Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Topic started by: Griffith on February 05, 2017, 02:46:00 pm

Title: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: Griffith on February 05, 2017, 02:46:00 pm
Shouldn't the endpoints for NL220 be NL210_E and NL210_W?
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: oscar on February 09, 2017, 11:56:24 pm
Here's my notes on various routes, as I munch through the routes to figure out how much I've clinched. I'll add to this list as I continue my review. Looks so far to be pretty complete, especially in Labrador where I thought we'd run into problems. One possible missing route on Newfoundland island I'll have to track down.

Generally: check for places where the route trace goes overwater, but the actual route doesn't -- a few extra shaping points would help take our mapped route around bays, lakes, etc.

NL 460: request labeled waypoint somewhere in Campbell's Creek, between NL463_E and FelCove. I know I drove past Campbell's Creek to the eastern edge of Abrahams Cove, but am unsure I made it all the way to NL463_E or beyond. EDIT: A check of my handheld GPS readings confirms that I drove beyond Abrahams Cove to the west end of NL 460.

NL 480: request labeled waypoint at Park Place in Burgeo (westernmost intersection in that town). I know I went into that town, but am unsure I made it to the end of the route before turning back.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: si404 on February 11, 2017, 06:54:20 am
Shouldn't the endpoints for NL220 be NL210_E and NL210_W?
Yes. Fixed
Generally: check for places where the route trace goes overwater, but the actual route doesn't -- a few extra shaping points would help take our mapped route around bays, lakes, etc.
Collaborators - how important is this? I've just had a go with NL460, and it just seemed a bit like busy work to move the route about 50ft north.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: michih on February 11, 2017, 08:13:02 am
Generally: check for places where the route trace goes overwater, but the actual route doesn't -- a few extra shaping points would help take our mapped route around bays, lakes, etc.
Collaborators - how important is this? I've just had a go with NL460, and it just seemed a bit like busy work to move the route about 50ft north.

Sorry, why should it be relevant? I thought it's important that the actual route does not exceed the "red limits" in the wpt editor. I couldn't find any rule.

What's about: http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=nld.n302. More wpts b/n N506 and HouWeg? More wpts b/n N306/N707 and FleWeg? I don't like that idea.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: oscar on February 11, 2017, 12:45:46 pm
Generally: check for places where the route trace goes overwater, but the actual route doesn't -- a few extra shaping points would help take our mapped route around bays, lakes, etc.
Collaborators - how important is this? I've just had a go with NL460, and it just seemed a bit like busy work to move the route about 50ft north.

Sorry, why should it be relevant? I thought it's important that the actual route does not exceed the "red limits" in the wpt editor. I couldn't find any rule.

What's about: http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=nld.n302. More wpts b/n N506 and HouWeg? More wpts b/n N306/N707 and FleWeg? I don't like that idea.

I was thinking more of Tim's "few extra shaping points" permission. For example, NL 360's and NL 480's south ends each look like they cross a bay, which they wouldn't if one or two extra shaping points (or my requested ParkPl point for NL 480) were added. For a coast-hugging route like NL 460, you're talking a lot more than a "few extra shaping points", so I would largely leave that alone other than my Campbell's Creek point request (which is for non-shaping reasons).

When I overhauled US 101 and CA 1 in California, I added a few shaping points to keep both routes on-shore, and separate from each other in an area where they ran near each other.  Other coast-hugging parts of CA 1, I didn't bother.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: si404 on February 12, 2017, 05:11:42 am
OK, I understand now. Will do as part of my overhaul (probably today or tomorrow) of proof reading all my routes.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: oscar on February 14, 2017, 05:03:29 pm
In the St. John's area, for some routes there are significant differences between what's displayed in online maps, and the ones in the HB. I'm not convinced that the online maps are right -- for example, Mapnik has NL 11 coming within spitting distance of Cape Spear (easternmost point in Canada), while my notes from my 2003 visit there and the HB have Cape Spear as much more distant from NL 11. If the HB routings are based on fairly recent shapefiles, fine. 

I'll add that in Labrador, where online mapping was really sketchy when I was there in 2011 and is probably a little suspect even now, I took handheld GPS readings of most of the route endpoints. They all match up nicely with what's in the HB. (I didn't whip out my GPS receiver nearly as much on NAewfoundland island.)

