Author Topic: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes  (Read 1217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Last Login:Today at 01:25:02 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2017, 10:03:38 pm »
Posted in another thread, but relevant here:
Perhaps a more relevant question might be: are the "Winnipeg City Routes" (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) (canmbw) actually maintained by the province, or by the city? I don't know, but perhaps someone on the forum does, and the answer could be relevant here.
Maintained by the city I believe.
The Winnipeg Routes are a unique case, a one-off; they're the only such numbered/signed city system in Manitoba; it's highly unlikely that there will ever be another in the future. As such, there won't be any confusion with any other potential city systems, or a need to differentiate multiple such systems within Manitoba.
Some quotes from the canbmw thread:
Jim: "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."
mapcat: "I agree that they're a special case, and not analogous to USA county routes, or other smaller district systems we don't include."
I agree with this assessment. (Of course, having drafted the system. :) ) I'll note that not only are many of them extensions of canmb/canmbs routes from outside the Perimeter Highway, but many are themselves former Provincial highway alignments.
The canmbw thread blew up a bit too fast, and I've just left it alone for a while, but some day I'd like to revisit it, hash out a few of the topics therein as needed (maybe even with a topic split), and move canmbw toward activation again. But it's a low priority right now.
I still haven't gotten back around to that.
I have a good number of different sub-projects I'm working on, with the result that any given one (or all) of them will move along slowly.
My main priority right now is an ongoing Arkansas Cleanup. Once that's more out of the way (or I want to take a break from it) I'll put more attention on canmbw or usanyp, whichever I think would face a quicker path to activation.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Last Login:Today at 01:25:02 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2017, 05:45:13 am »
I *could* go into the history of tiers, a precursor "layers" concept in CHM, and their development in TM. But I'm not always very good with the whole brevity thing.
There's been talk in this thread and others about how to define a given tier, what should/shouldn't be included, etc. IMO, this is overthinking it a bit; all a tier really does is determine in what order systems are rendered on the map views (mapview.php, region.php).
WRT what to include, where/why/how, one size does not fit all, and what works in one area may not work well in another. EG, North America vs. Europe, or even different regions within Europe.
For any system under consideration, we'd want it to pass the "actually makes sense" test. (A subjective judgment, yes.) I foresee more yellow / tier 5 in Canada, with Manitoba Provincial Roads (which @julmac mentioned upthread) and Alberta Provincial Highways 500-986 in the pipeline. (There's potential for yellow / tier 5 in SK too, but SK isn't my turf.) I see more limited use in the USA: Texas FM & RM roads are in my longer range plans; other than that, we only have the Montana Secondary State Highways now. (I can't really comment on potential systems in other states; my knowledge is limited.)

Does canmbw make sense?
I think so. For my rationale, see my previous post, the bits where I quoted myself.

I plan on moving canmbw back to preview status within the next several days.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
  • Last Login:Today at 01:25:02 pm
Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2017, 03:26:42 pm »
canmbw has been moved back to preview status, and is ready for peer review.

Tricky routes include Rte37 & Rte57, as noted in the OP.