Local vs regional road connections

[muon2]

I'm looking at the local connections on my NC map. I'll start with the western end. If there is a modification to the connection definition, we should see how it plays in the mountains.

Cherokee (Murphy) to Macon (Franklin)
The direct road is US 64 which is 49 mi and spends 27 mi in Clay. There are no urban areas in Clay and US 64 has a bypass around the Clay seat (Hayesville). Cherokee and Macon are contiguous and US 19/US 74 crosses the border, but only travels along the edge of Macon on its way north. To get to Franklin requires considerable travel on a winding local road (Wayah Rd or Junaluska then Wayah), so it's locally connected. This failed both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

Cherokee (Murphy) to Graham (Robbinsville)
The direct road is US 129. Some renderings of US 129 have it clip the corner of Macon (Bing) while others show is straddling the county line (Mapquest). The satellite view shows it on the county line. I allow roads on the line to count in either county. This passes both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

Graham (Robbinsville) to Macon (Franklin)
The direct road is NC 143 and NC 128 which is 45 mi and spends 14 mi in Swain. The route does not pass through any urban areas and doesn't approach the Swain county seat (Bryson City), though it does follow part of the preferred route one would take to get there from Graham. Graham and Macon are contiguous and a US highway crosses the border. One can use the the aforementioned local Wayah Rd (it's one of the NC secondary roads), so it's locally connected. This failed both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

[Torie]

Graham (Robbinsville) to Macon (Franklin)
The direct road is NC 143 and NC 128 which is 45 mi and spends 14 mi in Swain. The route does not pass through any urban areas and doesn't approach the Swain county seat (Bryson City), though it does follow part of the preferred route one would take to get there from Graham. Graham and Macon are contiguous and a US highway crosses the border. One can use the the aforementioned local Wayah Rd (it's one of the NC secondary roads), so it's locally connected. This failed both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

Why does the above fail the Jimtex test? On mine, it is right on the cusp as to whether 14 miles is more than a third of the maximum length of the impinged county. If it does not exceed that, it still fails because the nik is not "direct" enough. The road is designed to go to Bryson City, not Franklin, and one needs to make a left turn off it to take the road to Franklin. The only thing going for it, is that it is the best way to get from Swain to Franklin, because the counties are so cut off from one another, that this circuitous route is the only way to do it. Which sort of emphasizes why Swain and Macon should not be deemed connected.

[jimrtex]

I'm looking at the local connections on my NC map. I'll start with the western end. If there is a modification to the connection definition, we should see how it plays in the mountains.

Cherokee (Murphy) to Macon (Franklin)
The direct road is US 64 which is 49 mi and spends 27 mi in Clay. There are no urban areas in Clay and US 64 has a bypass around the Clay seat (Hayesville). Cherokee and Macon are contiguous and US 19/US 74 crosses the border, but only travels along the edge of Macon on its way north. To get to Franklin requires considerable travel on a winding local road (Wayah Rd or Junaluska then Wayah), so it's locally connected. This failed both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

The US 74 route is considerably longer (88 minutes vs 58 minutes).

The adjacency index is 0.309, and there is enough population in the Andrews area (about 25% of the population is in Valleytown township) to qualify the counties as connected.  But it as fast to backtrack to US 64 as to go US 74, or use the direct county roads.  The direct county road is slow (average speed 31 mph), which is less than 30 mph on a straight line.

Functionally, if you go northeast on US 74, you are getting on the north side of the ridge from Macon County.  Murphy is off the southwest end of the ridge, and US 64 keeps you south.  But that puts you through Clay County.

Cherokee (Murphy) to Graham (Robbinsville)
The direct road is US 129. Some renderings of US 129 have it clip the corner of Macon (Bing) while others show is straddling the county line (Mapquest). The satellite view shows it on the county line. I allow roads on the line to count in either county. This passes both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

Census maps have US 129 coincident with the Cherokee border with both Macon and Graham counties.  The direct route to Murphy and Andrews includes US 74.  Functionally, the border between Macon and Graham is an east-west ridge, that you are able to get around on the eastern end.

