Vermont State Highways (in development)

[Jim]

For changes that need to be made on usavt routes before activation.  Any problems can be reported here or as an issue in our GitHub HighwayData repository.

Routes can be found here: http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?sys=usavt

[froggie]

Almost there.  I'm just about at the point where I'll send Jim (since I haven't figured out GitHub yet) a few minor updates to about a half-dozen routes.

I have to redo VT 100 and swap one banner for another, though.  The previously discussed routing change in Morrisville has finally happened...sometime within the past 3 weeks.  Per signage I saw along VT 15 yesterday, mainline VT 100 is back on its old alignment through the village center, and the bypass is now signed as "ALT VT 100 Truck Route".  This is in line with what local officials had desired after the bypass opened.  As for Travel Mapping, what I'll do is move VT 100 to its old alignment, eliminate VT100HisMor, and create VT100AltMor along the bypass.

Once I get this done and submitted to Jim, Vermont should be ready for activation.

[froggie]

Jim:  sorry, I'd forgotten that you'd created a Vermont thread a couple weeks ago.

[rickmastfan67]

Jim:  sorry, I'd forgotten that you'd created a Vermont thread a couple weeks ago.

Merged them.

[froggie]

I've sent Jim (and Eric) a file with a few list updates, specifically the Morrisville route changes mentioned upthread.  With this, I feel Vermont can be activated.

[yakra]

NICE! Looking it over now.

Edit: Jim, I'll go ahead and take care of the GitHub end of this.

[yakra]

Comments:
VT15A: Needs VT100His -> VT100. I'll make the change in GitHub.
VT16: I noticed you hid QuaRd and NGreRd in situ. If there are going to be points there, and there are roads there, let's leave them as visible waypoints.
VT100AltMor: Since it's a child route, VT15/100 -> VT100_N
VT242: I suggest putting the old AccRd point back in for those who've used it in the past. Indeed, it's already in use in the preview system.

I've made the commits to GitHub with some changes as per above. I hope there are no objections. (Are there any?)

[Jim]

And usavt is active at long last.  Thanks to everyone who contributed to get it ready to go!  That does it for the northeastern U.S.

The race is on for who's next.

[yakra]

And usavt is active at long last.

20 days shy of 6 years after froggie began development.
2 years & 6½ months after the usavt preview hit the CHM HB.
2 years & 2 months after discussion on the CHM forum fizzled, and the system was effectively mothballed.

HUZZAH!

[Duke87]

And with that, the single biggest and most annoying drag on my list file is no more. Well done!

Now if we could get Quebec and Florida finished, I'd be down to just about nothing left unaccounted for in my stats.

[froggie]

A few further tweaks to be made to Vermont, but yes it's activated.

[yakra]

I've made a commit to tm/master marking VT VT242 AccRd as closed. (I'd left the new JayPeakRd point in prior to activation.)
Re the visible shaping points on VT16, the points would be there in the route file whether hidden or visible, thus no difference in load on the server or complexity of algorithms.
From manual_includepts.php:

Prefer an intersection to act as a shaping point location wherever possible. Shaping points that coincide with intersections should be added as normal, visible waypoints labeled in the usual way.

So, I'm still convinced this is the right thing to do.

I checked out both roadways in GMSV, and didn't see evidence of a gate. (I forget which if the two you said it was, offhand. And yes, just 'cuz I didn't see it doesn't mean it's not there.)
So, if you still insist, I'll re-hide that point.

[froggie]

From manual_includepts.php:

Quote
Prefer an intersection to act as a shaping point location wherever possible. Shaping points that coincide with intersections should be added as normal, visible waypoints labeled in the usual way.

So, I'm still convinced this is the right thing to do.

I'm not convinced.  The implication we have in the manual is that the intersections selected would be usable intersections.  These on Route 16 are not usable.

GMSV doesn't show the gate on Quarry Rd because the gate was installed a couple years ago...after the Google camera car made its pass.

Yes, please, re-hide those points.

[Bickendan]

Also, when shape points fall on very minor intersections on windy highways, I'd rather use a shape point than a point for what's essentially a glorified driveway.