Also, in the southwestern corner of the province, NL407 has a waypoint labeled "Sea" (for the Searston community),that is at an intersection with a secondary road (which I traveled, for no apparent reason other than perhaps a road closure north of Searston) for which online mapping shows route number 407-1 but no name. Elsewhere I've noticed the HB often uses road names rather than secondary route numbers. and I'm OK with that preference. But where we have no road name available, I suggest using the secondary route number.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on February 17, 2017, 03:01:45 pm
I disagree; I think the secondary route numbers should not be used if they're unsigned.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: oscar on February 17, 2017, 11:18:01 pm
I disagree; I think the secondary route numbers should not be used if they're unsigned.

A quick look in GMSV suggests at least the west end of 407-1 is unsigned. But some secondary roytes are signed, like 514-1 west of Charlottetown (which was signed as such in 2011, rather than NL 515 as I had expected -- so I decided not to make the side trip to Pinsents Arm). There's no GMSV coverage to confirm the 514-1 signage is still there, not that it matters since I'm OK with leaving the PinArm point as is even if that secondary route is signed.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: oscar on February 26, 2017, 03:14:26 pm
I dredged up a detailed 2012 tourism map, covering both Newfoundland island and Labrador. Any point in using that to crosscheck the draft routes now in the HB? Or are those routes based on more recent shapefiles or other data (and how recent)?
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: si404 on February 27, 2017, 05:01:04 pm
It's basically OSM, with the exception of stuff like NL11, where it showed it three ways and I went on  (typically limited) GMSV and decided it didn't go to the Cape. Cross-check with the 2012 tourism map would be great thanks.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on February 28, 2017, 12:54:48 am
I could cross-check against shapefiles too, though I wouldn't call that definitive. Won't promise anything though. My activity level has been pretty low these last few weeks.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on September 21, 2017, 03:02:33 pm
The very beginnings of some peer review...

NL353:
This is shown on OSM, and in the shapefiles, as route 350-17. I was unable to find any route number signage at route 350, the southern or northern beginning of the route, or at the intersection (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.361172&lon=-55.322532) with "route 350-18".
Looks like this one should be left out. What was the rationale for including it?

NL511:
The route is included in the shapefiles, but not shown on any of the online tile maps. We can't use GMSV to verify whether it's signed or not as there's no coverage in the area. In any case, here it is; just some raw data dumped from the shapefiles (RTNUMBER1 = 511) and manually stitched together...
Code: [Select]
5665-1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.460270&lon=-56.859744
5665-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.460628&lon=-56.858361
5665-3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.460825&lon=-56.857900
5665-4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.461041&lon=-56.857583
5665-5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.461230&lon=-56.857611
5665-6 +33842-1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.462041&lon=-56.859652
33842-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.461638&lon=-56.860820
33842-3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.461460&lon=-56.861900
33842-4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.461165&lon=-56.864103
33842-5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.460979&lon=-56.866263
33842-6 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.460998&lon=-56.867097
33842-7 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.461380&lon=-56.870724
33842-8 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.461560&lon=-56.871443
33842-9 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.461831&lon=-56.871946
33842-10 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.462011&lon=-56.872176
33842-11 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.462335&lon=-56.872492
33842-12 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.462974&lon=-56.872893
33842-13 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.464790&lon=-56.873276
33842-14 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.466031&lon=-56.873374
33842-15 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.466724&lon=-56.873357
33842-16 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.467020&lon=-56.873285
33842-17 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.467362&lon=-56.873025
33842-18 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.467936&lon=-56.872030
33842-19 +35673-1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.468215&lon=-56.871683
35673-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.468574&lon=-56.871322
35673-3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.469113&lon=-56.870990
35673-4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.471378&lon=-56.870307
35673-5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.472385&lon=-56.869901
35673-6 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.473733&lon=-56.869854
35673-7 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.475603&lon=-56.869143
35673-8 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.477805&lon=-56.868042
35673-9 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.478676&lon=-56.867521
35673-10 +15580-1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.479889&lon=-56.866567
15580-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.480248&lon=-56.866264
15580-3 +34300-1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.481012&lon=-56.865772
34300-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.481624&lon=-56.865770
34300-3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.482388&lon=-56.865970
34300-4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.483324&lon=-56.866327
34300-5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.484025&lon=-56.866714
34300-6 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.484575&lon=-56.867187
34300-7 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.486294&lon=-56.869026
34300-8 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.486987&lon=-56.869614
34300-9 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.487383&lon=-56.869872
34300-10 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.487932&lon=-56.870044
34300-11 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.488975&lon=-56.870185
34300-12 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.490063&lon=-56.870455
34300-13 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.490675&lon=-56.870670
34300-14 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.491161&lon=-56.870942
34300-15 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.491917&lon=-56.871602
34300-16 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.493069&lon=-56.872391
34300-17 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.493330&lon=-56.872722
34300-18 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.493978&lon=-56.873988

