Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Completed Highway Systems Threads => Topic started by: yakra on January 02, 2016, 03:56:12 am
-
Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:30 pm on CHM forum
Canonical Shapefiles:
NRN_MB_6_0_ROADSEG, dated 2016-06-06
(As opposed to the 6.0 shapefiles dated 2013-04-11 or 2013-11-04... :o)
This post uses used nonstandard color coding (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=62.msg1123#msg1123):
red: rough draft done & under review
mgta: Now: ready for gisplunge / Was: ready, except nomenclature not sorted
prpl: Now: gisplunged; needs review / Was: nomenclature sorted; ready for GISplunge
blue: ready to commit
cyan: committed
grn: live in hb
Route List
CANSPH:
Batch 1: 6 10 29 59 60 75 83 101
Children:
Batch 1: 10ADau 10AEth 10ASwa 10AFli 83ASwa
The Rest:
Batch 2: 2 3 3ACle 4 5 5ADau 7 8 9 9ASel
Batch 3: 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19
Batch 4: 20 20ADau 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Batch 5: 30 31 32 34 39 41 42 44 45 49
Batch 5: 50 52 57 67 68 77 89 110 190
Each batch: save all files, to ensure terminal CRLF
ToDo / Notepad / Checklist
##A routes: NH-style or ME-style WRT cities and suffixes? (ME style.)
Final Cleanup Checklist (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg4409#msg4409)
MB2:
Check for road names:
+X473519 -> 164W
+X122992 -> 38N
+X991418 -> 152W
+X380889 -> 150W
+X234613 -> 42N
+X866568 ->39N
+X507316: move NE to GilSchRd, Culross
+X742347 -> 50N (replaced; SegDumped)
+X212134 -> 12W
+X982131 -> 9W
MB340: This *is* 340 and not 344, right? (Right!)
MB3:
gisplunge SK/MB. Or QGIS it.
Check for road names:
+X1 -> 159W
+X426434 -> 18N
+X942566 -> 15N
+X475612 -> 56W
+X350035 -> 46W_N
+X338928 -> 46W_S
MB458: Is the west one 458 at all? (See also MB21 MB23) GIS and GMSV say no. Renamed 153W.
MB458: Is the east one 458 or 340? (458!)
MB5:
Check for road names:
BisJump -> 84W
+X669167 -> 83W
34N: Not MB235 per GMSV, GIS, hwy map
+X107847 -> 36N
+X750452 -> 42N
75N: Not MB465 per GMSV, OSM, GIS, hwy map
+X799794 doesn't exist!
+X764749 -> 88W
+X641020 ->106W
+X408505 -> 141N
+X341469 -> 146N
+X218666 -> 139W
SarCSRd -> DanSpotRd
Delete MouAve on 16-plex? (Hell, it can stay.)
MB482: Right province? Single point with border? (Right province. GIS, Bing, and OSM agree with my coords. Two points. Signage from the MB side shows SK10 continuing west, and MB5 only to the right from NB MB482. Prolly a matter of convenience & simplicity. The weird bit is that per GIS, MB ends at MB482. The road to the border has no RTNUMBER1, and L_STNAME_C = "10 Highway". I'm pretty confident this is an error.
MB6:
GIS: Does Railway Ave connect, near 1St? Yes; replaced.
Possible realignments, SegDump oldest shapefiles:
• WilLakeRd +X71 (out of tolerance) / 63eeba5f7e9a4db19c6d3b6dd7be772e-12177.wpt = Paydirt
• +x82 / 63eeba5f7e9a4db19c6d3b6dd7be772e-12176.wpt = Paydirt
~ +X385446 will not gisplunge; use OSM
• +x108 (or is it rail? check old maps; MyTopo) / Nothing.
• S of SealRd (or is it rail? check old maps; MyTopo) / Nothing.
NMPs: MB67 MB411
MB8: Check north end in GIS. (Extended!)
MB10:
MB5_E & MB5_W -> MB5_S & MB5_N? (Check GMSV.) (E&W.)
MB10A/83 label OK? (OK.)
realignments / OldHwy points near +x46?
• Oldest shapefiles show modern alignment. No L_STNAME_C in latest files.
• MyTopo - inconclusive
RicAve via QGIS
+X7 -> 82N
MB355: coords from OSM
+x18 -> 102N
unhide +X30
NorShoRd: check GIS for name: None
LakeAudy: check GIS for name: None
Ochre River Trail, S of +X39
MoonLake
unhide +x1nww
194N
MinkCre -> 164N? check GIS for name
unhide +X880219
MB10ASwa: coords from OSM
unhide +X250842
BriRd
unhide +x74nww
unhide +x75nww (SnapJct -> a bit north) Never mind.
BatRd
MB287: coords from OSM
potential visible point S of RocLakeRd; check GIS. No luck.
MB10AFli_E: coords from OSM
MB/SK: verify in QGIS
GMSV: MB5_E MB5_W MinkCre 194N
MB10ASwa:
+X269441 -> 215N
Is that MB83 or MB83A? (83A)
Goddammit (https://www.google.com/maps/@52.105029,-101.271006,3a,23.7y,119.55h,86.98t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sLlBrQPlh6WE8zit5coWd-w!2e0) (All signage at MB10_S / MB83 shows MB10A)
MB12:
check out MB304/500 for useless-plex: None; both rtes terminate here. Label stays as is.
check out MB203/404 for useless-plex: Yes, per GIS and GMSV. Label stays as is.
reposition MB15/101 junction: MB15 jct is fine. MB12 goes nowhere MB101. This comment doesn't appear to be intended for another route, with nothing else intersecting MB15/101. Total Nonsense?