Graham (Robbinsville) to Macon (Franklin)
The direct road is NC 143 and NC 128 which is 45 mi and spends 14 mi in Swain. The route does not pass through any urban areas and doesn't approach the Swain county seat (Bryson City), though it does follow part of the preferred route one would take to get there from Graham. Graham and Macon are contiguous and a US highway crosses the border. One can use the the aforementioned local Wayah Rd (it's one of the NC secondary roads), so it's locally connected. This failed both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

You are most of the way from Robbinsville to Bryson City before you turn and go south. This is the route to Swain County, even NC 128 continues south.

[jimrtex]

I'm looking at the local connections on my NC map. I'll start with the western end. If there is a modification to the connection definition, we should see how it plays in the mountains.

These are the county pairs that I either made a note on or at least one of us classified as 'unconnected'. The other pairs can be considered to be trivially obvious that they are 'connected'. My believe is that 'contiguous' should imply 'connected', unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. That is why I am willing to let county officials override a classification of 'not connected', but that they may not override a classification of 'connected'.

Cherokee   Graham
Cherokee   Macon
Graham   Macon
Swain   Haywood
Haywood   Henderson
Haywood   Madison
Buncombe   Rutherford
Henderson   Rutherford
Yancey   McDowell
McDowell   Burke
Avery   Caldwell
Rutherford   Burke
Burke   Cleveland
Burke   Lincoln
Cleveland   Lincoln
Caldwell   Catawba
Lincoln   Iredell
Lincoln   Mecklenburg
Wilkes   Alleghany
Wilkes   Surry
Iredell   Cabarrus
Surry   Forsyth
Cabarrus   Union
Rowan   Stanly
Davidson   Guilford
Davidson   Montgomery
Randolph   Alamance
Rockingham   Alamance
Moore   Chatham
Moore   Cumberland
Chatham   Durham
Chatham   Harnett
Orange   Person
Columbus   Pender
Sampson   Pender
Sampson   Wayne
Johnston   Nash
Brunswick   Pender
Warren   Northampton
Duplin   Jones
Wilson   Pitt
Greene   Pitt
Halifax   Bertie
Lenoir   Craven
Pitt   Martin
Jones   Carteret
Hertford   Chowan
Gates   Camden
Gates   Perquimans
Pamlico   Carteret
Pamlico   Hyde
Chowan   Washington
Washington   Hyde
Washington   Perquimans
Carteret   Hyde
Perquimans   Tyrrell
Pasquotank   Tyrrell
Tyrrell   Camden
Tyrrell   Currituck

[muon2]

Graham (Robbinsville) to Macon (Franklin)
The direct road is NC 143 and NC 128 which is 45 mi and spends 14 mi in Swain. The route does not pass through any urban areas and doesn't approach the Swain county seat (Bryson City), though it does follow part of the preferred route one would take to get there from Graham. Graham and Macon are contiguous and a US highway crosses the border. One can use the the aforementioned local Wayah Rd (it's one of the NC secondary roads), so it's locally connected. This failed both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

You are most of the way from Robbinsville to Bryson City before you turn and go south. This is the route to Swain County, even NC 128 continues south.

That's what I assumed based on your definition of direct route, though you didn't say how much of the initial portion must be in common. Presumably using a main road to get out of the originating town is not enough to be considered the initial portion. I imagined that you would apply something like 1/3 of the route, consistent with the (2)(b)(i).

Direct Route: A route is direct if:
    (1) it it is not circuitous; and
    (2)(a) it is entirely within the two terminating counties; or
        (b)(i) less than 1/3 route is within the intervening county (-ies); and
             (ii) the initial portion of the route would not form part of the quickest route to more than   
                  1/3 of the residents of the intervening county. This calculation should be done in both
                  directions.

We agree that it shouldn't count as a connection for different reasons. Does Torie want a different outcome?