NL510:
AnseAmoBraRd does not meet labeling conventions. Something such as AABraRd, AnseAmoRd, AnseBraRd, etc. should be chosen. That is, unless we can verify there's a signed NL511 here...
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: oscar on September 21, 2017, 03:51:27 pm
NL511:
The route is included in the shapefiles, but not shown on any of the online tile maps. We can't use GMSV to verify whether it's signed or not as there's no coverage in the area. In any case, here it is; just some raw data dumped from the shapefiles (RTNUMBER1 = 511) and manually stitched together...

I ran the data through CHM's Waypoint Editor to see where the route went. I don't recall seeing any signs for NL 511 from NL 510 northbound in that area, when I drove through Labrador in 2011. I was trying pretty hard to clinch every numbered route in Labrador on that trip, so I was looking for such signage. But I can't rule out signage on SB NL510, or elsewhere on route 511, or that the route became signed since 2011.

My copy of the official highway map, also from 2011, also shows no road in that location, not even an unnumbered or hyphenated-numbered route.

Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on September 22, 2017, 12:10:12 am
It's marked as route 511 in the 6.0 shapefiles, dated 2009-08-26. If it was unsigned before 2011, it's probably safe to say it's remained unsigned since. The rest of the evidence points to it being a minor/unsigned route, so I'm fine with leaving it out.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on December 13, 2017, 04:46:40 am
Old Routes
Back in the dark ages, I drafted NL1 as part of cantch, and NL2, 3A, 100 & 430 as part of the defunct cansph system, using largely Google, and a bit of Yahoo, when map quality was still pretty inaccurate in the region. I'll give these routes a more thorough examination later.

Shaping
looks very nice overall in this system.

NL10: +X149881 -> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.759613&lon=-53.594903

NL30:
Suggest adding GowSt (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.571227&lon=-52.701716) just N of the south end at NL2/40, to clarify the routing in this area
Suggest adding MarDr (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.629078&lon=-52.679508) & LogyBayRd (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.624316&lon=-52.691116) N of NL1


NL75: move NewHarRd to connecting road (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.603928&lon=-53.309655)
NL92: adding BenPowRd (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.143938&lon=-53.667687) between +X359076 & +X879408 can shorten the VISIBLE_DISTANCE.
NL201: still within tolerance if +X413558 deleted
NL213: move +X948317 more southwest? (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.196748&lon=-55.432585)
NL215: replace +X910504 with Bro (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.433669&lon=-54.813039)
NL220: still within tolerance if +X673370 deleted
NL231: adding HicHarRd (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.120117&lon=-53.755192) between +X811555 & MainRd eliminates a VISIBLE_DISTANCE error.
NL233: +X576834 looks nicer here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.350599&lon=-54.140389) :)
NL320: +X702900 can be safely deleted
NL335: +X964529 can be safely deleted
NL363: +X997962 looks nicer here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.469617&lon=-55.514442) :)
NL364: Yesss. I like the way the shaping at the W end looks in WPTEdit. 8)
NL392: shaping point needed between +X310118 & ShoArmRd; BakRd (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.575645&lon=-55.985738) fits the bill
NL417: +X341025 looks nicer here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.964266&lon=-55.900277)?
NL420: +X963385 = Well Done Sir!
NL421: +X856994 looks nicer here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.479066&lon=-56.902485)? Now I'm just getting nitpicky...
NL431: replace +X268244 with MarRd (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.487918&lon=-57.927030)
NL440: shaping point (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.107769&lon=-58.084556) needed just before the N end @ MainSt
NL460: +X775207 & +X976486 can be consolidated into one point (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.572671&lon=-58.345723)

NL480:
shaping point (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.987319&lon=-57.643558) needed between +X713425 & +X909597
+X940054 & +X691228 can be safely deleted

NL490: +X364507 can be safely deleted
NL500: +X840463 can be safely deleted

NL510:
+X937540 can be safely deleted
Satellite view outside tolerance near +X965918. Suggest replacing with +X174620 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.779093&lon=-59.993892) & +X439707 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.792830&lon=-60.031099)
+X284238 can be safely deleted

NL516: +X660062 & X472528 can be consolidated into one point (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.175930&lon=-57.536382)
NL520: +X386868 can be safely deleted
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on December 15, 2017, 03:15:07 pm
Point Order

Some routes don't follow the standard S->N or W->E point order.
Which may be intentional; not every place does. For example, Nova Scotia seems to follow an "away from Halifax" convention. See NS101, NS103, and their NS1 & NS3 children.
Or it may be unintentional, an artifact of how WPTedit spit out the files while editing.

