I've gone ahead and truncated AB11ASyl to AB20, and renamed it to AB11ARed.