MB17: +X732221 -> 4W
MB19: Points in correct order?
MB20:
Points in correct order?
UkrRd: Is it MB273? (Probably not.) No. Renamed 168N.
+X824572 -> MalRd
+X305150: unhide/rehide
+X349966 doesn't exist!
MB21:
RivAve -> GovRdE
+X772061 -> GovRdW
+X234613 -> 42N
ToMB259 = Rivers Rd?
Is SouEndRd MB477? No. Renamed 93N.
Something about (old?) MB458? (See also MB3.) Routes nowhere near each other. Looks like this should have been put under MB23, and the "MB21" reference under MB3 was a typo.
MB23:
MB458: or is it 340? (See also MB3) 458 only.
+X421881 -> 28N
+X602663 -> 52W
+X553551 -> 51W
ArcRd: correct per GIS
ChMes: Not MB431, right? Right.
Fix MB59 jct in both files
MB25: +X436196 doesn't exist!
MB26: Mac -> 71N
MB29:
USA/MB -> ND/MB
Designation changes?
• GIS as-is. (May not be reliable)
• Hwy Map: southern bits of "MB75" are not PTH, but rather PR
• GMSV: southern bits of "MB75" confirmed signed as MB200
Wikipedia:
• "In 2012, PTH 75 was re-routed to connect directly with Interstate 29, thus eliminating PTH 29." (MB29) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Highway_29)
• "The old stretch of PTH 75 through Emerson is now part of an extended Provincial Road 200." (MB75) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Highway_75)
• (MB200) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba_Provincial_Road_200)
MB32: +X978219 -> 21W
MB34:
+X942566 -> 15N
+X795598 -> 64W
MB39:
+X279846 isn't in the shapefiles
X809743: unhide/rehide
+X906577 isn't in the shapefiles
MB42:
+X846515 -> 96N
TheDr
MB44:
points to label near Rennie?
+X626995 WildGooPl CadLake: No luck; nothing to change
+X410507 doesn't exist!
MB50: +X361242 isn't in the shapefiles
MB59:
USA/MB -> MN/MB
+X197763 doesn't exist!
MB23
34N: L_STNAME_C = "303 Road"; RTNUMBER1 = "None"; not labeled on official hwy map
Rte17 for extra credit? No, not shown in GIS.
MB12_N: what does GIS look like here anyway? SegDump it!
MB68:
Alignment NE of MB278 is right, right? Right, per GMSV. OSM & GIS outdated.
+X230108 -> LonLake
+X910188 isn't in the shapefiles; not legible in GMSV
+X664429: no nearby names found; leave hidden
+X409429 -> DogCre
Old514 is signed as such in the field
MB75:
Removed from MB201; relocated onto southern extension of MB29
CarSt_S & CarSt_N: MB246? No. GIS has MB246 ending at Caron St.
MB83:
at MB10 Swan River: alignment, and... MB83A?
43Rd = ROAD 34 N? No, looks more like 44N.
66N: L_STNAME_C = "441 Highway"; RTNUMBER1 = "None"; not on official hwy map
OldMB589 -> 142N (L_STNAME_C = "589 Highway"; RTNUMBER1 = "None"; not on official hwy map)
OldMB591 -> 152N (L_STNAME_C = "591 Highway"; RTNUMBER1 = "None"; not on official hwy map)
Ken -> MainSt_Ken; MainSt -> MainSt_Bir
+x53 +x54
MB1 plex
MB16/TCHYel: synced to newly GISplunged TCHYel
realignment at MB16_W
+x164Rd
MB83ASwa:
Check GMSV for existence (clearly exists)
Check GIS for existence (bypass still not shown)
GISplunge: try RTNUMBER1 = 83
MB101:
MB221 -> 50
MB7 -> 60
MB190:
NE end? Exactly where I had it.
Is any of this in GIS yet? "Nothing yet, sir!"
-
MB83: at MB10 Swan River: alignment, and... MB83A?
MB83A (Swan River):
Check GMSV for existence (clearly exists)
Check GIS for existence
FWIW, not only did I see MB 83A signs in the field, on one of my two visits to Swan River in 2013 and 2015, I clinched the route.
