Dealing with Coincident Routes

[KurtSargent1]

Hello!

We are in the design phase of our R&Hs implementation. We had chosen esri's Model 2 for divided roads. This results in gapped routes. This was fine until we found out that other business units require information for the coincident routes along a primary route. When discussed with Esri Canada yesterday, they suggested that we could eliminate gapped routes and have an event that maintains the existence of a co-route on a segment of geometry. Essentially, the length of the event could be subtracted when getting the distance of a route that is co-routed on a dominant route...i.e. the shared portion isn't counted twice.

We are interested in hearing how others have dealt with coincident routes (CoRoutes) and which model was used for divided roads.

Thanks!

[mark_lee]

Before this note receives a lot of replies, the a few clarifications to the post are necessary.

As far as we are aware the is no "esri model 2 for divided roads". We at Esri Canada have developed a PowerPoint deck showing different models for handling divided roads in the LRS. We use this slide deck during workshops to help customers understand possible effects of certain R&H configuration choices. The graphic in this post was taken from a copy of this Esri Canada slide deck.

Our discussion with Manitoba was not to eliminate gapped routes as suggested in the post. There are places in the design where this is appropriate.

The issue relates, for example, where one route ( say route A going south to north) intersects another route (say route B going east west). Route A intersects and then travels coincident with route B (east west) for some distance, and then "exits", and travels south north again.

For reporting, a contiguous route A has a geometric length, and a contiguous route B has a geometric length, Manitoba wants to adjust the sum of the lengths to correct for the coincident portion. We have been discussing options to manage this requirement, which included gapping route A.

[RyanKoschatzky]

Mark,

Thanks for the clarification on the model 2 source, that said can you share the other options that you provided?

[RyanKoschatzky]

Mark,

See NCDOT's model below:

We apply events to the dominant route. Most events represent the pavement, so the route id does not matter. We have at least one event is tied to the route id, so the location doesn't matter. In these cases where the route id is not the dominate route, a second event has to be applied to the dominate section. It is the events that might get gapped but not the routes. In general NCDOT prefers not to have gapped routes. We have an inhouse process to merge all the routes and events together. We can review the output products at GIS Data Layers 

The current drawback for our method is at 10.5.1 (our current version) is if you add a dominant route to the corouted stack or create a new stack, the events do not transfer up the stack to the new dominant route. They have to be added manually and the existing events have to be manually retired in those corouted locations. If you remove the dominant route, the event will either retire or fall down the stack to the next dominant route in that section correctly. 

Hope that helps and we can discuss more either on or offline if you have more questions,

Ryan