If we do wanna follow S->N/W->E, these routes may need their point order reversed:
<3> 10 20 30 40 41 60 61 62 63 90 91 94 210 213 214 330 341 344 351 361 362 363 364 365 370 401 (402?) 403 404* 405 411 412 (413?) 415 416 432 433 (435?) 480 503

OTOH, if there's an "away from the main drag" convention in place here, these routes may need their point order reversed:
<3A> 20 30 61 62 63 81 <100> 202 203 211 220 221 239 301 330 360 406 407 431 460

Nota bene: some routes are included on both of the above lists.

Don't know if N/S or E/W; not gonna split hairs:
21 201 214 222 450 510

*NL404 may also want NL1_W & NL2_E labels
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: oscar on December 18, 2017, 12:43:53 am
NL510:
+X937540 can be safely deleted
Satellite view outside tolerance near +X965918. Suggest replacing with +X174620 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.779093&lon=-59.993892) & +X439707 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.792830&lon=-60.031099)
+X284238 can be safely deleted

Also, looks like there might've been a significant recent reroute between Pinware and Red Bay.
+X841426 and +X289717 are quite far from the route as shown in Mapnik, HERE, and Google Maps, though not Bing Map or Esri. If Mapnik, etc. accurately depict NL 510's current routing in the area, removing +X841426 and +X289717, and a southwesterly tweak of +X442854, would do the trick.

I had thought, from my 2011 trip to Labrador, that there might be another reroute somewhere between L'Anse au Loup and West St. Modeste (that's what prompted me to look at NL 510). But apparently no such reroute has happened.

NL480:
shaping point (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=47.987319&lon=-57.643558) needed between +X713425 & +X909597
+X940054 & +X691228 can be safely deleted

Also, ParPl => ParkPl.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: si404 on January 02, 2018, 12:25:54 pm
Point Order
I believe I just sort of made them and chose whichever way felt best. I've gone with the grid system as that's the standard in North America, but the system is probably more of a hub-and-spoke or stem-and-leaf arrangement (but it really doesn't matter which end comes first as long as its not random within a system).

I've made all the above changes, so I believe it's just the 'Old Routes' left to check.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on January 02, 2018, 11:50:49 pm
Quote
I've made all the above changes, so I believe it's just the 'Old Routes' left to check.
Thanks for making the changes.
I had still planned on continuing with a more in-depth peer review, but Real Life & other things got in the way for a bit. I can hopefully get back to it soon...
 • correct extent / termini (GIS) (I have made note in a TXT file of a couplefew issues here)
 • waypoint positioning, naming, density
 • Visible Distance
 • "Main Road" labels
 • Old Routes including TCHMai
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: si404 on November 09, 2018, 09:08:01 am
I had still planned on continuing with a more in-depth peer review, but Real Life & other things got in the way for a bit. I can hopefully get back to it soon...
 • correct extent / termini (GIS) (I have made note in a TXT file of a couplefew issues here)
 • waypoint positioning, naming, density
 • Visible Distance
 • "Main Road" labels
 • Old Routes including TCHMai

A little reminder...
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: si404 on February 06, 2019, 06:33:32 am
I had still planned on continuing with a more in-depth peer review, but Real Life & other things got in the way for a bit. I can hopefully get back to it soon...
 • correct extent / termini (GIS) (I have made note in a TXT file of a couplefew issues here)
 • waypoint positioning, naming, density
 • Visible Distance
 • "Main Road" labels
 • Old Routes including TCHMai
Quarterly bump...
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: si404 on August 29, 2019, 03:24:48 pm
Quote
I've made all the above changes, so I believe it's just the 'Old Routes' left to check.
Thanks for making the changes.
I had still planned on continuing with a more in-depth peer review, but Real Life & other things got in the way for a bit. I can hopefully get back to it soon...
 • correct extent / termini (GIS) (I have made note in a TXT file of a couplefew issues here)
 • waypoint positioning, naming, density
 • Visible Distance
 • "Main Road" labels
 • Old Routes including TCHMai
Here's another irregular reminder!
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on September 28, 2019, 07:14:15 pm
Since I've got NL and the highways here will revert to my maintenance when cannl is live, it makes sense for me to make the edits myself as I do the review.
View the changes at https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/45b9d5b397793de87480f59b1b0ad99cfd4bad86
No pull request yet, pending potential discussion.