-
Nomenclature
42W / Rd42W / Rd42 / 42Rd nomenclature
• does not begin with MB
• does not begin with +x or +X
• contains numeral(s)
Total sans TCH: 26 / 0 / 79 / 7
Total with TCH: 26 / 0 / 93 / 9
Look over false positives. Including 42Rd style labels, as these may not be survey line roads
Put the genuinely questionable ones in the notes in the OP
-----
TCHMai: 0 / 0 / 11 / 2
Rd161 137Rd Rd100 Rd78 Rd70 Rd64 Rd59 Rd28 Rd20 Rd19 32Rd Mile54 Rd26 Rd86
TCHPor: 0 / 0 / 1 / 0
Rd34
TCHYel: 0 / 0 / 2 / 0
Rd149 Rd50
MB2: 8 / 0 / 2 / 0
164W 38N 152W 150W 42N 39N Rd88 Rd50 12W 9W
MB3: 8 / 0 / 1 / 0
159W 153W 18N 15N 56W 46W_N 46W_S Rd34 19N
MB5: 10 / 0 / 6 / 0
84W 83W Rd17 Rd34 36N 42N Rd70 Rd75 Rd111 88W 106W 141N 146N 139W 146W Rd156
MB6: 0 / 0 / 2 / 1
Rd15 513Rd Rd1
MB7: 0 / 0 / 2 / 0
Rd101 Rd122
MB8: 0 / 0 / 2 / 0
Rd88 Rd136
MB9: 0 / 0 / 1 / 0
Rd107
MB10: 0 / 0 / 7 / 0
Rd137 Rd201 Rd204 Rd233 Rd247 Rd252 Rd253
MB12: 0 / 0 / 5 / 1
Rd77 Rd12 Rd54 402Rd Rd49 Rd25
MB13: 0 / 0 / 1 / 0
Rd54
MB14: 0 / 0 / 1 / 1
1Rd Rd11
MB15: 0 / 0 / 1 / 0
Rd59
MB17: 0 / 0 / 3 / 0
Rd94 Rd98 Rd109
MB19: 0 / 0 / 1 / 0
Rd90
MB20: 0 / 0 / 8 / 0
Rd142 Rd151 Rd184 Rd194 Rd195 Rd206 Rd127 Rd129
MB23: 0 / 0 / 4 / 0
Rd26 Rd25 Rd71 Rd41
MB26: 0 / 0 / 1 / 0
Rd30
MB31: 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Mile8
MB34: 0 / 0 / 3 / 0
Rd19 Rd72 Rd77
MB45: 0 / 0 / 8 / 0
Rd120 Rd117 Rd112 Rd143 Rd111 Rd108 Rd130 Rd115
MB50: 0 / 0 / 4 / 0
Rd100 Rd105 Rd119 Rd84
MB59: 0 / 0 / 3 / 0
Rd34 Rd32 Rd34
MB68: 0 / 0 / 5 / 0
Rd23 Rd128_W Rd10 Rd128_E Rd129
MB75: 0 / 0 / 2 / 0
Rd2 Rd33
MB83: 0 / 0 / 6 / 4
Rd53 Rd54 33Rd 43Rd Rd66 Rd72 Rd73 164Rd 136Rd Rd202
-
MB83: at MB10 Swan River: alignment, and... MB83A?
MB83A (Swan River):
Check GMSV for existence (clearly exists)
Check GIS for existence
FWIW, not only did I see MB 83A signs in the field, on one of my two visits to Swan River in 2013 and 2015, I clinched the route.
Amusingly enough, MB83ASwa is the first file ready for upload. :)
-
TCH Cleanup
TCHBra:
recenter points, including MB10
only +X01 & 66thSt from GISplunge
TCHMai:
resync intersections with child routes
delete ThoDr?
nomenclature
MB100_W +-> 318 (it's signed now)
Check for other numbered exits
trimmed out overdense points in Winnipeg and Portage La Prairie
MB83_N recentered
TCHMin:
recenter a few points
GISplunge
TCHPor:
splunge
nomenclature
labels
endpoints
TCHWin:
Boom. Done.
TCHYel:
nomenclature
West of MB83
• just some shapers
MB83 plex
• MB83_N realignment (Edit OSM)
• MB45: RTNUMBER1 = 16
• The rest: RTNUMBER1 = 83
MB83 to MB10
• on
• MB21: coords from OSM
• on
MB10 plex
• MB10/16A: sync to TCHMin & MB10
• MB355: sync to MB10 (coords from OSM)
• 9thAve: RTNUMBER1 = 16
• MB10_S: sync to MB10
East of MB10
• Boom. Done.
-
Some quick comments on the initial in-dev canmb routes just added to the HB. I focused on the endpoints of the routes I've traveled (all but MB10AEth and MB60), to update my draft list file entries file. I didn't check intermediate points, other than some on MB 83 for which my coverage is incomplete.
MB10AFli -- MB10_W and MB10_E => MB10_N and MB10_S, to reflect the nominal direction of MB10 as it loops around Flin Flon
MB75 -- MN/MB => ND/MB
-
MB10AFli -- MB10_W and MB10_E => MB10_N and MB10_S, to reflect the nominal direction of MB10 as it loops around Flin Flon
Aah, but MB10A itself is east-west (https://www.google.com/maps/@54.7697123,-101.8370392,3a,19.2y,287.03h,88.03t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sW2R28a6bdqEWzuEV9WfW7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)!
MB75 -- MN/MB => ND/MB
MB29:
USA/MB -> ND/MB
Now how did I manage that?... :-[
Fixed in my HighwayData repo.
-
GISplunge Bugs
This all worked perfectly well for years with my Ubuntu 10.04 compile, mumble grumble...
Last line not added to output file
In batch 2, affects mb.mb003acle.wpt, mb.mb004.wpt, and mb.mb009asel.wpt
These files are unmodified since Thanksgiving 2013.
This is likely a Unix/DOS terminating line feed issue. (https://github.com/yakra/tmtools/issues/10)
1.) Check original drafts for terminating line feeds in hex editor. (Yup. They're missing.)
2.) Re-saving these files in Pluma makes things work, and is a suitable workaround. No DIFF from 10.04 compile.