[jimrtex]

Graham (Robbinsville) to Macon (Franklin)
The direct road is NC 143 and NC 128 which is 45 mi and spends 14 mi in Swain. The route does not pass through any urban areas and doesn't approach the Swain county seat (Bryson City), though it does follow part of the preferred route one would take to get there from Graham. Graham and Macon are contiguous and a US highway crosses the border. One can use the the aforementioned local Wayah Rd (it's one of the NC secondary roads), so it's locally connected. This failed both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

Why does the above fail the Jimtex test? On mine, it is right on the cusp as to whether 14 miles is more than a third of the maximum length of the impinged county. If it does not exceed that, it still fails because the nik is not "direct" enough. The road is designed to go to Bryson City, not Franklin, and one needs to make a left turn off it to take the road to Franklin. The only thing going for it, is that it is the best way to get from Swain to Franklin, because the counties are so cut off from one another, that this circuitous route is the only way to do it. Which sort of emphasizes why Swain and Macon should not be deemed connected.

NC 128 follows the Little Tennessee River northward, and in Macon County is also known as the Bryson City Road.  The eastern continental divide is well into North Carolina - it isn't on the North Carolina-Tennessee border as you might expect.

[jimrtex]

Graham (Robbinsville) to Macon (Franklin)
The direct road is NC 143 and NC 128 which is 45 mi and spends 14 mi in Swain. The route does not pass through any urban areas and doesn't approach the Swain county seat (Bryson City), though it does follow part of the preferred route one would take to get there from Graham. Graham and Macon are contiguous and a US highway crosses the border. One can use the the aforementioned local Wayah Rd (it's one of the NC secondary roads), so it's locally connected. This failed both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

You are most of the way from Robbinsville to Bryson City before you turn and go south. This is the route to Swain County, even NC 128 continues south.

That's what I assumed based on your definition of direct route, though you didn't say how much of the initial portion must be in common. Presumably using a main road to get out of the originating town is not enough to be considered the initial portion. I imagined that you would apply something like 1/3 of the route, consistent with the (2)(b)(i).

Direct Route: A route is direct if:
    (1) it it is not circuitous; and
    (2)(a) it is entirely within the two terminating counties; or
        (b)(i) less than 1/3 route is within the intervening county (-ies); and
             (ii) the initial portion of the route would not form part of the quickest route to more than   
                  1/3 of the residents of the intervening county. This calculation should be done in both
                  directions.

We agree that it shouldn't count as a connection for different reasons. Does Torie want a different outcome?

The example I gave after the definition used the county line as the decision point.

So as you reached the Graham-Swain line, the question would be is this also the way to Swain County, and the answer would be yes.

But I just thought of an case where that might not be a good definition.  There is a road from A to B and A to C, that forks when it is barely into B, with forks heading towards both B and C.

So perhaps the condition should be a percentage of the route to the intervening county that is in common.

The Robbinsville-Franklin route used 23/30 of the Robbinsville-Bryson City route, and Franklin-Robbinsville incorporates 19/27 of the Franklin-Bryson City route.

I think that the NC 128 coming north from Macon County is the Bryson County Road settles the issue that it really the route from Macon to Swain, with US 74 overlaying the last bit of the trip to Bryson City. NC 28 has pieced together two pieces of north-south roads connected along US74.

A fly in the ointment is that Google recommends US 23 and US 74 between Franklin and Bryson City. This eastern loop is longer, but slightly faster.


Just musing.  If we were trying to draw whole-county legislative districts, would connectivity really matter?  Could we simply require a modest amount of adjacency, since simply limiting county splits is going to prevent much real gerrymandering?

[Torie]

Graham (Robbinsville) to Macon (Franklin)
The direct road is NC 143 and NC 128 which is 45 mi and spends 14 mi in Swain. The route does not pass through any urban areas and doesn't approach the Swain county seat (Bryson City), though it does follow part of the preferred route one would take to get there from Graham. Graham and Macon are contiguous and a US highway crosses the border. One can use the the aforementioned local Wayah Rd (it's one of the NC secondary roads), so it's locally connected. This failed both the jimrtex and muon2 criteria.

