| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
andytom
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 412
Location: Beaverton, OR
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject: TX Interstate Check |
 |
|
While doing the US and state route files, I noticed a number of locations where interstate points need to be moved. Now that I have control of the Interstate route files, I'm going to be working my way through all of the files to make those changes and any others that show up.
Tim, one of the things that I noticed immediately was the point on I-10 labelled '0A'. When you built the file, this was needed because the '0' label was for the state line crossing. Now that the '0' point is a non-show point and covered by a standard state line crossing label, may I remove the non-show point and change the label on the '0A' point to '0'? Even if people don't make the necessary change to the standard state line crossing label, the difference is only about a quarter mile (the ramps join the interstate at the state line) so it won't affect mile statistics by much.
Note: If you allow this change, it may affect any state that has an Exit 0 (depending on the maintainer's willingness to make these types of changes). If you don't allow this change, then things will remain as they are now.
(I know, it seems like I am always harping on this '0' and '999' point stuff but this is a specific situation.)
--Andy |
|
| Back to top |
   |
 |
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In the case of a 0 point being changed, this could affect travelers who've clinched an entire route. If they don't change their LIST file, this could result in the route becoming only partially clinched. This affects the Top10 page, and the old AAroads-style bragging rights. Despite the tiny difference in terms of mileage, this is still a pretty big distinction. :) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andytom
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 412
Location: Beaverton, OR
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | In the case of a 0 point being changed, this could affect travelers who've clinched an entire route. If they don't change their LIST file, this could result in the route becoming only partially clinched. This affects the Top10 page, and the old AAroads-style bragging rights. Despite the tiny difference in terms of mileage, this is still a pretty big distinction.  |
Considering that the fudge factor makes the presented length of I-10 in TX equal to 888 miles (even with cut corners) whereas the actual length is closer to 880 miles (plus or minus any equations), the fudge factor seems to cause a bigger difference in actual mileage than the average .5 miles that this would cause in each case. This is something that would go into the update list so people would know about it.
--Andy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oxlahun
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Posts: 314
Location: Easthampton MA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Routes change out from under clinches all the time. Has someone who clinched all of I-40 in NC (but not the old alt routes) still got it? I bet their current map shows them going around Winston-Salem and Greensboro, even if they drove through.
If they're checking in, they'll see that their numbers changed, and can look at the updates page to see why. If they're not, then who cares?
An interesting data point is how many folks who have been through El Paso haven't made that change? That is, how many .list files contain the string "TX I-90 0"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oxlahun wrote: | | Routes change out from under clinches all the time. Has someone who clinched all of I-40 in NC (but not the old alt routes) still got it? I bet their current map shows them going around Winston-Salem and Greensboro, even if they drove through. |
Ow. My head. I-40 was here forever, then there for a while, now back here again. If they have I-40 but not what's "old", yeah, I'd say they still have it.
Unless you mean they got those temp bits that were briefly I-40, and not the old-old (original) bits.
Either way, NC I-40 0 999 (or equivalent) will show up as 100% on a traveler's stats page. Though the line displayed on the map may not necessarily line up with the alignment of I-40 at the time the traveler clinched it. Contrast this to the effects of changing the 0 location on TX I-10.
But yeah, routes change out for under chinches. For a while, I had OH US30 clinched. Then a new bypass opened, so I haven't clinched all of the current alignment. My LIST reflects this, at 89.3%. But I still did clinch it at one point. I'll still say, I've clinched US30 in Ohio.
Andytom: You do this differently, correct? If at one point in time you clinched OH US30 IN/OH OH/WV, you'd still have that segment marked as such in your LIST, even if the alignment changed, right?
| Quote: | | If they're checking in, they'll see that their numbers changed, and can look at the updates page to see why. If they're not, then who cares? |
I can envision many users being a lot less rabid about the site than me/us, and mostly only checking in when a new road trip's been made that'd require changes to the LIST file. I think allowances oughtta be made for them too. FOr those that may only check the error log to make sure their LIST has parsed, and not the updates page, a change such as TX I-10 0A->0 may well go undetected.
Yeah, we can require everyone using the site to do it properly.
But I expect most users will be more concerned with their own individual LISTs than the updates page.
| Quote: | | An interesting data point is how many folks who have been through El Paso haven't made that change? That is, how many .list files contain the string "TX I-90 0"? |
Zero! 
"TX I-10 0", OTOH, I see... 14 results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andytom
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 412
Location: Beaverton, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | | Andytom: You do this differently, correct? If at one point in time you clinched OH US30 IN/OH OH/WV, you'd still have that segment marked as such in your LIST, even if the alignment changed, right? |
No, I try to keep my list up to date with current alignments. I admit that I don't check the update list as much as I would like. Forturnately, with the exception of WA, OR and CA, most of my off-freeway coverage is in my states so I know when changes occur without the update list.
| yakra wrote: | | "TX I-10 0", OTOH, I see... 14 results. |
I would be one of those.
--Andy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 4053
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't really like breaking maps that much without a better reason. Long ago it was silly of me to put 0s and 999s everywhere, but we're stuck with them. Leave the 0 and 0A as is.
The hope for the future is that after we ever get all the remaining highway systems completed, I think I may be able to come up with a better system. One where we can change a label name without breaking maps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| andytom wrote: | | No, I try to keep my list up to date with current alignments. I admit that I don't check the update list as much as I would like. Forturnately, with the exception of WA, OR and CA, most of my off-freeway coverage is in my states so I know when changes occur without the update list. |
Ah, I thought you had once said otherwise, maybe in some ancient google groups post... Something about just using it to keep tracks of trips? Ah! Anyway!
I have much the same scenario - being boxed in behind NH and having most of my travels in the Bangor <-> NYC corridor coincides nicely with having the New England states.
| Quote: | | yakra wrote: | | "TX I-10 0", OTOH, I see... 14 results. |
I would be one of those. |
except for being "TX I-10 NM/TX 477" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andytom
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 412
Location: Beaverton, OR
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| admin wrote: | | I don't really like breaking maps that much without a better reason. Long ago it was silly of me to put 0s and 999s everywhere, but we're stuck with them. Leave the 0 and 0A as is. |
OK, '0A' it is. Thanks.
--Andy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andytom
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 412
Location: Beaverton, OR
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | | andytom wrote: | | yakra wrote: | | "TX I-10 0", OTOH, I see... 14 results. |
I would be one of those. |
except for being "TX I-10 NM/TX 477" |
Darn, caught again.  Yeah, I got the point, changed the label. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andytom
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 412
Location: Beaverton, OR
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tim, I found a point in a rural location that isn't really an interchange (no ramps). There's an overpass and the frontage roads (in 3 quadrants) splay out from the fwy to meet the crossing roadway but there are no ramps (and it doesn't look like there ever were but appearances can be deceptive). Should I remove the point or * it?
--Andy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 4053
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Give me a Google map link so I can see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andytom
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 412
Location: Beaverton, OR
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 4053
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hide them with a + in the label. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
2005 Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