Segfault in CSV mode
Does mb.mb009asel.wpt trip it up specifically? (No.) Or, is it an issue upon reaching EOF? The latter? (Yes.) (https://github.com/yakra/tmtools/issues/11)
adding an extra line of whitespace @ EOF does not help
-
One comment on the second batch of files, re: north end of MB 8:
When I went up there in 2015, I saw an End MB 8 marker a few hundred feet north of the northern access to Hecla village, well short of road's end where you now have the route ending. A blurry GMSV image confirms my sighting. The End sign is around where the speed limit, and road quality, drop below rural PTH norms. So truncate MB 8 to Hec_N?
BTW, I saw no name on either Hecla access road, so I can't improve on Hec_N and Hec_S.
-
One comment on the second batch of files, re: north end of MB 8:
When I went up there in 2015, I saw an End MB 8 marker a few hundred feet north of the northern access to Hecla village, well short of road's end where you now have the route ending.
Interesting. My original draft of MB8 from Thanksgiving 2013 ended at Hec_N (maybe cuz OSM has the transition from the thicker orange secondary road trace to the thinner white local road trace only a tiny bit north of there?), but I wasn't 100% confident in that (maybe cuz Google showed the route continuing on farther?), and made a note to "Check north end in GIS". The shapefiles showed it going on to the end of the road in Gull Harbour, so I extended it.
A blurry GMSV image confirms my sighting.
Eh, it's not that blurry! :) (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1469124,-96.6519834,3a,57.1y,46.61h,78.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIBRY22zrcAQAVwyG_nJy0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
So truncate MB 8 to Hec_N?
Not really being able to pin down a more precise endpoint, and the original file having ended here, your suggestion sounds good.
Truncated in my HighwayData repo.
BTW, I saw no name on either Hecla access road, so I can't improve on Hec_N and Hec_S.
Nothing in GMSV; nothing in GIS. :(
-
Final Cleanup Checklist
Upload: 39
TCHMai 2 3 4 5 6 10 14 23 77 83 101
SK/MB coords: all but MB57
2 3 5 10 49 77
Labels containing '/' -- PTH/PR intersections: MB69/666
mb.mb002 MB22/250 -> MB22
mb.mb003 MB31/240 -> MB31
mb.mb014 MB30/332 -> MB30
Streets & Avenues: cardinal or ordinal? (MB10 has one of each)
mb.mb010 17St -> 17thSt
mb.mb083 2Ave -> 2ndAve
Look at OldMB##_X suffixes if I really want extra credit. (Or am I thinking of AB? Meh!)
Nothing to change
Labels containing "Spr"
mb.tchyel MB242Spr (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2344.msg8756#msg8756) <--kicking this can down the road until canmbs, Provincial Roads
Directional suffixes, EG MB6 MB236_W MB236_N
mb.mb005 MB274 -> MB274_E
mb.mb006 MB236_N (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.990226,-97.3212249,3a,15y,208.52h,88.25t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s7u-Eu6JAXsoPSyAsUn21Rg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) -> MB236
mb.mb006 MB236_W -> 67N (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9912197,-97.341415,3a,15.2y,129.38h,84.41t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sHcJqUaEqwkrz4ajUiqN9yQ!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41): compare 2016 vs earlier imagery. Downloaded? Apparently so. (http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/map/pdf/map2.pdf)
mb.mb023 MB422_N -> MB422
NMPs
mb.tchmai: MB10 +-> MB10_S
mb.mb004: resync MB9
mb.mb006: resync MB101
mb.mb010: resync MB1_W & MB1_E
mb.mb101: resync MB6 & exit 1
Operation Multiplex
Everything looks good
Datacheck
mb.mb039;X809743;;;LABEL_LOOKS_HIDDEN;
Everything else (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg4437#msg4437)
TCH carbon copies
Winnipeg route labels
-
SK/MB coords: all but MB57
Nothing to coordinate, other than the TCH routes (which we both coordinated some time ago). Not even the handful of in-dev SK routes reach the SK/MB border. Just set the MB route border points in the right places, and when the remaining SK routes get developed we can just pilfer your MB border point coordinates.
TCH carbon copies
Might be more efficient to save that until just before activation, so any updates before then need not be done in two files.
-
Nothing to coordinate, other than the TCH routes (which we both coordinated some time ago). Not even in-dev SK routes reach the SK/MB border. Just set the MB route border points in the right places, and when the remaining SK routes get developed we can just pilfer your MB border point coordinates.
Correct. This item is on the list because none of the in-dev SK routes reach the MB border. During my late-night post-GISplunge proofreading sessions, I mostly (probably) blindly replaced SK/MB coords to match the border points on your side -- which don't actually exist. In the interest of being overly anal, I want to go back thru and put the GISplunged coords back in. Rather than just have them be, you know, a very close approximation... :P So after a fashion, setting the border points in the right places is what I'll be doing. :)
Might be more efficient to save [TCH carbon copies] until just before activation, so any updates before then need not be done in two files.
Agreed. Hence this item being down near the bottom of the list.
-
On the final batch of routes in the preview system:
MB 30: MB14 => MB14/332
MB 31: MB3 => MB3/240
These are for consistency with how those points are labeled, respectively, in the MB 14 and MB 3 route files.
There might be similar inconsistencies in these or other route files. I'm flagging those only because they'll affect my own list file when I send in a cumulative update over the weekend.
-
There are bound to be more inconsistencies.
I actually changed up a few of these labels between my first and final drafts, but my search was by no means exhaustive.
I'd prefer to do the opposite, and err on the side of label brevity & cleanliness: If an intersection includes both a Provincial Trunk Highway (tier 4) and a Provincial Road (tier 5), just include the PTH in the label. Thus on MB14, MB30/332 -> MB30, and on MB3, MB31/240 -> MB31.
