- Home
- :
- All Communities
- :
- Industries
- :
- Transportation
- :
- Roads and Highways
- :
- Roads and Highways Documents
- :
- Roads and Highways Users List of Issues and Potent...
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark as New
- Mark as Read
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Report Inappropriate Content
Roads and Highways Users List of Issues and Potential Enhancements - draft
Roads and Highways Users List of Issues and Potential Enhancements - draft
| Enhancement or Issue Description | Application* | Initial Notes | RHUG Score | LoE | Notes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support for Alpha and related routes |
| 10/26/16 Will: A single route with a gap is another viable workaround (in addition to spliting into two routes) for fish routes. R&H current supports Lollipop routes. Fish routes require significant development effort to accomodate the various R&H logic, processes. FHWA has indicated that gaps along routes are not acceptable for HPMS. Some DOT's reporting event measure issues using the single route workaround. Will is willing to follow up on these issues and believes R&H should support. There is currently an overarching issue including various types of routes: Alpha, Loop, Branch, Fish, Lollipop, etc. / NC - R&H does not support fish routes. ADOT currently limits bifurcations in it's route system. It would be interested in native support from Roads and Highways as it would allow some "real world" route geometries to be modeled. From Agile docs: "The definition of good quality includes that there will be one and only one record per route, that the vertex measures will be strictly increasing with digitizing direction (for all LRMs), that no measures for a given route are ambiguous (for all LRMs), and that the route dominance rules are in place and working" | 16 | Very High | Requires code level support in in all tiers of the software: Rotue editing, calibration, event editing, … RHUG: Top Priority among High LOE for next release. Should also be supported at 10.5 (at least) through patch. Needed to meet FHWA HPMS requirements and support Agile integration. | |
| "Cover" event behavior | ArcMap | 10/26/16- Idaho DOT highlighted this issue as having a large impact on event QA/QC processes. Existing workarounds do not work for external events and there was general consensus that adding the "cover" behavior would be a be time saver for managing continuous events. Several DOTADOT - this "cover" behavior should closely mimic the behavior already in place for cartographic realignments. MN: What is your definition of "cover"? NC: Move behavior can leave little gaps when it's supposed to be full coverage- Cover would ensure full coverage of the event after the edit. | 11 | High | RHUG: Remains High priority for implementing states. Would like to include in upcoming release but can not defer alpha route fix | |
