Author Topic: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes  (Read 915 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
  • Last Login:Today at 02:05:46 am
canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« on: December 14, 2016, 02:36:29 pm »
Winnipeg has a system of numbered, signed City Routes. They're signed like this.
This was a very quick & easy system to bang together from OSM & GMSV. I also used the GeoBase NRN shapefiles (already listed on credits.php), though I didn't refer to them very much, as opposed to the larger provincial systems.

There were a couple cases of unclear/ambiguous signage. In both cases, I considered the route as shown in the shapefiles to be the canonical version.

Rte57:
East (1) (2)
West (1) (2) (3, no signage for Rte57 turning onto Rte52)

Rte37 is a bit trickier:
Signage is a bit more indicative of a split alignment...
West (1) (2) (3) (4, arrow disappeared between Oct'07 & Apr'09) (5)
East (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Again, I went with what was in the shapefiles. There's a bit of precedent for how I handled the split route here (in terms of Just Pick One) in MA US202, on its multiplex with US5.
This makes for some potentially wonky labels on Rte42 (specifically, TalAve, Rte37_W & Rte37_E); discuss.

I have a pull request pending to move this system up to Preview.
Once that happens, it's pretty much ready for Peer Review.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 02:58:26 pm by yakra »

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:52:10 am
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2016, 04:12:34 pm »
I thought we don't wanna draft district roads at all but we include city routes now?

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:16:35 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2016, 05:54:55 pm »
This system is live on the site with preview status now.

I have no strong opinion on whether the system is appropriate for inclusion.  These seem to be an unusual case where they are well-signed and seem to take the place, within the Perimeter Highway, of what might normally be expected to be part of the provincial system.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 484
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:32:10 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2016, 07:08:45 pm »
Thanks for adding these. I agree that they're a special case, and not analogous to USA county routes, or other smaller district systems we don't include.

One suggestion: a waypoint on Rte90 at Wellington Ave, the road to the airport.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2016, 11:24:24 am by mapcat »
Clinched:

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:40:07 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2016, 07:00:09 am »
I thought we don't wanna draft district roads at all but we include city routes now?
I think there's analogies to the Dutch Stadsroute whereby the city is mostly excluded from the provincial/national routes but has its own system instead.


I'd suggest one tier-5 system with all the Stadsroute in with nld.s100ams names, even if there's no duplicated numbers (eg nld.s150zaa) and the cities listed for each route in .csvs ;)

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:52:10 am
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2016, 10:09:15 am »
I thought we don't wanna draft district roads at all but we include city routes now?
I think there's analogies to the Dutch Stadsroute whereby the city is mostly excluded from the provincial/national routes but has its own system instead.

I'd suggest one tier-5 system with all the Stadsroute in with nld.s100ams names, even if there's no duplicated numbers (eg nld.s150zaa) and the cities listed for each route in .csvs ;)

I agree that we could draft nlds but I thought about district / county roads, e.g. French D or Romania DJ routes. Are they "allowed" to be added? I think I read that these kind of roads should not be drafted or won't be drafted in US...
Generally, I think that we cannot apply "US rules" to regions all over the world because classification / signposting / administration et cetera is different. Any limitation means that "important" routes may be included or not. Is there any limit what we wanna include?

Example:
France has national roads (N --> fran; 218 routes, 7,267.57mi). Romania has national roads (roudn; 192 routes, 9,729.18mi). Germany has federal roads (B --> deub; 645 routes, 24,106.10mi). All tier 4 systems drafted.

France has 101 départements (districts/counties; D --> frad?), Romania has 41 Drumuri Județene (districts/counties; DJ --> roudj?), Germany has 16 Bundesländer (states; L --> deul?) and 294 Landkreise (districts/counties; K --> deuk?). All mentioned road categories are signed, German systems on km posts only.

If we generally exclude district/county roads, France and Romania would not have any tier 5 system. If we would include them, Germany could even have a tier 6 system...
« Last Edit: December 15, 2016, 10:11:43 am by michih »

Offline bejacob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 02:02:07 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #6 on: December 15, 2016, 10:36:48 am »
If we generally exclude district/county roads, France and Romania would not have any tier 5 system. If we would include them, Germany could even have a tier 6 system...

How many tiers is too many?

Seems to me tier 5 system are used sparingly and generally only when necessary. Most regions will be sufficiently covered by tiers 1 thru 4. Adding additional levels except in specialized cases is likely to be a slippery slope. I say leave out the county/district/city routes unless there is a compelling reason to include them.

I've got gaps in my maps because US county roads or Texas "Farm to Market" or "Ranch Roads" aren't included, yet I'm not in favor of adding those tiers. The Winnipeg routes do seem to be an unusual case. IMHO using them as justification for adding other tier 5 (or beyond) systems is not a good idea.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 484
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:32:10 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #7 on: December 15, 2016, 11:33:23 am »
I've got gaps in my maps because US county roads or Texas "Farm to Market" or "Ranch Roads" aren't included, yet I'm not in favor of adding those tiers.
I'm with you on county roads, but not FM/RM roads in Texas. They're a legitimate state secondary system.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fmfacts.htm

I'd add in the Park Roads in Texas as well.
Clinched:

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:52:10 am
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #8 on: December 15, 2016, 11:49:37 am »
If we generally exclude district/county roads, France and Romania would not have any tier 5 system. If we would include them, Germany could even have a tier 6 system...