I will add a "labels containing '/'" search to the Final Cleanup Checklist (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg4409#msg4409). Also, I'd rather automate the search than do an eyeball scan thru every route. I'll be doing several similar "operations".
Any strong objections?
Edit: Only 3 instances to fix:
mb.mb002 MB22/250 -> MB22
mb.mb003 MB31/240 -> MB31
mb.mb014 MB30/332 -> MB30
-
As someone who likes (but doesn't always practice) simpler waypoint labels, I have no objection.
-
Datacheck
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/987
6 10 20 39 44 60
FPs:
mb.mb006;513Rd;LongPtRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;61.21
mb.mb006;MB60;ManRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.06
mb.mb006;StuGillRd;DavLogRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.86
mb.mb006;*OldMB6_D;*OldMB6_E;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;44.57
mb.mb006;MB373;FleDr;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.67
mb.mb010;DawBay;OveRivPP;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.91
mb.mb010;OveRivPP;MB60;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.53
mb.mb010;MB60;MB282;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;25.53
mb.mb010;MB287;RocLakeRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.27
mb.mb020;206N;127W;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.52
mb.mb039;GylPark;Isk;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.39
mb.mb039;Isk;ReedLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.46
mb.mb039;ReedLake;MB392;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;24.25
mb.mb039;MB596;MB6;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;28.13
mb.mb044;TamRd;WildGooPl;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.38
Edited:
mb.mb006;MB328;513Rd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;22.42
Add Gyp
New FP entry: mb.mb006;Gyp;513Rd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;20.36
mb.mb006;NorCroBay;StuGillRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.94
Add BufLake
New FP entry: mb.mb006;NorCroBay;BufLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.62
mb.mb006;DavLogRd;WilLakeRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.70
SegDump: LitLimLake (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.742487&lon=-99.316750) is 77% 12175-5, 23% 12175-4
mb.mb006;MB39;MB373;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;18.82
Add Man
New FP entry: mb.mb006;MB39;Man;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.03
mb.mb006;FleDr;SasRapPP;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;18.14
Add SetLake
Replace +X97 with Rd2
New FP entry: mb.mb006;FleDr;SetLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.42
mb.mb006;PisFalPP;MB375;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;26.53
Add JoeyLake_S
Replace +X108 with JoeyLake_N
New FP entry: mb.mb006;PisFalPP;JoeyLake_S;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;16.16
mb.mb006;MB375;SealRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.61
Replace +x112 with OspLake
Relocate +x115; GISplunge
Replace +x116 & SealRd with BirMine
New FP entry: mb.mb006;OspLake;BirMine;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.06
mb.mb010;MoonLake;137N;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.21
BeaRid added (coords from QGIS)
New FP entry: mb.mb010;MoonLake;BeaRid;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.34
mb.mb060;MB10;MB327;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;68.31
+X967153 replaced with *OldMB60_A & *OldMB60_B
+X243811 replaced with *OldMB60_C & *OldMB60_D
+X241599 replaced with OscPtRd
EastMosPor added
mb.mb060;MB327;MB6;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;27.00
DenPt added (coords from QGIS)
KawLake added (coords from QGIS)
reposition & splunge +X761260
6 new FP entries:
mb.mb060;MB10;*OldMB60_A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.34
mb.mb060;*OldMB60_D;OscPtRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;15.83
mb.mb060;OscPtRd;EastMosPor;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;12.04
mb.mb060;EastMosPor;MB327;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;19.50
mb.mb060;DenPt;KawLake;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;11.09
mb.mb060;KawLake;MB6;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;14.74
-
canmb is ready for peer review.
A couple notes:
• MB1, MB16, and their children are carbon copies of TCHMai, TCHYel, and their children. I'm saving adding these files till just before activation, so any edits to these routes needn't be done in two files. To that end, you can consider this a call for peer review of the TCH in Manitoba too. :)
• Winnipeg has a system of numbered city routes. (These could possibly become their own small Tier 5 system in the future.) I've followed Bickendan's original labeling convention from the TCH and cansph routes, and used "Rte42" style labels. I'm perfectly fine with this nomenclature (vice, say, Win42 or something); "Route 42" seems to be how these are referred to, and the word "Route" is even included (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.8868137,-97.0721074,3a,24.4y,27.89h,92.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQh2L_d0cVmIHsmAqHeo_ag!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in reassurance shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.818676,-97.1595934,3a,15y,287.38h,92.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2fuEEqw_2Iu3ndtJ3O_iUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). So yeah, I'll go ahead with this labeling convention unless there's some strong pushback; just thought I would bring it to the group's attention.
-
TCHMai:
Rte85 -> Rte85_E
Rte135 -> Rte135_W or Rte135/150
-
Putting out another call for peer review here.
-
It's the first time I have a detailed look on Canadian systems and I'm surprised about some wp labels, e.g.
67N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.991364&lon=-97.341183
The road seems to have number 236 according to OSM and GM but I couldn't find signs on GSV. However, I also couldn't find anything signed "67N". What's the source for "67N" and what's the story behind using name like this?
MB4:
Shouldn't MB9 be called MB9/9A? The same wp @M9 is called MB4/9A. It's called MB9_N at MB9 which should be MB9/9A too.
MB5A:
Shouldn't MB5_N and MB5_S be called MB5/10_N and MB5/10_S?