Waypoint naming, part 1
Found a lot of FooBarBazRd style labels.
Quote from: http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php
If the cross road name has more than 3 words, use one of two options:
1. Pick out the two most important words besides the road type and use only those: Martin Luther King Boulevard becomes MarKingBlvd. Three words in total are included in shortened form.
2. Pick out one important word besides the road type and use it and the initials of the other words: Martin Luther King Boulevard becomes MLKingBlvd. Two words in total are included in shortened form along with initials of the rest.
I tend to bounce back & forth between the 2 options based on what I like best in a given scenario. The rules of thumb I went by can be broken down into several categories...

Place Name Access Rd makes sense to become either PlaNameRd or PNAccRd. I went with PlaNameRd, as it tends to match what's shown on signs (albeit without the "Rd" bit). That, and there's better opportunity for disambiguation between, say, John Smith Access Rd & James Smith Access Rd.
Place Name Access Rd   -> PlaNameRd
NL201: ChaCoveAccRd -> ChaCoved
NL210: JeanBaleAccRd -> JeanBaieRd
NL210: RedHarAccRd -> RedHarRd
NL239: OldBonAccRd -> OldBonRd

Foo Bar Baz Resource Rd   ->   FBBResRd
NL340: NotDameJunRd -> NDJResRd
NL360: SunPondReaRd -> SPResRd

Foo Bar Memorial Way   ->   FooBarWay
NL450: CorPinMemDr -> CplPinDr
NL460: ScoPolMemTra -> ScoPolTrl

When the name of a saint was involved, I switched it up a bit.
If the saint's name was not at the beginning, I dropped "Saint", and truncated the other two words.
Blob Saint Melvin Rd   ->   BlobMelRd
NL414: CapeStJohnRd -> CapeJohnRd
OTOH, If the saint's name was at the beginning, I used initials for the name, and truncated the other word.
Saint Melvin Place Rd   ->   SMPlaRd
NL403: StTerStaRd -> STStaRd
NL361: StJosNorRd -> SJNorRd
(I did this in a recent New Brunswick update.) (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/90afc36afb0f116d27c7a00a88802c8b9e006ec2#diff-af40f70f548ab5325371657215d6f452)

That last item also fits into my next category:

Place Name Direction Rd   ->   PNDirRd
NL340: MicHarNorRd_W -> MHNorRd_W
NL340: MicHarNorRd_E -> MHNorRd_E
NL361: StJosNorRd -> SJNorRd
NL363: EngHarWestRd -> EHWestRd

3-word names involving a water body, I generally kept the water body, and used initials for the bits describing just which Cove/Pond/Lake it is:
Foo Bar Lake Rd   ->   FBLakeRd
NL370: RedIndLakeRd -> RILakeRd
NL340: BlaDuckCoveRd -> BDCoveRd
NL410: WildCovePondRd -> WCPondRd
NL463: ClamBankCoveRd -> CBCoveRd
NL330: WhiWatPondRd -> WWPondRd (What's the source for this name? OSM has just "Gull Pond" with no generic road type; ESRI, Google & Shapefiles have no name.)

However, this got overridden by my next rule...

Old Foo Bar Rd   ->   OldFooRd
NL40: OldBroCoveRd -> OldBroRd
NL41: OldBroCoveRd -> OldBroRd
NL210: OldBaieEauRd_S -> OldBaieRd_S
NL210: OldBaieEauRd_N -> OldBaieRd_N
NL220: OldLorCoveRd -> OldLorRd

Finally, some changes that don't fall into these categories:
NL210: AnseAuLoopRd_W -> AnseLoopRd_W
NL210: AnseAuLoopRd_E -> AnseLoopRd_E
NL345: VirArmPoiRd -> VAPtRd (Originally went with VirArmRd, but changed it to distinguish from nearby Virgin Arm South Rd.)
NL320: NewWesValRd -> NewRd because I deemed New-Wes-Valley to be one (hyphenated) word.

