Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: US 89 on November 29, 2017, 08:32:01 pm
-
I noticed a few errors in the database on Utah state highways:
-UT-107's east end has been truncated to 3000 West, so it now only goes between UT-110 and 3000 W.
-UT-85 has now been extended north to 4100 South, the database only shows the north end at 5400 S.
-UT-190 doesn't go to Brighton ski resort and end. Instead it goes up the mountain more from Brighton and ends at the Salt Lake/Wasatch county line.
-UT-193 has been extended further west. Instead of ending at UT-126, it now ends at 108. (EDIT: since been extended further, to 3000 West)
-UT-252 goes east on 2500 North from 1000 West to US 91, the database has it ending at 2500 N.
I also have a suggestion that UT-134 should probably have a waypoint at UT-126.
-
-UT-190 doesn't go to Brighton ski resort and end. Instead it goes up the mountain more from Brighton and ends at the Salt Lake/Wasatch county line.
We talked about this earlier; the legal route description includes both the Brighton Loop and Guardsman Pass Road, while the signage at that area is not really there. I know the last time I was there, there was no indicator that UT 190 went up Guardsman Pass; I only found that out when I looked at the UDOT database (that was in 2012 though). Additionally, from GMSV the road to Brighton is clearly the main thoroughfare while Guardsman Pass Road is a one lane road veering off the side of the canyon (relevant (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6077803,-111.5797774,3a,75y,33.3h,78.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTQj8kPRHUOk_9XZR4BjHQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).
Attachment is a screenshot of the UT database; the link is here (https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/) if anyone wants to go there and see for themselves.
-
Some more major things I found:
-There is a new UT-135, which goes along Pleasant Grove Blvd from 4850 West/2800 West east across I-15 to 700 North.
-There is also a UT-129, which begins at US 89 in Lindon, following 700 North and North County Blvd, ending at UT 92.
-UT-146 has been decommissioned (as part of a road swap in exchange for UT 129 being created).
-There is a new UT-131, which runs south from 14600 South along Porter Rockwell Rd as far as the road goes (they're planning to build a bridge across the Jordan and connect it with Porter Rockwell Blvd on the other side)
And then some nitpicky things, some of which may or may not need to change:
-UT-151 ends just after the I-15 junction, not at US 89. There is a pavement change and an END STATE MAINTENANCE sign at the END 151 sign just after the I-15 interchange.
-UT 268 extends west to the next street past I-15 (800 West), where the eastbound direction has a mile 0 marker and an East 268 sign.
-UT 186 actually ends at the Parleys Way interchange; the roads south of there are considered ramps.
-UT 106 extends west past I-15 to the street at the bottom of the bridge over the train tracks, where there is an End state maintenance sign westbound and an East 106 sign eastbound.
-UT 126 extends east on Layton Parkway past I-15 to Fort Lane.
-UT 103's east end is actually at I-15.
-UT 154 extends past I-15 to the next light (13800 South) -- this is well signed.
-UT 92 extends west to the next light (as noted below, this is signed).
And I'm sure there are a lot more.
-
-UT 268 extends west to the next street past I-15 (800 West), where the eastbound direction has a mile 0 marker and an East 268 sign.
-UT 106 extends west past I-15 to the street at the bottom of the bridge over the train tracks, where there is an End state maintenance sign westbound and an East 106 sign eastbound.
-UT 126 extends east on Layton Parkway past I-15 to Fort Lane.
-UT 103's east end is actually at I-15.
-UT 60 extends east of US 89 to the frontage road.
-UT 224 extends north of I-80 to Rasmussen/Bitner Road.
-UT 65 extends slightly south of I-80 to the gun range road.
There seems to be a lot of those; i.e. the state maintenance continues after the exit to the next intersection (UT 138, UT 54, UT 92, and likely more that I don't want to look up right now). Unfortunately, Utah signs the majority of them ridiculously well (a sign at the UT 92/I-15 junction directs traffic on UT 92 west... which then ends in a block).