MB6:
Exceeds limits just north of 513Rd according to OSM which is our source, isn't it?
Exceeds limits north of MB60 according to OSM/GM/GS
-
It's the first time I have a detailed look on Canadian systems and I'm surprised about some wp labels, e.g.
67N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.991364&lon=-97.341183
The road seems to have number 236 according to OSM and GM but I couldn't find signs on GSV. However, I also couldn't find anything signed "67N". What's the source for "67N" and what's the story behind using name like this?
MB4:
Shouldn't MB9 be called MB9/9A? The same wp @M9 is called MB4/9A. It's called MB9_N at MB9 which should be MB9/9A too.
MB5A:
Shouldn't MB5_N and MB5_S be called MB5/10_N and MB5/10_S?
MB6:
Exceeds limits just north of 513Rd according to OSM which is our source, isn't it?
Exceeds limits north of MB60 according to OSM/GM/GS
Those odd labels and waypoints reflect when GM, not OSM, was our primary source drafting our datasets, and very clear that back then, GM's data was incomplete and the fidelity has increased quite a bit since then.
-
67N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.991364&lon=-97.341183 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.991364&lon=-97.341183)
The road seems to have number 236 according to OSM and GM but I couldn't find signs on GSV. However, I also couldn't find anything signed "67N". What's the source for "67N" and what's the story behind using name like this?
Sure looks like it's signed "Road 67N" to me. (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9912034,-97.3409652,3a,15y,264.93h,87.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJuecdJ43dcWUB0eVx-5jkg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
However this (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9918281,-97.3419263,3a,50.8y,187.59h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSaXERjuLCrWYhTw5lpN-mw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)tells me it should probably be labelled "MB236_W".
-
67N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.991364&lon=-97.341183
The road seems to have number 236 according to OSM and GM but I couldn't find signs on GSV. However,
I noticed that too. Checking provincial maps from the ministry of transportation, that section of MB236 appears to have been decommissioned. Historic GMSV imagery shows MB236 signage removed between July 2014 and July 2016.
I also couldn't find anything signed "67N". What's the source for "67N" and what's the story behind using name like this?
A good question to ask, yes. I should have thought to put this in the notes upthread...
Manitoba has a province-wide numbering pattern for its survey section line roads. #E or #W is for a north-south road's position relative to Meridian Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.1330388,-97.4597844,3a,19.9y,156.58h,86.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1v2buZ2V_2RUqntTo3LhNA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). #N is for an east-west road's position relative to the 49th parallel.
The local jurisdictions responsible for signing these aren't consistent in how they sign them. I've seen signage such as 131W, RD 100 W, ROAD 70 WEST, MILE 54 E, ROAD 26, ROAD 86E, 152 W, 75N Rd, RD 136N, etc. Accordingly, the first drafts of the WPTs had quite a mishmash of label styles. I decided to use a consistent labeling format for these province-wide, and after thinking about it a bit decided on using the "67N" style. It gets the most information across (relative to the grid numbering pattern) in the fewest characters.
The good thing about this system is that if I can find a road's position in the grid relative to something else I do see marked or signed, I have a visible waypoint label if I need one.
Compare section line roads in Oklahoma.
MB4:
Shouldn't MB9 be called MB9/9A? The same wp @M9 is called MB4/9A.
Two route numbers in a label are permitted, but not required. I find that sometimes it makes sense to include two of them, and sometimes not. I generally, but not always, trend toward more simple (fewer characters) labels. I don't like to include both parent and child route numbers together in a label; IMO it's just kinda ugly, a bit redundant/extraneous; not really adding needed info at that point. MB9 trumps MB9A.
It's called MB9_N at MB9 which should be MB9/9A too.
I assume you meant "at MB9A" (MB9ASel).
As MB9A is a child route of MB9, I'm following the usual convention of child routes, bannered routes, etc., and having the waypoints at both termini just list the parent route, and a cardinal direction.
MB5A:
Shouldn't MB5_N and MB5_S be called MB5/10_N and MB5/10_S?
I don't like to include both a slash (ie, two route numbers) and a directional suffix together in a waypoint label; I prefer to keep labels shorter/cleaner. So, in situations like this where two routes leave together at both ends of a multiplex (and a directional suffix is thus required) I'll just list the primary route. Thus, MB5_N & MB5_S.
Edit: DERP! I read your post too fast, and didn't notice that this was for MB5A. So, in this case, the point labeling is a simple case of following the convention for labeling endpoints of child routes.
MB6:
Exceeds limits just north of 513Rd according to OSM which is our source, isn't it?
If I zoom all the way in in WPTedit, I see that this is still within tolerance. *Tightly* within tolerance, but it's in there.
However: canmb isn't based on coords from OSM, but rather, from the GeoBase shapefiles.