NL320: added GloLn to break up a VISIBLE_DISTANCE segment.
NL403: FlatbayRd -> FlatBayRd
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on October 02, 2019, 02:55:47 am
4f62841: (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/4f62841e4d4f52cbbb6c6bcaf29288e6246397c6)
NL100: Flagged a few funky labels using grep. Zapped BeaRdSSide_S & BeaRdSSide_N as minor roads unnecessary to shaping or visible distance.  BeaRdNSide -> BRdNSide per the manual.
NL360: NWGanAccRd -> NWGAccRd. Heh. Having 3 words other than "Access" instead of 2 led me to do the opposite of what I did in the last post. :P

To discuss:
NL 330 & 332:
Should CarAccRd be HowAve? I don't see the Carmanville Access Rd moniker on any online maps or in shapefiles.

0fbd48c: (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/0fbd48ce687aed08b7d17d8ce29cfc305619bd57)
NL1:
@ LitHarE, OSM shows Little Harbour Access Rd; Truncating to LitHarRd as with the previous post. Just noting that Google shows this as another "MainRd".
Similar: NL361 had ForAccRd -- Forbay Access Rd per Google; Forebay Resource Rd per Bing. Left as-is.
Road names are hard to come by in NL; I'll take what I can get.
I don't suppose you found an official source to work from? I never did.

NL430:
This was one I did for cansph way back in the dark ages, when we used Google or Yahoo+CoordConvert for grabbing waypoints. Google's coords at the time differed wildly reality. I eventually noticed Yahoo was much better, and switched over (hence the +Goo/Yah note at MisCove. A lot of crap is still left in the file though. A run thru gisplunge should straighten coords out, and then on to pruning out points that aren't needed for shaping or visible distance.
I had this thing at the time about including every local road that had a local number in the shapefiles, and leaving them around in case a name ever came to light. Some do have names now, but many of these points are unnecessary and will be dropped.

Converted hidden points to visible where I found names:
+x04 -> JackLad
+x05 -> WhiHilRd
+x06 replaced with SprHillRd
+x16 -> GrosMor
+x430-15-01 -> EastLink
+x18 -> GrePt
+x21 -> BroPtRd
+x22 -> GraRd
+x430-21_N -> SunDr
+x33 -> CliPt
+x430-26-01 -> ZincMineRd
+x34 replaced with DeerCove_S
+x430-56-01_S -> MatRd_S; +x430-56-01_N -> MatRd_N; +x430-56-02_S -> QuiRd_S; +x430-56-02_N -> QuiRd_N (These will most likely get trimmed in a future pass anyway.)
+x64 -> PisBay
+x430-61-01 -> WilMitRd
BAM! And with that, all the original "local route number" hidden points have names now.

"Style Guide" stuff:
WLink -> WestLink

Added to break up visible_distance segments:
MillBro
DeerCove_N

Shaping:
DHNAccRd added
3miRock (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.002864&lon=-57.733594) replaced with ThrMileRock (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.010467&lon=-57.732216). Incidentally, these "Loop Road"s that I see in OSM seem suspect, and I can't corroborate in other sources. Sticking with a truncated place name.
+x27 deleted
+x39 was way out of whack; replaced with 2 new points
+x56 coords tweaked pending a future pass thru gisplunge

Changed labels, finding something more "definitive" than the truncated place names I was using:
Bel_S -> BelRd_S
Bel_N -> BelRd_N
EddCoveW -> EddCWRd
Sources are divided on whether CasRivS represents Castors River or Castors River South. Found this (https://www.google.com/maps/@50.9208913,-56.9484799,3a,15y,252.68h,89.45t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sPwZiCdzxnLhHYb_Snw_wYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40). Leaving as-is.
CasRivN -> BarHarRd
+x430-54 replaced with WhaRd
BearCove replaced with ChaRd
+x430-54-05 -> MainRd, even though I'm suspicious of it. It will most likely get snipped in a future pass anyway.

f4931a5: (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/f4931a56e4c42e7d4407525f078530e4e19ce590)
Flagged some hidden points so gisplunge will attempt to position them at the nearest road junction, rather than THE closest point in the shapefiles:
x03x x09x x43x x48x x65x x69x

More visible names for hidden points:
+x30 -> ArcPP. The existing "TheArcPP" point was not at a road, so it becomes the new +x30, and slides NE  bit.
+x39 -> LBPResRd. This breaks up a VISIBLE_DISTANCE segment.

More Visible Distance:
+x19 -> SSEth & +xx20 -> WesBro, breaking up the segment ending at HawBay and improving shaping a little in the process. In combination with that, slid the shaping point near Sally's Cove SW a bit.
EddCove added. Our VISIBLE_DISTANCE segment gets about 3 mi shorter. Slid +x54 W a bit.