You are most of the way from Robbinsville to Bryson City before you turn and go south. This is the route to Swain County, even NC 128 continues south.

That's what I assumed based on your definition of direct route, though you didn't say how much of the initial portion must be in common. Presumably using a main road to get out of the originating town is not enough to be considered the initial portion. I imagined that you would apply something like 1/3 of the route, consistent with the (2)(b)(i).

Direct Route: A route is direct if:
    (1) it it is not circuitous; and
    (2)(a) it is entirely within the two terminating counties; or
        (b)(i) less than 1/3 route is within the intervening county (-ies); and
             (ii) the initial portion of the route would not form part of the quickest route to more than  
                  1/3 of the residents of the intervening county. This calculation should be done in both
                  directions.

We agree that it shouldn't count as a connection for different reasons. Does Torie want a different outcome?

Alas, using the parameters that I came up with, I guess the two counties are connected. The length of the road is less than one third of the maximum length of the intervening county, assuming the portion of highway 28 that is in Swain is 14 miles, which appears about right (I have not found the best utility yet to just put two points on the map, and get the intervening highway distance, but I got close). Highway 28 does not pass through an urban area in Swain. What it comes down to, is that Highway 28 is the same number for the entire distance through Swain County. If it had a different number when it turns south (the highway is both highway 28 and US highway 74 for a stretch before it turns south), I would say that there is no connection. The fact that the highway in play in Swain is the same number for its entire distance therein, suggests to me that it was intended as a direct route between the two counties. If you have to use state highways in the intervening county that have more than one number, then automatically there is no connection.

All of the details of these parameter tests are a bit arbitrary at the margins, but what I like about mine, is you can look at the highway numbers, where the junctions are, check the distance of the highway in the intervening county, check the maximum length of the county, and if the road in the intervening county impinges on an urban area or county seat, and you are done. It's rather automatic.
If you start getting into dual highway use issues and so forth, I think it gets too complicated. The different test parameters should only make some difference at the margins I would think (unless Muon2 still wants to totally ignore state highway nick cuts).

Swain is a hard case. The fact that it is a bit of a stretch does not bother me too much. It will not happen very often. Hard cases make bad law, as it were. And what we want is the simplest test possible, even if theoretically it might not be the very best test, for whatever public policy is in play. As the senior partner of the first law firm that I worked at said, a penny's worth of additional accuracy at the cost of a pound's worth of confusion, is just not worth it.

[muon2]

I like Bing maps for its ability to drag not only the route, but also the start and end points. Bing also shows the county lines crossed along on the route. I used that to first find the route and distance from Robbinsville to Franklin, then I dragged the ends to the Swain county lines along the route to get that segment length.

I haven't dismissed the idea of local connection plus nicked direct connection as an alternative. I just want some specific language I can test both for whole county connections and when counties are chopped.

Here's where I think the Torie plan is at present, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Two counties are regionally connected if they are locally connected and have either

  A) a continuous path of numbered state highways between nodes completely within the two counties; or

  B) a continuous path of numbered state highways between nodes that includes a segment outside the two counties provided that the segment
    1) is on the most direct route between the nodes; and
    2) comprises no more than one third of the most direct route between the nodes; and
    3) passes through no Census-defined urban areas; and
    4) carries the same state or federal number on its length.

[Torie]

Not quite. Here is what is what I am suggesting for discussion (I reference county seats, just in case a county seat is not defined as an urban area):

Two counties that are geographically adjacent to each other by more than a corner points are regionally connected if they are locally connected by all weather two lane paved highway connections, which highway connections are either:

 A)  completely within the two counties, and are either 1) a continuous path of numbered state highways between nodes within each county, or 2) a highway completely within the two counties that is the most direct route between such nodes (and maybe has to have a number, which number is the same for the entire distance between the two nodes, just in case there is some erose multi non state highway connection affair that is still the shortest distance between nodes); or

  B)  both:

      1. A two lane paved highway completely within the two counties: and

      2. a continuous path of numbered state highways between nodes that includes a segment  outside the two counties that:  

     (a) is on the most direct route between the nodes; and
     (b) has a length outside the two counties that is no more than one third of the maximum length of  such outside counties; and
     (c) passes through no Census-defined urban areas or county seats; and
     (d) carries the same state or federal number for its entire length when outside the two counties.