How many tiers is too many?

I don't think it's a matter of tiers but maybe tiers per region. For instance, FRA, ROU and DEU do not have any tier 2 system but tier 1+4 only plus (mostly concurrent) tier 3 E roads.

France is larger than Germany but the 2nd German network (deub) is 3 times longer than the French one (fran). If we would add all road systems "above" district/county roads, Germany could even get a third network (deul) but France would not get any additional system!

I say leave out the county/district/city routes unless there is a compelling reason to include them.

As mentioned before, county/district routes would be system no. 4 for Germany but no. 3 for France and Romania because the size/number of counties/districts are different!

The Winnipeg routes do seem to be an unusual case. IMHO using them as justification for adding other tier 5 (or beyond) systems is not a good idea.

That's why I ask. I don't think that there should be a general limit for tiers used (1-5).
I think there should be an individual limit per region depending on parameters like country size, number of road categories, road standard, network lengths et cetera.

Offline bejacob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 02:02:07 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2016, 11:52:40 am »
I've got gaps in my maps because US county roads or Texas "Farm to Market" or "Ranch Roads" aren't included, yet I'm not in favor of adding those tiers.
I'm with you on county roads, but not FM/RM roads in Texas. They're a legitimate state secondary system.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fmfacts.htm

I'd add in the Park Roads in Texas as well.

Fair points. The State of Texas does maintain those routes.

There is still the question of when a 5th tier actually makes sense. Perhaps these could be systems that do qualify. I still believe tier 5 systems should be limited. We already have a few, and those make sense. Maybe there are good cases for a few more. The idea of adding a 6th tier for district or county routes does seem to be going too far down that road (pun intended :) )

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:52:10 am
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2016, 11:58:11 am »
The State of Texas does maintain those routes.

I don't think that maintenance is a good indicator. It might be fine for USA but not for ROW.

There is still the question of when a 5th tier actually makes sense. Perhaps these could be systems that do qualify. I still believe tier 5 systems should be limited. We already have a few, and those make sense. Maybe there are good cases for a few more.

http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1776 ;)

The idea of adding a 6th tier for district or county routes does seem to be going too far down that road (pun intended :) )

No, I don't wanna add German Kreisstraßen (district/county roads). It was just for comparing to France...

Offline bejacob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 02:02:07 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2016, 12:15:56 pm »
I don't think it's a matter of tiers but maybe tiers per region. For instance, FRA, ROU and DEU do not have any tier 2 system but tier 1+4 only plus (mostly concurrent) tier 3 E roads.

I'll admit to not knowing much about the European systems. My European routes so far only cover the British Isles. Still going too far below the state/provincial level seems problematic.

In regards to your earlier question of "Is there any limit what we wanna include?" I think there is a limit. At least in the US, it seems to stop where the jurisdiction changes from the state level to the county level. Someone please jump in if I've stated that incorrectly (BTW, mapcat, that would mean Texas FM and RR roads should be a system, though having driven a few, they really are more like county roads IMHO). Perhaps someone has a better way to define the dividing line of what should and should not be included. I know the Wisconsin county trunk highways were discussed and excluded.

As for what belongs in the European systems and how many tiers there should be, I leave that to others as my knowledge about them is virtually nil.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 896
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:52:10 am
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2016, 02:18:28 pm »
I thought about my prefered rule of thumb: If the routes are usually tagged "yellow"* on OSM, the system could be drafted for TM. If the routes are usually below "yellow", e.g. "white", they should not be drafted for TM.

*Dunno what's the official tag name, I think it's "secondary highway"!?

French and Romanian district roads are "yellow", German district roads are "white".

Offline julmac

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:December 30, 2017, 12:44:07 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #13 on: February 10, 2017, 12:36:07 am »
I noticed that the Tiers are not necessarily in decreasing order of prominence or importance. For example, I'm much more interested in tracking most of the Tier 4 systems than the Interstate Business Routes which are a Tier 2 system. I would consider the Winnipeg City Routes to be at least equivalent to the Interstate BRs on the basis that for both systems I have to concentrate really hard to remember which one's I travelled prior to their existence on Travel Mapping/CHM (since I never kept track otherwise).

I assume that Manitoba Provincial Roads (three-digit highways), if included in the future, would also be a Tier 5 system (I do track those)?

Offline 7/8

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:December 13, 2017, 05:07:10 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2017, 07:03:45 pm »
How come these are no longer in preview status? Was it decided that these are too much like country roads? I would like to add my travels in the system and it seems like it shame that I can't when they appear ready-to-go.