-
There seems to be a lot of those; i.e. the state maintenance continues after the exit to the next intersection (UT 138, UT 54, UT 92, and likely more that I don't want to look up right now). Unfortunately, Utah signs the majority of them ridiculously well (a sign at the UT 92/I-15 junction directs traffic on UT 92 west... which then ends in a block).
That's why UT 151's east end should be moved back to I-15, because eastbound 10600 South is actually not signed as SR-151.
-
-UT-190 doesn't go to Brighton ski resort and end. Instead it goes up the mountain more from Brighton and ends at the Salt Lake/Wasatch county line.
We talked about this earlier; the legal route description includes both the Brighton Loop and Guardsman Pass Road, while the signage at that area is not really there. I know the last time I was there, there was no indicator that UT 190 went up Guardsman Pass; I only found that out when I looked at the UDOT database (that was in 2012 though). Additionally, from GMSV the road to Brighton is clearly the main thoroughfare while Guardsman Pass Road is a one lane road veering off the side of the canyon (relevant (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6077803,-111.5797774,3a,75y,33.3h,78.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTQj8kPRHUOk_9XZR4BjHQA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).
Attachment is a screenshot of the UT database; the link is here (https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/) if anyone wants to go there and see for themselves.
It's definitely UT 190 though. In fact, here are some GSVs showing the mileposts for SR-190 on that road:
Mile 17 (https://goo.gl/maps/Z5wynuRLuAv)
Mile 18 (https://goo.gl/maps/5xRSPw9Uvyy)
Mile 19 (https://goo.gl/maps/rpp8FZhWLSF2)
-
Some more Utah things reported in https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData/pull/1277
This updated .list file has several changes in state highways not reflected in TM database:
UT 146 has been decommissioned.
There is a new UT-129. It runs from US 89 in Lindon west on 700 North, then north on 2000 West/North County Blvd all the way to SR-92 in Highland. The new road should have waypoints US89_S, UT135, US89_N, and UT92 at least.
There is a new UT-135. It runs on Pleasant Grove Blvd, from 2800 West northeast across I-15 to North County Blvd (UT-129). That road should have waypoints 2800W, I-15, and UT129 at least.
Also, US 89 should have added waypoints UT129_S and UT129_N. (and maybe delete UT146? or otherwise just change it to 100E?)
-
A few things I noticed today:
-UT 193 has been extended west again, now ending at 3000 West. Both Google Maps and OSM show this. TM currently has 193's west end at 126.
-The east end of UT 107 has been truncated to 3000 West, with an "END" sign posted.
-TM shows UT 232 as continuing north past 193 to the Hill Air Force Base gate. While that is the legislative description for the route, signage at the 232/193 intersection clearly shows that 232 only goes south from 193. There's even an END 232 sign at 193.
-TM shows the west end of UT 225 at Clark Lane. As of 2011, the west end of the route is now at the west end of the bridge over the train tracks, and there is no 225 signage anywhere west of I-15.
-
Due to a confluence of factors involving me being bored and someone bringing to my attention that there are several needed updates to Utah that have been languishing for a while, I've decided to step in and address the clear cut ones here.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2075
This includes:
-UT-107's east end has been truncated to 3000 West, so it now only goes between UT-110 and 3000 W.
-UT-85 has now been extended north to 4100 South, the database only shows the north end at 5400 S.
-UT-193 has been extended further west. Instead of ending at UT-126, it now ends at 108. (EDIT: since been extended further, to 3000 West)
-UT-252 goes east on 2500 North from 1000 West to US 91, the database has it ending at 2500 N.
- I also have a suggestion that UT-134 should probably have a waypoint at UT-126.
-There is a new UT-135, which goes along Pleasant Grove Blvd from 4850 West/2800 West east across I-15 to 700 North.
-There is also a UT-129, which begins at US 89 in Lindon, following 700 North and North County Blvd, ending at UT 92.
-UT-146 has been decommissioned (as part of a road swap in exchange for UT 129 being created).
-TM shows the west end of UT 225 at Clark Lane. As of 2011, the west end of the route is now at the west end of the bridge over the train tracks, and there is no 225 signage anywhere west of I-15.
