Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
How To? / Re: How users update .list files through GitHub
« Last post by Jim on Today at 04:09:14 pm »
OK, so how do I visualize all the stuff I entered on a map?
You’ll see it after the next update assuming there were no problems with the pull request.  The updates usually run daily in the evening.

I don't see a pull request yet.  If GitHub gives you trouble, you're welcome to email me the file and I'll put it in.  I'd estimate about 2/3 of our users steer entirely clear of GitHub.

In any case, expect a site update between 9 and 11 PM Eastern most nights.
2
How To? / Re: How users update .list files through GitHub
« Last post by mapcat on Today at 03:13:45 pm »
OK, so how do I visualize all the stuff I entered on a map?
You’ll see it after the next update assuming there were no problems with the pull request.  The updates usually run daily in the evening.
3
Updates to Highway Data / PA: PA 27 Western Terminus (Meadville, PA)
« Last post by Hoss6884 on Today at 03:08:18 pm »
The western terminus of PA 27 is further than the current location in Meadville.  PA 27 turns right from North Street onto Market Street and then continues onto Terrace Street.  It then turns left onto Reynolds Drive and terminates at US 6/19.  I have GMSV links below but I drove it this morning to also validate the routing.
4
Updates to Highway Data / LUX: N2
« Last post by bhemphill on Today at 01:35:40 pm »
Should N2 be updated to use Pont Adolphe now that the renovation is complete and the Blo Breck is being or fully dismanteled?  https://luxtimes.lu/archives/2548-goodbye-blue-bridge seems to indicate this happened last year.  N2, N3, N4, N7, and N50 all look to have points on one side of the bridge or the other that may be impacted.
5
How To? / Re: How users update .list files through GitHub
« Last post by Craziaskowboi on Today at 01:35:01 pm »
OK, so how do I visualize all the stuff I entered on a map?
6
Out of simplicity, my preference is to refer to all systems in SK and MB as SK*** and MB*** in the waypoints, regardless of the official system name, as there are no overlaps in the numbers.

For what it's worth, I also prefer "Twp Rd" and "Rge Rd" over TR and RR. The "TR274" format has no meaning to me. The "Twp Rd 274" format is also consistent with how it appears on road signs.
7
AB501 is an unusual case, a bit of a conflict between the "leave out unsigned routes" rule and the usual implied multiplex guidelines.
What would otherwise be the implied route to connect AB501Car and AB501 is parallel to another unsigned segment which was considered and rejected as AB2 Truck (Cardston).
It seems a bit wrong-headed to run AB501 along AB AB2 AB501_W AB501_E (Should these be labeled AB501_S & AB501_N if there's no multiplex? Or maybe AB501 & AB501Car? Oh bother...) in this case. Heck, someone arriving at AB AB501Car AB2 would actually have to turn the other way on AB2 to reach the next (the unsigned one) segment.
Heh -- if the ultimate test is "what feels right in this situation?", then this is what feels right in this situation. 8)

Agree with how you have it in the HB. The "truck bypass" portion of AB 501 is basically an unsigned segment of AB 501. Leaving it out would be consistent with the treatment of other unsigned segments in both AB systems.
8
What I'm thinking of doing...
What does everyone think of this proposal?
@julmac, any insight here?

1.
For routes where signage indicates a longer route than shown in shapefiles, go with signage.

  613, 814, and 833 stay as they are now, with their full extents in the HB.

OK, that's consistent with the treatment in the AB 1-216 system.

Quote
2. For routes where shapefiles show a longer route than what's signed, go with signage if there's a clear endpoint.
  733 ends at AB49 (truncate); 869 ends at AB13 (as-is).

OK. 733 and 869 are provincial highways proper (not connectors), but this treatment is consistent with other unsigned segments such as unsigned AB 3A at Barnwell.

Quote
3. In cases where, approaching a municipal boundary, signage does not indicate a clear endpoint, go with the municipal boundary.
  560: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange (see above).
  564: Truncate W end to Calgary line, a bit E of the AB201 interchange.
  627: Truncate E end to Edmonton line @ 215St.
  633StA: Truncate E end to St. Albert line, about 1 km W of the current RayGibDr point.
  772: Truncate S end to Calgary line, slightly south of the current TR261A point. This case is a perhaps a bit more iffy than the others, what with the old-style "Secondary" shield still with city limits. It doesn't do anything to help me more precisely pin down an endpoint. If I write it off as an old remnant shield, that might not even get installed under modern signing practices, I can just be consistent about my "rules" here and how I'm implementing them.

AB 560 and 564 both extend to AB 201. They are unsigned form AB 201 for no good reason. I suggest they be truncated to AB 201 instead of the city boundary. (Side technicality: AB 560 is designated as such to AB 201; however, AB 564 appears to only be designated to the city boundary. Moot point since the Transportation Utility Corridor [the ownership boundary for AB 201] extends east to the city boundary).

Agree with truncating AB 267 and AB 633Sta to the city boundaries.
Truncate AB 772 to city boundary. I might suggest a point further south except that AB 772 is planned to be re-routed to Shaganappi Trail in the future. The remnant signage is left-over from before the city boundary extended so far north.
9
How To? / Re: How users update .list files through GitHub
« Last post by michih on Today at 10:07:41 am »
I created a GitHub account, forked to TravelMapping, and moved and dropped my .list file into the window. Will that work? I'm totally lost with this stuff.

Your first user list file submission should be done by sending an email to travmap@teresco.org.
Your user will be added with the next site update and your user list file will be published on GitHub.

Well, you directly tried to add your file. Should be fine.

1. Sign up on https://github.com and create your own GITHUB user
2. Go to https://github.com/TravelMapping/UserData
3. Press on "Fork"
4. Click on your GitHub user name icon

Done!

https://github.com/Craziaskowboi/UserData/tree/master/list_files

Now, click on "Upload files", drop your file into the window and:

8. Select "Commit directly to the master branch" on the bottom of the page
9. Press "Commit changes"
10. Go to https://github.com/<yourGITHUBusername>/UserData (link on top of the page)
11. Press "New pull request"
12. Check your changes indicated in green and red
13. Press "Create pull request"
14. Press "Create pull request" again

Your pull request will be merged by an admin before the next site update.

To undo your changes, press "Close pull request"
10
How To? / Re: How users update .list files through GitHub
« Last post by mapcat on Today at 09:23:29 am »
Which repository did you put it in? You still need to submit a pull request to get it added, and since there aren't any open pull requests in UserData at the moment, it looks like you haven't done that yet.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10