871d4fe: (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/871d4fef62cebf4872325431658494683117ee2e)
GISplunge neatly tidied up all those janky waypoints. B0rked a few others in the process which I manually fixed. Intersecting routes changed to match.

Next steps:
Pruning overdense points, checking labels.
Then on to 137 more routes which will at least be in considerably better shape to start out :)
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on October 03, 2019, 09:01:50 pm
b071cc0 (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/b071cc0995a30ad14b94062eb65bace781622a46) & 1940ab5: (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/1940ab5feba1faaa1f67e53e2e5c920480905e1d)
Deletions & labels.
Left in some points that aren't strictly necessary for shaping/distance, but serve decent-sized communities, e.g. SunDr & OldEddRd. OTOH, I zapped some stuff like BarHarRd & SavCove_S.
Discuss.

Road names are hard to come by in NL; I'll take what I can get.
I don't suppose you found an official source to work from? I never did.
The 3 places I'll most commonly look, OSM, shapefiles and street blade signs, will frequently have no names. Contradictions between sources are fairly common.

3miRock (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.002864&lon=-57.733594) replaced with ThrMileRock (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.010467&lon=-57.732216). Incidentally, these "Loop Road"s that I see in OSM seem suspect, and I can't corroborate in other sources. Sticking with a truncated place name.
Rethinking this a bit...

(OTOH, shapefiles can be wrong too. Percy's Lane? (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8522,-57.8066808,3a,15y,345.19h,85.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXuBzPMGBXI13O4KSvi0HPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

The question becomes, how much trust do we put in OSM's road names (particularly with common items such as Main Rd or Loop Rd) in the absence of any other data to confirm or refute? Do we just take OSM as gospel until something else comes along to contradict it?
Pending the answer to this, I've gone no-build on a few point labels for the time being:
ThrMileRock could become LoopRd_Thr (?)
PorCre could become MainRd_Por
ForPt could become... LoopRd_StB, or LoopRd_For...
GreIslCove_W & GreIslCove_E could become MainRd_S & MainRd_N
GreIslBro could become MainRd_Gre

Truncated place name:
Perhaps MisCove could become MainSt_Mis, if this (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3020293,-56.7278399,3a,15.3y,234.27h,83.36t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sg3Kol720P5gdQl1MYPTeSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) is close enough to call it.
Mistaken Cove (http://www4.rncan.gc.ca/search-place-names/unique/AAOLN) is our truncated nearby town name, which seems to override using a truncated distant town name (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3145549,-56.7078507,3a,43.4y,237.36h,88.43t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sZIrnIaZG0Kxf07WUYsV68w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: si404 on October 17, 2019, 09:31:35 am
No pull request yet, pending potential discussion.
This all seems fine.
Quote
NL330: WhiWatPondRd -> WWPondRd (What's the source for this name? OSM has just "Gull Pond" with no generic road type; ESRI, Google & Shapefiles have no name.)
Typically Mapquest or Bing or some other tile mapping we don't have now. This goes for any label that isn't OSM (in any system michih!) - go through the tile mapping to see if there is one. Then try GMSV.

This one, however, is just wrong. What I've done is take the name of the track at the shaping point to the west and then relabeled the wrong point with that name!
Should CarAccRd be HowAve?
Yes. I think what has happened is that OSM has found out the proper (rather than the informed-guess descriptive name either them or I made up) name since drafting.
The question becomes, how much trust do we put in OSM's road names (particularly with common items such as Main Rd or Loop Rd) in the absence of any other data to confirm or refute? Do we just take OSM as gospel until something else comes along to contradict it?
In the absence of other data, I guess go with it, as it is actually some data - as you said "Road names are hard to come by in NL; I'll take what I can get." - which is better than nothing.

But at the same time, OSM isn't the most reliable source, and so contradictions may refute it. Add in that all the sources seem to conflict (go with blades, then shapefiles, then OSM in a most-to-least reliable) and it's a mess :pan:
Quote
Truncated place name:
Perhaps MisCove could become MainSt_Mis, if this (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3020293,-56.7278399,3a,15.3y,234.27h,83.36t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sg3Kol720P5gdQl1MYPTeSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) is close enough to call it.
Isn't that referring to the road into Flower's Cove off the road that loops off NL430?
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on October 17, 2019, 12:41:41 pm
Green items are in 51ba293 (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/51ba2931c8bce7c1cb62447a54c457b91f6e98ae).