It does not include:
-UT-190 doesn't go to Brighton ski resort and end. Instead it goes up the mountain more from Brighton and ends at the Salt Lake/Wasatch county line.
Due it being a generally weird situation (look up UT 190 here and see what you get...) (https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/), we need to figure out how we want to handle this, if we want to handle it (the eastern fork may be unsigned it sounds like). So I'm leaving this alone.
-There is a new UT-131, which runs south from 14600 South along Porter Rockwell Rd as far as the road goes (they're planning to build a bridge across the Jordan and connect it with Porter Rockwell Blvd on the other side)
I cannot find any evidence that UT 131 is signed.
-TM shows UT 232 as continuing north past 193 to the Hill Air Force Base gate. While that is the legislative description for the route, signage at the 232/193 intersection clearly shows that 232 only goes south from 193. There's even an END 232 sign at 193.
While I think it should be truncated, this is open for debate and I'm not going to act unilaterally on this sans any consensus being reached.
-
Assuming you got NickCPDX's blessing for this, you may want to refer to the related GitHub issue, where he weighed in recently.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/662 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/662)
-
Should the SR-92 "commuter lanes" be part of usasf? They're maintained as part of 92 but explicitly signed as not 92: http://www.google.com/maps/@40.4316832,-111.8170646,3a,22.8y,318.37h,92.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1so95ec65g55Mv5eDYjAmTtg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
An entrance in the middle of the lanes: http://www.google.com/maps/@40.433283,-111.8219697,3a,22.4y,217.57h,90.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqjkgCl7QoGlw87Z9FWVxHQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
-
Assuming you got NickCPDX's blessing for this, you may want to refer to the related GitHub issue, where he weighed in recently.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/662 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/662)
That issue adds in something for UT 308, that I brought up in the forum in a separate topic this May.
-
Assuming you got NickCPDX's blessing for this, you may want to refer to the related GitHub issue, where he weighed in recently.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/662 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/662)
Hmm.
Well, I will openly admit that I acted unilaterally - NickCPDX has not logged into the forum since March and no action had been taken on items that were posted here last November. So I was operating under the assumption that with the person who is supposed to be responsible for this apparently MIA, someone else had to step up or it wasn't getting done.
Anyway, I added a comment there to help close the loop.
Nick... Utah's still yours, so feel free to continue addressing any further changes that may need to be made.
-
Slight change of circumstances, I now officially maintain Utah.
The suggestion truncation of UT 232 was made last week and I've gone ahead and extended UT 190 around the Brighton Loop and up to Guardsman Pass. This produces a weird concurrency of UT 190 with itself but the route is officially defined by the state as such.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2129
This topic is therefore now solved.
-
This produces a weird concurrency of UT 190 with itself but the route is officially defined by the state as such.
I don't have a big objection to the route being plotted this way, but do want to be positive it's the right way to do it.
To clarify: Is the the route officially defined as being concurrent with itself?
(If this were Texas, I'd imagine its description saying something like "and from another point on SH 190" or "then northward concurrent with SH 190"...)
Or, does it simply define the route as, in some way/shape/form, existing on the 3 prongs extending from UT190_A/UT190_D?
Got a link to the state's definition so I can peep it & see what I can see?
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2805
Shaping points look to have gotten a bit heavy in the last UT190 update. I trimmed it down in wptedit, getting good results with just +X780988 +X118247 +X208330 +X590188 +X572671 +X633937 +X400069 +X455519
-
This produces a weird concurrency of UT 190 with itself but the route is officially defined by the state as such.
I don't have a big objection to the route being plotted this way, but do want to be positive it's the right way to do it.
To clarify: Is the the route officially defined as being concurrent with itself?
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title72/Chapter4/72-4-S124.html is ambiguous. https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=7224232019937654 calls the part east of the loop "East Leg".
-
This produces a weird concurrency of UT 190 with itself but the route is officially defined by the state as such.
I don't have a big objection to the route being plotted this way, but do want to be positive it's the right way to do it.
To clarify: Is the the route officially defined as being concurrent with itself?