Is a "node" defined as an urban area or county seat? It is not limited to just the county seat is it?

Another issue is whether "direct" means the shortest length, or the fastest driving time. I prefer a length test, because it is easier to ascertain, and is not dependent on such variables as weather, or darkness or traffic conditions, etc.

[jimrtex]

I like Bing maps for its ability to drag not only the route, but also the start and end points. Bing also shows the county lines crossed along on the route. I used that to first find the route and distance from Robbinsville to Franklin, then I dragged the ends to the Swain county lines along the route to get that segment length.

I haven't dismissed the idea of local connection plus nicked direct connection as an alternative. I just want some specific language I can test both for whole county connections and when counties are chopped.

Here's where I think the Torie plan is at present, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Two counties are regionally connected if they are locally connected and have either

  A) a continuous path of numbered state highways between nodes completely within the two counties; or

  B) a continuous path of numbered state highways between nodes that includes a segment outside the two counties provided that the segment
    1) is on the most direct route between the nodes; and
    2) comprises no more than one third of the most direct route between the nodes; and
    3) passes through no Census-defined urban areas; and
    4) carries the same state or federal number on its length.

The northern terminous of NC 28 was at US 74. It was later routed northeastward to Bryson City and then north. That it carries the name Bryson City Road north from Franklin indicates this history.  The new route of NC 28 goes to Fontana Lake which is on the Swain-Graham border. There is another road needed to get from Robbinsville to



If you look at the actual border between the counties, there is nothing in the northwestern corner of Macon County. US 129 south of Robbinsville looks like it is heading to the border, but when it gets close, it turns west parallel to US 74 before getting to the Cherokee County line and then the Cherokee-Graham-Macon intersection.

[jimrtex]

Since this came up in the Florida senate trial, I got the actual census bureau classification.

Primary roads are generally divided, limited-access highways within the interstate highway system or under state management, and are distinguished by the presence of interchanges. These highways are accessible by ramps and may include some toll highways.

Secondary roads are main arteries, usually in the U.S. Highway, State Highway or County Highway system. These roads have one or more lanes of traffic in each direction, may or may not be divided, and usually have at-grade intersections with many other roads and driveways. They often have both a local name and a route number.

The census bureau provides a layer comprised of primary and secondary roads, which is what I have used in QGIS.

Local Neighborhood Road, Rural Road, City Street

Generally a paved non-arterial street, road, or byway that usually has a single lane of traffic in each direction. Roads in this feature class may be privately or publicly maintained. Scenic park roads would be included in this feature class, as would (depending on the region of the country) some unpaved roads.

There are also classifications for ramps, service roads (feeders), 4WD trails.

[Torie]

Are you telling me that Dave's utility has an inaccurate map here, or things have changed? Try going to mapquest, and type a request for directions from Robbinsville to Franklin, and tell me what you see. What I see is a route all along highway 28. Unfortunately, photobucket won't upload the screen shot of that at the moment.

I really don't give a hoot whether my metrics make the two counties adequately adjacent or not of course. It is a very marginal case, that just slipped under the wire because of the elongated shape of Swain, and the fact that it is rural, and the highway happens to have the same number while traversing through Swain, and in this case, for its entire route between nodes (although that second bit is not required by my metrics).


That "secondary road" list has some potential, but for my allowing counties to be connected with non state highways, such secondary roads may still be too erose a path, with one having to make right angle turns from one road to another to get from one node to another (it's just really not designed as attempting to effect the practicable path between nodes - it's designed to service local rural areas). Thus my thought that we need to have a same numbered highway, which suggests some intent to try to create such a reasonably most practicable path.