Here's a trace dumped from the shapefiles. It more closely matches Google and Bing:
51259-29 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.039730&lon=-98.828502
51259-28 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.040197&lon=-98.828325
51259-27 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.040763&lon=-98.828031
51259-26 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.047296&lon=-98.825513
51259-25 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.047754&lon=-98.825424
51259-24 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.047952&lon=-98.825277
51259-23 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.048177&lon=-98.825262
51259-22 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.049084&lon=-98.824937
51259-21 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.049830&lon=-98.824788
51259-20 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.050235&lon=-98.824758
51259-19 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.051089&lon=-98.824798
51259-18 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.051980&lon=-98.825013
51259-17 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.052897&lon=-98.825360
51259-16 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.053374&lon=-98.825489
51259-15 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.054813&lon=-98.826038
51259-14 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.055290&lon=-98.826240
51259-13 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.055767&lon=-98.826501
51259-12 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.056253&lon=-98.826630
51259-11 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.058736&lon=-98.827598
51259-10 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.059752&lon=-98.828002
51259-9 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.060256&lon=-98.828278
51259-8 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.069315&lon=-98.831832
51259-7 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.069729&lon=-98.831991
51259-6 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.070133&lon=-98.832062
51259-5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.070790&lon=-98.832308
51259-4 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.071051&lon=-98.832467
51259-3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.071573&lon=-98.832655
51259-2 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.071951&lon=-98.832858
51259-1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.072589&lon=-98.833103
Exceeds limits north of MB60 according to OSM/GM/GS
Visibly within the highlight line in WPTedit with OSM imagery, with even more wiggle room.
Sure looks like it's signed "Road 67N" to me. (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9912034,-97.3409652,3a,15y,264.93h,87.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJuecdJ43dcWUB0eVx-5jkg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
However this (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.9918281,-97.3419263,3a,50.8y,187.59h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSaXERjuLCrWYhTw5lpN-mw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)tells me it should probably be labelled "MB236_W".
I see that particular shot doesn't have imagery from 2016 available. Look around the area from some other angles, and you'll see signage was removed between 2014 & 2016. The provincial map from the MOT also indicates it was decommissioned. I had MB236 labels in an earlier draft, but determind that route number is gonzo at this location.
Those odd labels and waypoints reflect when GM, not OSM, was our primary source drafting our datasets, and very clear that back then, GM's data was incomplete and the fidelity has increased quite a bit since then.
Not quite -- The labels, I've explained above. I've gone thru everything with a fine-tooth comb and given it all a pretty big reworking.
As far as waypoint coords, that's all based off of the shapefiles.
I wrote a program, "GISplunge", that takes an input WPT file, compares each point against an input shapefile, and outputs a WPT with new coords for each point, using the closest point coords contained in the shapefile. (This came in handy back in 2010 when working on cannb, back when OSM coverage was inaccurate, out-of-date, or just plain nonexistent -- I used it to "scrub" WPTs full of coords from Google Maps, and replace them with coords from a free source.) Thus, there's no more Google in canmb.
-
Exceeds limits north of MB60 according to OSM/GM/GS
Visibly within the highlight line in WPTedit with OSM imagery, with even more wiggle room.
MB60 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.917656&lon=-99.181728
+X55 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.002398&lon=-99.164812
Sure?
-
Visibly within the highlight line in WPTedit with OSM imagery, with even more wiggle room.
MB60 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.917656&lon=-99.181728
+X55 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.002398&lon=-99.164812
Sure?
I'm NOT sure! It looks like I loaded mb.mb006.wpt from my draft/ folder into WPTedit. The one in my final/ folder was last accessed 2016-12-07 19:00:00.
+x53 & +x54 added.
datacheckfps.csv: mb.mb006;MB60;ManRd;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;17.06
Edit: See, sometimes GISplunge can introduce tiny little changes like this that are just enough for me to have to add more shaping points. :)
-
from my draft/ folder into WPTedit. The one in my final/ folder
:) I think you should check that all of your final folder data is on GitHub before any kind of peer-review continues...
What the hell is GISplunge?
-
:) I think you should check that all of your final folder data is on GitHub before any kind of peer-review continues...
It is. I uploaded them, drap-n-drop via the GitHub web interface, 5 batches of roughly 10 files each, from the final/ folder, which until all routes were uploaded contained only the batch I was working on at the time, as I finished my post-GISplunge review & edits for each batch.
I didn't load mb.mb006.wpt from GitHub into WPTedit, but rather my local file -- the wrong local file.
What I should do is make a .tar.lzma archive out of the draft/ folder so I don't go inadvertently referencing it again.
What the hell is GISplunge?
I wrote a program, "GISplunge", that takes an input WPT file, compares each point against an input shapefile, and outputs a WPT with new coords for each point, using the closest point coords contained in the shapefile. (This came in handy back in 2010 when working on cannb, back when OSM coverage was inaccurate, out-of-date, or just plain nonexistent -- I used it to "scrub" WPTs full of coords from Google Maps, and replace them with coords from a free source.) Thus, there's no more Google in canmb.
I also used it to dump the WPT code block in that post upthread.
-
Sorry, I meant, what's the meaning of GIS, Genius Internet Software? ;)
-
As for the "Splunge" bit, I needed something to name splunge.ini when first writing the program...
-
MB11:
Exceeds limits b/n MB304 and RivRd
MB16:
Why is MB16 missing but often used for wp labels?
MB44:
MB204_N wp should be moved to the interchange underpass
MB100:
Why is MB100 missing but often used for wp labels?
MB59:
PraGroRd wp should be moved to the interchange underpass
MB68:
It has a different route b/n MB278 and MB481 on OSM but it seems to be correct according to GM/GSV. Has it recently been changed?
Minimum, there should be a wp where both routes meet again: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.086070&lon=-99.149637
MB77:
Exceeds limits b/n SK/MB and TwiSt
-
> MB11: Exceeds limits b/n MB304 and RivRd
RivRd replaced with ArtAve (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.567980&lon=-96.199938)
> MB16: Why is MB16 missing but often used for wp labels?
> MB100: Why is MB100 missing but often used for wp labels?