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title72/Chapter4/72-4-S124.html is ambiguous. https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=7224232019937654 calls the part east of the loop "East Leg".
UT 190 is listed as concurrent with itself according to https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/. That might just be how they inventory the route, however.
Would it work to split this into a mainline UT 190 and a UT 190 (Guardsman Pass) (or something like that)?
Also, it looks like UT 210 does something similar (goes to the mainline end of the route and doubles back to go around the Alta bypass), but I can't see any signage on the bypass in GMSV.
-
UT 190 is listed as concurrent with itself according to https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/. That might just be how they inventory the route, however.
Where are you seeing this? I see agreement with the highway reference: the loop goes to mile 16.844, then the east leg begins at 16.845.
-
UT 190 is listed as concurrent with itself according to https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/. That might just be how they inventory the route, however.
Where are you seeing this? I see agreement with the highway reference: the loop goes to mile 16.844, then the east leg begins at 16.845.
Oh there is a gap; I misinterpreted it.
That makes splitting the file into two routes make even more sense.
-
To clarify: Is the the route officially defined as being concurrent with itself?
UT 190 is officially defined as going down to Brighton, around the loop road to where it intersects itself, and then jumping from there to the other place it intersects itself. At least, this is how the mileposts work - the "concurrent with itself" mileage is only counted once. (see UDOT HRO) (https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/)
I toyed with the idea of creating a separate route for UT 190 (Guardsman Pass), but rejected it for three reasons:
1) The most important reason - what UT 190's mileposts do is consistent with how concurrencies in Utah are typically handled - the mileage is only counted for one route, the other has its mileposts pick up at the far end of the concurrency at the same number where they left off at the beginning of it. So UT 190 doing this at its (apparent? implied?) concurrency with itself cannot be taken as indication there is no concurrency without it logically following that most if not all other concurrencies throughout Utah need to be broken based on the same reasoning. Which brings this into reductio ad absurdum territory
2) There is not, as far as I can tell, any signage for UT 190 on the "eastern leg" up to Guardsman Pass. So if it were decided that this should be a separate route, standing policy about excluding unsigned routes would dictate it should not be in the HB.
3) It is a more complicated solution, and there is no clear case for justifying the complication - but at least one good case against it (reason 1) and one can of worms the complication would open (reason 2)
Shaping points look to have gotten a bit heavy in the last UT190 update. I trimmed it down in wptedit, getting good results with just +X780988 +X118247 +X208330 +X590188 +X572671 +X633937 +X400069 +X455519
This ties into what I was getting at in the US 219 thread (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2758.msg12239#msg12239) - with the resource constraint issue from the CHM days no longer present, there is no longer any functional necessity to try to minimize the number of shaping points. I prefer to have the extra points for the sake of increased anatomical correctness of the route trace... unless there is some other reason not to do this which I am not considering.
-
Well, even an O(n) complexity algorithm increases in time (and RAM consumption) as n increases...
But anyway. I'll remain agnostic on whether U190 should be split in 2 files. Reason #1 makes sense. Splitting it would mean mucking about with people's list files.
At lhe very least though, per the links above, it looks like the east end should be cut back a tiny bit, from GuaPas to
Sal/Was http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.607930&lon=-111.556316
-
At lhe very least though, per the links above, it looks like the east end should be cut back a tiny bit, from GuaPas to
Sal/Was http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.607930&lon=-111.556316
Per topos, OSM has an imprecise county line. Guardsman Pass is at the line.
-
To clarify: Is the the route officially defined as being concurrent with itself?
UT 190 is officially defined as going down to Brighton, around the loop road to where it intersects itself, and then jumping from there to the other place it intersects itself. At least, this is how the mileposts work - the "concurrent with itself" mileage is only counted once. (see UDOT HRO) (https://maps.udot.utah.gov/uplan_data/documents/HRO/)
I toyed with the idea of creating a separate route for UT 190 (Guardsman Pass), but rejected it for three reasons:
1) The most important reason - what UT 190's mileposts do is consistent with how concurrencies in Utah are typically handled - the mileage is only counted for one route, the other has its mileposts pick up at the far end of the concurrency at the same number where they left off at the beginning of it. So UT 190 doing this at its (apparent? implied?) concurrency with itself cannot be taken as indication there is no concurrency without it logically following that most if not all other concurrencies throughout Utah need to be broken based on the same reasoning. Which brings this into reductio ad absurdum territory
2) There is not, as far as I can tell, any signage for UT 190 on the "eastern leg" up to Guardsman Pass. So if it were decided that this should be a separate route, standing policy about excluding unsigned routes would dictate it should not be in the HB.
