Travel Mapping Manual: Maintenance of Highway Data

🔗 Regions are maintained by our volunteer highway data managers. Please refer to the forum to see who is responsible for what region.
🔗 Everyone can report required changes on the forum. The responsible highway data manager should frequently check the board for open issues.
🔗 In addition, the highway data manager should check official sources or forums proactive to get info about relevant changes.

🔗 Care must be taken to ensure that changes do not "break" a user's list file.

If a waypoint label is in use by current TM users we should add alternative labels if possible.
If a .list name label is in use by current TM users we should add alternative route names if possible.
In many cases, however, the changes needed will break user lists. In those and other situations, changes are newsworthy and require an updates entry for active systems.

🔗 When you have submitted changes, check for errors after the next site update.

🔗 Clean-up the alternative labels and .list names if they are no longer used

Alternate (i.e., hidden) waypoint labels not in use by current TM users can safely be removed from .wpt files.
Alternate (i.e., hidden) route names not in use by current TM users can safely be removed from .csv files.

🔗 Clean-up the unmatched FPs.
🔗 Clean-up the unmatched NMP FPs.

🔗
Waypoint label is wrong (Not newsworthy)

Example: Waypoint P1 is mislabeled but at the correct location. It should be NewP1 instead.

Check the points in use log manually or load the corresponding line to the wpt file into the Waypoint File Editor.
If there is no entry for the .wpt file at all, no label of the route is in use.
- If the label is not in use:
  Simply change P1 to NewP1. The line is: NewP1 [url]
- If the label is in use:
  Put the new label first in the line, and add a + to the old label: NewP1 +P1 [url]. The coordinates should remain identical.
  +P1 is now an alternate (= deprecated) label and is hidden in the HB, but it can still be used by everyone who is trying to use it. The correct label NewP1 is the new primary label will appear in the HB for future use for the same point.

🔗 A new route was added (Newsworthy)

New routes are always reported so that user can check whether they need to add the route.

🔗 A new route was deleted (Newsworthy)

The deletion of a route is always reported even when it was not traveled by any TM user.

🔗 An actual route was truncated (Newsworthy)

You need to truncate the route by the deleting the waypoints that are no longer part of the route. This action will break the route for anyone using the removed points, but there is no way around it.

Possibly there will be the need to change the label of the new end waypoint. Please refer to Waypoint label is wrong.

🔗 An actual route was extended (Newsworthy)

Adding new waypoints can be done without worrying about breaking the route for anyone using it.

Possibly there will be the need to change the label of the old end waypoint. Please refer to Waypoint label is wrong.

🔗 Part of an actual route was relocated (Newsworthy)

To update the route, you need to remove some waypoints in the middle of the file and insert new ones there. Anyone using a removed waypoint will have the route break for them, but it is unavoidable.

Possibly there will be the need to change the labels of the two "pivot waypoints", where the old and new alignments meet. This should be done without breaking the route for anyone. Please refer to Waypoint label is wrong.

🔗 One route was newsworthily changed (extended/truncated/relocated) and begs for a now- or previously intersecting route's waypoint to change (Not newsworthy)

Please refer to Waypoint label is wrong.

🔗 A route has new exit numbers, so many of its waypoints should be relabeled with the new exit numbers (Possibly newsworthy)

If none of the new exit numbers are the same as the old ones, then this update can be accomplished without breaking any routes for anyone. Hide copies of the old waypoints that are in use so that they continue to function, and delete the old waypoints that are not in use. Add the new waypoints. (Not newsworthy)

If some of the old and new exit numbers are identical, then some route breaking may be necessary. Proceed in the same way to minimize the impact. You can't retain old labels as alternate labels if they must become the primary label of a different waypoint. (Newsworthy)

Example: waypoints 74, 75, 76 become 1, 2, 3; only 74 and 76 are in use:
New file: 1 +74, 2, 3 +76.
74 and 76 were retained as alternate labels because they were in use.

Example: waypoints 74, 75, 76 become 76, 77, 78; only 74 and 76 are in use:
New file: 76 +74, 77, 78
75 was removed instead of demoted because no one was using it.
76 is now used for the former 74 point and no longer represents its former location.
The change to point 76 becomes "newsworthy".

Sometimes in the latter case, a second option can be chosen for the duplicated point (76) that causes the small problem. If new interchange 76 is in use has A and B exits, then this is preferable:
New file: 76A +74, 77, 78 +76.

🔗 An intersection was closed (Not newsworthy)

Add an asterisk(*) at the beginning of the waypoint and leave it otherwise unchanged. If the point 37 was closed, change it to *37. Any .list file using "37" or "*37" will use this point, since asterisks are ignored when matching waypoints in .list files with waypoints in the HB. Note that if you give a route both of the points 37 and *37, this is a duplicated label error that needs to be corrected.