[jimrtex]

Are you telling me that Dave's utility has an inaccurate map here, or things have changed? Try going to mapquest, and type a request for directions from Robbinsville to Franklin, and tell me what you see. What I see is a route all along highway 28. Unfortunately, photobucket won't upload the screen shot of that at the moment.

I really don't give a hoot whether my metrics make the two counties adequately adjacent or not of course. It is a very marginal case, that just slipped under the wire because of the elongated shape of Swain, and the fact that it is rural, and the highway happens to have the same number while traversing through Swain, and in this case, for its entire route between nodes (although that second bit is not required by my metrics).

That "secondary road" list has some potential, but for my allowing counties to be connected with non state highways, such secondary roads may still be too erose a path, with one having to make right angle turns from one road to another to get from one node to another (it's just really not designed as attempting to effect the practicable path between nodes - it's designed to service local rural areas). Thus my thought that we need to have a same numbered highway, which suggests some intent to try to create such a reasonably most practicable path.

A) 9 miles on NC 143 from Robbinsville to NC 28
B) 11.5 miles on NC 28 to US 74/19/NC 28.
C) 3 miles on shared designation US 28/74/NC 28
D) 21 miles on NC 28 to Franklin.

NC 28 goes northwest along the Swain-Graham line to Tennessee.  The big empty area in Swain County is Great Smokies National Park.

Segments A-B-C are generally eastward towards Bryson City. Segment D coming northward from Franklin is known locally as the Bryson City Road.

There is an excursion train from Bryson City to Andrews through the Nantahala Gorge, so the border between Graham and Macon is along the gorge. The reason NC 119 goes west is to find a bridge across the Nantahala River. So you are crossing a declivity to go directly from Graham to Macon.

Swain is north of Macon. Graham is at the extreme northwest corner of Macon.

I wasn't necessarily advocating for use of the primary and secondary roads. It was what I downloaded to use in QDIS. The alternative was "all roads" which includes streets. Perhaps the census bureau uses the primary and secondary roads when defining hops and jumps for urban areas.

But they were mentioned in the senate trial.

Already the judge has asked questions about: "standard deviation", "VTD", "shapefile, and "primary and secondary roads". If he would just hang out here, he would understand.

[Torie]

Benton actually does not link to White (I examined that one closely, and the road link just misses the county line (unless Dave's utility is inaccurate - we need some agree upon utility, but Dave's is obviously easiest), but yeah, I missed the Tippecanoe link. So 66 cuts.

Below is a Google Earth screenshot. Using the word "State" in the name of a county highway does not count does it?  



I would note that if Brookston and Fowler both qualified as urban area nodes, under my proposed metrics, White and Benton would be adequately connected if State Road actually touched the city limits of Fowler, since the same numbered county highway goes directly between nodes, but alas, it doesn't quite touch the Fowler city limit line (it's about 20 feet away from the city limit corner boundary or something where its junction is), so it does not. Kind of silly really, but if you want clear rules that someone other than Jimrtex can understand and comfortably apply, there will be instances where one would wish an exception were made. This is one of those hard cases. I find doing these real examples quite helpful to my thinking on all of this.



This assumes that the Dave utility boundary line of Fowler (presumably the city or village limits line) is the same as the urban area boundary on the census map, which might well not be the case. If the urban area boundary takes in the structures there at the junction, then it would be qualifying county road link.



And it turns out that Benton has no urban areas at all, which is why the metrics need to mention both urban areas and county seats. White's only urban area is the county seat, Monticello, so it turns out that State Road does not link two nodes in all events. Fowler presumably is the county seat, but since it is not an urban area, its boundary would just be the village limit lines, which the highway junction just misses. So there is no connection even if Brookston were an urban area.

Oh, yes, your map looks much better.

