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