3) It is a more complicated solution, and there is no clear case for justifying the complication - but at least one good case against it (reason 1) and one can of worms the complication would open (reason 2)
Shaping points look to have gotten a bit heavy in the last UT190 update. I trimmed it down in wptedit, getting good results with just +X780988 +X118247 +X208330 +X590188 +X572671 +X633937 +X400069 +X455519
This ties into what I was getting at in the US 219 thread (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2758.msg12239#msg12239) - with the resource constraint issue from the CHM days no longer present, there is no longer any functional necessity to try to minimize the number of shaping points. I prefer to have the extra points for the sake of increased anatomical correctness of the route trace... unless there is some other reason not to do this which I am not considering.
Okay, makes sense.
Should this be done for UT 210 as well, which has a similar situation near Alta (route going two ways, one not signed very well)?
-
I'm satisfied with Duke87's explanation, and think it's appropriate to leave UT190 as-is.
K, now that I've got people's attention :):
Routes concurrent with themselves (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2805)
Some changes I'm proposing to the concurrency detection code (https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/issues/137) would change how these routes' self-concurrent segments are counted toward user stats.
Right now, a traveler must manually .list both segments to get credit for both.
Under my proposal, if a traveler claims only one, they'll receive credit for the other.
ut.ut190:
- 4 travelers have UT UT190 I-215 BriRes in their .lists, BriRes being the old label for UT190_C:
bobcobb, crosboro7, osu97gp, the_spui_ninja
As things are now, these four travelers have the concurrent segment counted toward their mileage only once. - 2 travelers have clinched UT UT190: Based8 & roadguy2.
- norheim hasn't travelled the extension to Guardsman Pass, but has UT UT190 I-215 UT190_D .listed, and thus has the concurrent segment counted twice for mileage.
Is there any reason that if a traveler claims UT UT190 UT190_A UT190_B, they should not be credited for UT UT190 UT190_C UT190_D, or vice versa?
-
I don't see a problem with it; that fixes it so they don't have to go in and manually edit the file (like I did).
-
I'm satisfied with Duke87's explanation, and think it's appropriate to leave UT190 as-is.
K, now that I've got people's attention :):
Routes concurrent with themselves (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2805)
The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you.
-
Topic moved. Try it now (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rryQfAnQs3M).
-
Should this be done for UT 210 as well, which has a similar situation near Alta (route going two ways, one not signed very well)?
I didn't even realize Bypass Road was included in SR-210, and I can state from driving it that there is no 210 signage anywhere on it -- though there may be a posted mile marker 13. The reason it's state-maintained is that the mainline between the two Bypass Road intersections closes frequently in the winter for avalanche control, with through traffic directed onto the bypass. You can see the snow gates here (https://goo.gl/maps/9x3pmjAWs6J2) and here (https://goo.gl/maps/MXi752Y4h1R2).
Officially, 210 is discontinuous, just like 190; the only difference is that there's no loop on 210 like 190 has. The referenced mileage for 210 counts up the main canyon road to the upper parking lot at MP 12.524, where the route "temporarily ends". It restarts at 12.525 at the eastern Bypass Road junction and increases to the west, ending at the western junction at 13.618.
-
With no loop for the route to double back using, I can't see any interpretation of UT 210 being concurrent with itself. So, the practical options here are just leave it as is, or add a separate route for the bypass road.
Reapplying the same logic that was used with UT 190, but with a self-concurrency ruled out as an option, "just leave it as is" would win on the grounds of lack of signage.
-
That makes sense, I just thought I should bring it up since it was around the same area at UT 190.