| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 4053
Location: Maryland
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:42 am Post subject: ON 417 |
 |
|
| Is the "182*" label for ON 417 supposed to be a hidden point for a closed intersection? |
|
| Back to top |
  |
 |
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's where the 417 ends (an estimated KM point). I thought that since the end was going to be temporary till they extended it in the future. I did the same thing with the 400. Once they were extended, I was going to make them hidden. |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
dfilpus
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 717
Location: Chapel Hill NC
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looking at the satellite photo of the interchange, it certainly looks like a T-interchange at the end of the divided highway that was converted to a merge to two-lane. There is a qhost interchange with the crossroad being converted to cul-de-sacs.
_________________
Dave Filpus
http://roadgeek.filpus.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
oxlahun
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Posts: 314
Location: Easthampton MA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As with everything else, though, where does the ON provincial government say 417 ends and 17 begins? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oxlahun wrote: | | As with everything else, though, where does the ON provincial government say 417 ends and 17 begins? |
The GIS files support the end being where it is now in the GGM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | | oxlahun wrote: | | As with everything else, though, where does the ON provincial government say 417 ends and 17 begins? |
The GIS files support the end being where it is now in the GGM. |
I hate dragging something up from the grave, but where did you find the Ontario GIS info? Would like to know so I can find where the gaps are in route on the Ontario network (like with Ontario Hwy 3). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
TY!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alright, I have downloaded the Ontario file and have it loaded. Is there an easy way to tell what segment of highway is County maintained compared to Federally maintained? It stinks that several of the routes up there were downloaded leaving small segments in some places. (Like Hwy-20) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Really can't say. I don't remember any data attributes dealing with maint. specifically; I just paid attention to route numbers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | | Really can't say. I don't remember any data attributes dealing with maint. specifically; I just paid attention to route numbers. |
Well, the problem with that is 9 times out of 10, the downloaded route kept the same number when it was turned into a RR*.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what we're left with, then, is separate, disconnected instances of now -different routes with the same number?
It's not something like, say, Kansas's "city connecting links" or VT's town-maintained state routes (only on a county rather than local level)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | | So what we're left with, then, is separate, disconnected instances of now -different routes with the same number? |
Pretty much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Man. That's rude. KS would at least allow KS### City Connecting Link to stitch the different segments together.
And I take it it's different enough here to not be able to do that - some of the "downloaded" bits have a different number, right? So it's.... not really a completely comparable scenario. -_- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | | And I take it it's different enough here to not be able to do that - some of the "downloaded" bits have a different number, right? So it's.... not really a completely comparable scenario. -_- |
Yes, some segments that were downloaded got different numbers, but there weren't many of them. Two of them that did get different numbers was part of ON-58 because RR-94 in the Welland area and segments on ON-7 near the Toronto Metro Area because RR-107.
Other routes, like ON-20, when it was downloaded, it all stayed the same number along the entire route. And only (according to OntHighways.com) kept 1.9km of the original route as a ON-20 while the rest became RR-20 (in the respective areas).
So, as you can see, this is driving me nuts. LOL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