🔗 Q: I found a route where most of the labels are correct but are applied to the wrong waypoints. To fix it, I should use many of the same labels but shift them to the correct waypoints. Since that fix will alter but not really break most of the points in use, can I just reenter the whole route and forget about hiding old points?

A: Probably. Mention the problem in this forum so we can make sure that breaking the route is warranted. It might be needed.

🔗 Q: I want to add a new system of highways to a region, and I found some changes to make to an activated system in the same region. Since I expect users to update their .list file with the new highways, can I break those activated highways at the same time rather than hiding used points I changed?

A: No. Adding a new highway system shouldn't be an excuse to break routes in another system.

🔗 Q: Don't you think you're way too gung-ho about not breaking routes? I'm only making changes one or twice a year that would break only a route or two, so it's not a burden for the users to update their files once in awhile. It should be fine to "unnecessarily" break a small number of routes infrequently.

A; No. There are more than 10 of you sporadically (and sometimes, frequently) making minor changes, and without hiding copies of used waypoints, that adds up to breaking routes every few weeks, sometimes even more often. Users shouldn't have to make frequent changes to 1000-line files every few weeks when the changes don't reflect real changes to highway alignments or real changes to the extent of their travels.

🔗 Q: Is there a preference for the order of hidden/visible pairs of same-location waypoints?

A: The visible label should always come first.

🔗 Q: Can I delete unused hidden points with a visible companion point?

A: If you have verified that a hidden point isn't in use (we have a log file for that) and that there is a visible point at the same location, then you can delete the unused hidden point. Just make sure you don't accidentally remove a shaping point or a used point or a not-duplicated point.

🔗 Q: I made a necessary change that will unavoidably break a route for some users. So would you include "Update your .list file if you've included any part of this route." with the entry on the Updates page?

A: No. That note is implied for most or all entries on that page, so it's not worth mentioning on any individual basis.

Newsworthy changes must must be logged in the updates list, which is available on the updates page to help users keep their list files accurate. The list is ordered by regions. Add a new line at the beginning of the right region. Don't let the changes get lost in the forum or elsewhere!

Updates are included in CSV format, so be sure to include all fields. The last field is the description, and should be in plain English. Keep them concise but just specific enough for someone to understand in the Highway Browser since they can't compare with the old route.

🔗 The format of the updates list file is as follows:

date;region;route;root;description

...
2016-03-12;Albania;A1 (Thumane);alb.a001thu;New Route
2016-03-12;Albania;A3;;Route Deleted
...
2017-08-15;(Canada) New Brunswick;NB 565;nb.nb565;Route added
...

The date refers to the day the update was made to TM. It is not the date when the actual change happened on-site.
The region column represents the country name. If it is a multi-region country, the country name is put in brackets followed by the region name.
The route is the full route name.
The root is the combination of region code and route code used in the HB.

🔗 New route:
Added route.
New route.
Route added.

🔗 Deleted route:
Deleted route.
Route removed.

🔗 Extended route:
Extended northward from Exit 52 (PA 350) near Bald Eagle to MusLn (Musser Lane) near Bellefonte.
Mentions intersections at old and new ends.

🔗 Truncated route:
Truncated from the old south end at US 15 to the new end at Main St in Emmitsburg.
Mentions intersections at old and new ends. As you compose lines like this one, remember that highways can be truncated, but end points cannot.

🔗 Relocated route (in middle of route):
Removed from Main Street and 5th Avenue, and relocated onto a new northern Georgetown bypass, between US 23 and PA 70.
Mentions both ends of the new part, that is, the intersections/places where the old and new alignments meet) and both the old and new routes.

🔗 Relocated route (at end of route):
Removed from Main Street and 5th Avenue between 4th Street and 9th Street, and relocated onto a new northern Georgetown bypass between 4th Street and PA 70.
Mentions both the new and old routings as well as the bounding intersections of each.

🔗 Changed label or recycled label:
Changed waypoint labels 51 to 52 and 52 to 53.
Mention old and new waypoints for a small number of changes.

Reentered route with corrected waypoint labels.
If there are too many changes to mention individually.

You can also mention actual waypoints labels where skipping them isn't clear.

🔗 Avoid the following in the entries:
- Don't refer to the old route or the old end. Instead, say what the old route or end was.
- Don't refer to the new route or the new end. Instead, say what the new route is.
- Don't use vague phrases like the correct location, onto new construction. Instead, say what the location or highway is.
- Wherever possible, avoid describing old and new routings by highway names that changed. Use stable highway names if they are available, or describe the type and location of the highway.