No pull request yet, pending potential discussion.
This all seems fine.
Just the one commit (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/45b9d5b397793de87480f59b1b0ad99cfd4bad86) I'd linked just before that comment, or also the other commits downthread, everything in my NL branch (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/compare/master...yakra:NL)?

Quote
NL330: WhiWatPondRd -> WWPondRd (What's the source for this name? OSM has just "Gull Pond" with no generic road type; ESRI, Google & Shapefiles have no name.
Typically Mapquest or Bing or some other tile mapping we don't have now. This goes for any label that isn't OSM (in any system michih!) - go through the tile mapping to see if there is one. Then try GMSV.
Yep. That's about the same approach I'm taking here. ("Take what I can get", n'at.) Except giving blade signs in GMSV higher priority, as you noted elsewhere.

This one, however, is just wrong. What I've done is take the name of the track at the shaping point to the west and then relabeled the wrong point with that name!
Aah yes, I see that now. Changed to plain GullPond (with no generic road type), lacking anything more concrete. Made the shaping point visible, as the new WWPondRd.

Should CarAccRd be HowAve?
Yes.
Changed in NL330 & NL332.

I think what has happened is that OSM has found out the proper (rather than the informed-guess descriptive name either them or I made up) name since drafting.
My suspicion is that there are a lot of these informed-guess descriptive names about on OSM, particularly with Main Rd & Loop Rd.

The question becomes, how much trust do we put in OSM's road names (particularly with common items such as Main Rd or Loop Rd) in the absence of any other data to confirm or refute? Do we just take OSM as gospel until something else comes along to contradict it?
In the absence of other data, I guess go with it, as it is actually some data - as you said "Road names are hard to come by in NL; I'll take what I can get." - which is better than nothing.
My thoughts too. I'll review the items I noted in red above (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1920.msg15910#msg15910), and make a decision.

But at the same time, OSM isn't the most reliable source, and so contradictions may refute it. Add in that all the sources seem to conflict (go with blades, then shapefiles, then OSM in a most-to-least reliable) and it's a mess :pan:
A good way to prioritize reliability, yes. With the caveat that OSM can be a bit more wibbly-wobbly if/when it disagrees with other sources.

Quote
Perhaps MisCove could become MainSt_Mis, if this (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3020293,-56.7278399,3a,15.3y,234.27h,83.36t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sg3Kol720P5gdQl1MYPTeSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) is close enough to call it.
Isn't that referring to the road into Flower's Cove off the road that loops off NL430?
Looking at the link again, at the angle of the blade sign, it looks like it's facing traffic (yeah, it's on the same post as the stop sign) stopped on that road, identifying the parallel (to the sign) main road.
OTOH, over here it's signed as Grenfell Ave (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2994126,-56.7279504,3a,15y,305.16h,85.67t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s84CDVlRw55yYydIc3JYdSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40). So even if it is Main St at point A, it's Grenfell Ave at point B.
I don't have a good handle on what separates one community from another in NL, or where road names will change. If the name can change in that short distance, I no longer feel confident proposing MainSt_Mis; it's a bit of a stretch.
Having a signed road name here, I'll just add a GreAve point, and remove MisCove as it's no longer needed for shaping, sidestepping the truncated place name issue.
Coords from the shapefiles (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.299756&lon=-56.72764) are a we bit off the OSM trace, but match ESRI WorldStreetMap and Goog Satellite.
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: si404 on October 17, 2019, 01:18:14 pm
Just the one commit (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/45b9d5b397793de87480f59b1b0ad99cfd4bad86) I'd linked just before that comment, or also the other commits downthread, everything in my NL branch (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/compare/master...yakra:NL)
At the time I wrote it, just that commit. At the time I write this, all the other commits too!
Title: Re: cannl:Newfoundland & Labrador Provincial Highways
Post by: yakra on October 17, 2019, 01:24:54 pm
4ffe377: (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/4ffe37750fa18abd62cfe17185e5091f184aea36)
On "In the absence of other data, go with OSM" grounds, the following all get implemented:
ThrMileRock could become LoopRd_Thr (?)
PorCre could become MainRd_Por
ForPt could become... LoopRd_StB, or LoopRd_For...
GreIslCove_W & GreIslCove_E could become MainRd_S & MainRd_N
GreIslBro could become MainRd_Gre
ForPt becomes LoopRd_For.
MainRd_S & MainRd_N on "The direction letter refers to the relative position of the intersection along the route whose file is being made. US90_S is the southern of the two US 90 junctions along US 25, which runs S-N" (http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php) grounds.