MB16 & MB100 are carbon copies of TCHYel & TCHWin respectively. I'm saving adding these files till just before activation, so any edits to these routes needn't be done in two files.
> MB44: MB204_N wp should be moved to the interchange underpass
My first inclination was to call this a "misbehaving parclo" (http://cmap.m-plex.com/tools/manual_points.php), but moving it would result in nicer shaping and graph view for both MB44 and MB204 (if/when the Provincial Roads ever get drafted).
Using OSM coords (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.085427&lon=-96.925630), as GIS is not up to date here.
> MB59: PraGroRd wp should be moved to the interchange underpass
I think this is better handled as a misbehaving parclo though, and will leave as is.
> MB68: It has a different route b/n MB278 and MB481 on OSM but it seems to be correct according to GM/GSV. Has it recently been changed?
Not too recent. GSV is dated 2009, and the old demolished route at the north end is overgrown in Google & Bing satellite. I'll check the provincial map on the MoT's website for completeness' sake. And... yup. It's shown as moved. (http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/map/pdf/map4.pdf)
> Minimum, there should be a wp where both routes meet again: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.086070&lon=-99.149637
The philosophy from the (early?) CHM days was to not worry too much about capturing old alignments from before a route was drafted. Either way, I agree; this is recent/significant enough to justify an *OldMB68 waypoint. Added.
> MB77: Exceeds limits b/n SK/MB and TwiSt
Wow. OSM, in all its lo-res glory, most closely matches the shapefiles here. +x24300-3 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.834218&lon=-101.659016) added.
-
michih, your post covers a pretty broad range of routes, lower-numbered stuff up to higher-numbered stuff.
Does that complete your peer review?
-
Yes!
-
Any more comments before I activate canmb?
-
Apparently MB30 does not reach the North Dakota border but instead ends at "Seventh Street" in Gretna. The short piece of road between the 49th parallel and MB 30 is signed as "ND18".
-
Apparently MB30 does not reach the North Dakota border but instead ends at "Seventh Street" in Gretna.
Only Google says so. And they're not always very reliable. OSM, the provincial map (http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/map/pdf/map2.pdf), and the shapefiles all support MB30 as in the HB now.
The short piece of road between the 49th parallel and MB 30 is signed as "ND18".
While I did see ND18 signage in GMSV, that's probably just because it's the only place left for MB30 to go at that point, and as such was just thought to be the more useful trailblazer.
-
Google might be basing their end on these (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0022208,-97.5610337,3a,75y,277.5h,85.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb3BlgUgsyNUBTyeiFpkxqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0022362,-97.5604962,3a,51.5y,99.03h,86.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR-vS9tpf8DJ0nX8mLpDExw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1), which look kinda official (Oct '14 imagery).
-
I sent a PM to SignGeek101 on AARoads, asking if he has any idea what's up with the signs.
-
Working on PTH 30 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?units=miles&u=&r=mb.mb030) for the TravelMapping project, I put its south end at the US border, where Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, and shapefiles from GeoBase all have it. (The map (http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/map/pdf/map2.pdf) from Manitoba Infrastructure is a bit too chunky & lo-res to get a very good reading.) But, &%(&$#!!! Any idea what's up with these (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0022208,-97.5610337,3a,75y,277.5h,85.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb3BlgUgsyNUBTyeiFpkxqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0022362,-97.5604962,3a,51.5y,99.03h,86.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR-vS9tpf8DJ0nX8mLpDExw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)?
I would leave it at the border. I'm not aware personally, but I checked Manitoba 511 (should be official) and it also has it ending at the border. I checked if it was simply an old alignment that was never updated (and the new shields were put up just from not thinking about current alignments). The shields in the 2014 GSV are Clearview (new), but the 2009 GSV has much older shields (probably the originals). Sorry I couldn't be more help.
Quite helpful, thank you. In 10+ years of working on the CHM/TM projects, I've learned there are plenty of instances where you can't be 100% sure of something :)
Having one more official source of info is good enough; I'll leave it as-is and just disregard the signage as a Sign-O, an oddity, a Damn Thing, even if it was replaced not too far back.
There's precedent in USANH, and doubtless in other contributors' work.
You're ignoring clear and consistent signage of NH10 to Littleton in favor of a route log? Who are you and what have you done with Eric?
He's tied to a utility pole at END ME196 (http://maps.google.com/?ll=44.098677,-70.218188) in Lewiston. I am no one to be trifled with.
That all said, I've put in a Pull Request to activate canmb:
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1426
-
canmb is active on-site now. Moving this topic to Completed Highway Systems Threads.
-
Found this old post when searching for something else...
I thought you rounded off MB 8's north end to an intersection point, rather than strain to tack on a few hundred feet to the End sign north of that intersection.
Reply #8 (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg4384#msg4384) from oscar | Reply #9 (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=9.msg4392#msg4392) from me
As work on the Provincial Roads hits full stride, I've found MB's GeoBase NRN shapefiles to be a bit rubbish, in terms of what routes go where.
The more recently discovered shapefiles (http://mli2.gov.mb.ca/roads_hwys/index.html) from Manitoba Land Initiative, much better in this regard, have the end right at the intersection at Hec_N. So it looks like we got the endpoint right, if the confirmation is a bit late.
In other news, MB17's north end will need to be extended to PR 325.
That will be batched together with several other minor edits (mostly relabelings) once the 200-series Provincial Roads are drafted.