Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
800s

N820 - add a point at RueTro to shape the route better
N821 - Mont -> War? (village you are in, rather than far off village)
N833 - RuMar -> RouMar
N859 - Mar -> RueBiz
N865 - add point at RueMou for Cugnon; N816 is north-south
N882 - RueFla -> RuePla
N883 - N81 -> N81_S
2
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: Lithuania Krašto Keliai (ltuk)
« Last post by si404 on Today at 08:01:09 am »
Fair enough on the A20 - I did presume/half recall you removed it due to lack of signage on GMSV - it was more the lack of update entry that concerned me.

Not including the A21 makes sense. Oddly OSM shows the Russian part as open, save for the bridge at the border, and a small stretch just north of the first junction. The whole Latvian road is marked as closed. I think it's the border control area that is what needs to open for the road to.

My source for the R2703 is OSM. OSM shows the junction of the two roads further west than you have the point, but it very much is there. HERE mapping shows it at the junction you have as the end point.

K145 - that only one side of the loop is coloured on OSM threw me, the point is fine.
3
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: Lithuania Krašto Keliai (ltuk)
« Last post by michih on Today at 06:35:32 am »
A20 is indicated on OSM but not on GM/GSV. GSV is from 2012 (all over Lithuania).
According to wegenwiki, the bypass was built by the municipality but rededicated to A20 in 2014. I'll go with OSM and add the route.

According to wegenwiki, wikipedia and OSM, there is also an A21 at the border to Russia. The construction of the bypass was started in 2014 and it's (not yet) indicated on GM/GSV. It was completed in August 2015 but not yet opened because the Russian section is not yet completed. Not adding.


K202 - continues north

The only sign I found is this one on 2012 GSV at the current end. I guess it was rededicated or just signed after 2012. wikipedia also indicated that it ends at Kirtimai and has a length of 27km. I'll extend it.


K219 - Pik -> R2703?

I couldn't find R2703 on OSM/GM/GSV. What's your source?

Edit:

K145 - R2001 needs moving

Really? All streets are one-way streets.
4
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: Lithuania Krašto Keliai (ltuk)
« Last post by michih on Today at 04:51:48 am »
A20 - what happened to this route?

I wrote you a PM a year ago:

Quote
Quote
2. Do you remember why you've routed via the bypass?

When it opened, I presumed the E262 would take the bypass. At a later point I synced the A6 to the E262, forgetting this bypass.

Quote
4. It seems that no A6, A20 or E262 waypoints are in use at all. I guess it's not necessary to mention changes like this in our update list?

As it's an error, I'm going to say we can get away with it.

I've removed the route and added a note: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/LTU/ltua/README.md
5
If you've used RR & TR in Saskatchewan, and have not used RgeRd & TwpRd, you can just keep on doing what you have been doing, and I'll have an excuse to do an Alberta-wide relabeling.

With the way section line roads are signed in Manitoba, I prefer to keep the convention I'm using there in place.
If we're able to use a common convention for Alberta & Saskatchewan, I'm all for it.

Can't forget sk.ab017san.wpt.
I believe this would be a carbon copy of sk.sk017san. oscar, you have a say WRT this route.
6
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: Lithuania Krašto Keliai (ltuk)
« Last post by michih on Today at 02:50:35 am »
A20 - what happened to this route? This commit removed it, but there was no updates.csv entry.
I would write that off to the system being in preview status, thus no updates entry being required.

I have to look into it why I've removed A20 but yakra is wrong, A20 is not part of ltuk but ltua system which is active. I guess A20 had no used waypoint and I've omit the update entry. Is it OK or do I always have to enter a notification? Sure, adding a new route must be notified. But removing an unused route?
7
FWIW, in Saskatchewan there is an active route with an RR abbreviation for a Range Road. Some of the in-dev cansk routes I've been slowly adding to the HB have RR abbreviations and/or TR for Township Roads.

We probably should have consistent abbreviations for the prairie provinces, though I don't feel strongly about RgeRd vs. RR, or TwpRd vs. TR.
8
*Old Township Road 862 -> *OldTR862
*Old Range Road 152 -> *OldRR152

Stylistically a bit different from the "TwpRd" & "RgeRd" conventions otherwise used, but forward-compatible with a potential province-wide TwpRd -> TR / RgeRd -> RR relabeling, which may or may not end up happening.

I think that makes everything just about ready to hit the HB in devel mode.
I'll put some CSVs together & do whatever else I need, and open a pull request.

convenient link for future reference
9
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
« Last post by yakra on Yesterday at 11:59:58 pm »
I will see your signage from the BRP and raise you this signage from Bronx Park East. I would interpret the signage for Mosholu Pkwy - both from the BRP and as seen in that image below the street signs - as missing  a "to", or having one implied.
Agreed. It's a fair cop.
Considering this in combination with the signage @BRP, let's say then that at the very least, BroParkEast is out as an endpoint. We can have the "One Point Per Interchange" rule wibble its wobble that way.
Think of the traveler who approaches from the BRP, takes the MosPkwy exit, and thinks he's all set, only to find upon checking the HB that...

Ultimately though, this is another episode of "What is..."

The name of that section of road is "Southern Blvd". It is signed as such,
Definitely the case at the SouBlvd intersection.
That's probably my biggest problem here, the lack of signage at that point for a continuation Mosholu Parkway to the south...

and Hagstrom always knew it as such.
3rd-party cartographers, Hagstrom, RMcN, and the like, I would put less stock in, in favor of direct gov't sources such as the TDV, TDR, or shapefiles...

The road named "Mosholu Parkway" ends at a T intersection with the road named "Southern Blvd"
The MilepointRoute2015 shapefiles have an RIS_NAME attribute for the section in question of "MOSHOLU PKWY", not Southern Blvd, "DR KAZIMIROFF BLVD", or anything else. So in some sense...

But, what is the Mosholu Parkway? Is it the road named "Mosholu Parkway"? Or is it a route defined by some other measure (e.g. the NYS reference route number), which is not necessarily coterminous with the road named "Mosholu Parkway"?

The former seems to be more in line with what exists in the real world, while the latter may be more in line with what exists on paper.

Of course, if we've already concluded we're going to define parkways by reference routes, including that section of Southern Blvd in our Mosholu Parkway file would at least be consistent with the established methodology.
Of course, there's not a 1:1 correspondence between parkways and reference routes.
Belt Parkway is 9087A, 907B, 907C, and 907D. But forget about that, becase this situation is more like...
Reference route 908K is partly SagStaPkwy and partly SunMeaPkwy.
• 908K is SagStaPkwy, and some other stuff that's not SagStaPkwy. And,
• 908K is SunMeaPkwy, and some other stuff that's not SunMeaPkwy.
It's listed in the Touring Route Book as "Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow State Parkways", but the TDR just calls it "Sagtikos State Parkway".
Similarly, Reference route 908M is in the HB now as just SouStaPkwy. It's been proposed to split the Heckscher Parkway off into its own file, and I agree there.
Touring Route Book = "Southern State Parkway/Heckscher State Parkway"; TDR = "Southern State Parkway".

Hm... So, the Touring Route Book does tend to list both Pkwy names for a ref rte if there's more than one... What to make of 908F just being "Mosholu Parkway"? :-\

Also of note is that TMK, every bit of reference route on the Parkways list is included in something in the HB, with the one exception -- full disclosure? :) -- of the Drumgoole Rd section of 909C.
10
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: Lithuania Krašto Keliai (ltuk)
« Last post by yakra on Yesterday at 11:18:59 pm »
A20 - what happened to this route? This commit removed it, but there was no updates.csv entry.
I would write that off to the system being in preview status, thus no updates entry being required.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10