[muon2]

DRA uses Bing maps as its source. When I look at Benton to White I see the state highway symbol for IN-18 on Division Rd (Benton). When I have doubts about whether the number is part of the state system, I find the Wikipedia is usually up to date on state highways (cf Indiana State Road 18) and includes a nice table showing the counties and major intersections. For close calls at corners I flip between Bing road and satellite images. In any case 18 is a connection.

One issue with lines in DRA is they represent things as they were in 2010. That's good for our exercise redoing the past, but may not be accurate if we are looking to 2020.

[Torie]

Yes, you're right. Well it was an interesting exercise anyway, assuming State Road were not a state highway. For rapid road cut counts, I was relying on whether or not the roads were in yellow. I guess one cannot do that, which means that where there appear to be no yellow road connections, but road connections, a further inspection needs to be made. Boo!

[muon2]

I would never have drawn my first map, if using the old Indianapolis city lines was a no go. Locality chops in a macro-chopped county are almost always a scoring disaster. Your metrics give one a great incentive to avoid that. And presumably that is justified on the theory that it will tend to avoid more substantial partisan variations between maps which are competitive on the pareto optimal frontier.



Do you agree with my road cut count for my artistic endeavor (65 cuts)? Did I do it right? Did I do the count right for the chopped county of Henry? Is there an extra cut when an applicable state highway goes in and then out again of the chop before going into another county (which is what I did)?

The Hendricks to Marion/Pike connection is one that I wouldn't count for erosity. There is a large reservoir and park that generally block east-west travel. I-74 cuts a corner of Pike but has no interchange in the township. I-65 cuts a corner of Hendricks but has no interchange in the county. 56th street is the main through road across the water into Pike but isn't a state highway.

The two are locally connected, but based on the Kent analysis the severed link shouldn't count for erosity (yes one of will have to search for the thread at some point to remind the readers of the work we did. )

[Torie]

"56th street is the main through road across the water into Pike but isn't a state highway."

You only count state highway cuts for macro-chopped county quasi counties?

[muon2]

"56th street is the main through road across the water into Pike but isn't a state highway."

You only count state highway cuts for macro-chopped county quasi counties?

Subunits within a county are connected if they are locally connected. Subunits are connected across county lines if they are regionally connected. This was the Kent determination confirmed by application to the Detroit UCC. If we counted all local connections, the erosity along a straight county line got too high due to the number of broken links.

[Torie]

Got it. Thanks.

[muon2]

Here are some additional links that are missing above.
Elkhart to Noble at US 33/US 6
Clinton to Madison at IN-18
Madison to Delaware at IN-32
Putnam to Morgan at IN-42
Parke to Vigo at US-41
Dubois to Orange at IN-56
Orange to Crawford at IN-37
Crawford to Washington at IN-56
Rush to Decatur at IN-3
Interestingly these are all bright red lines on my trusty paper Rand McNally Atlas.
With the previous adjustments, that makes an erosity score of 73 with a chop score of 3. What is your population range by the way?

I think this has all the county links with my definition. It can serve as a starting point to test other definitions.

[Torie]

[Torie]

Washington is at once boring and interesting.  It’s boring because the map below (and while the possibility exists that the ever talented Muon2 might manage to draw a higher scoring map, in this case I don’t think so) causes absolutely no partisan change whatsoever from the existing map. It’s 4D, 2d, 1e, 1r, 2R, just like the existing map.  It has a Dem SKEW of 1.  And because of the interesting part, I am putting this post on the Muon2 policy oriented thread, rather than my partisan impact thread.



The map almost ended up with a higher Dem skew. My penultimate effort, had a chop into Gray’s Harbor County, rather than Thurston County because I have a bias against chopping into urban counties. But it could not be drawn without an extra state highway cut, as the highway in Gray’s Harbor went into and out of the adjacent CD.  So the final map which chopped into Thurston was the superior map avoiding one state highway cut, and the cut there pushed WA-03 over the line from tossup into the lean Pub category. My penultimate map is below.



I tried doing a Muon2 special, to wit, incurring a pack penalty to avoid an extra macrochop (into Pierce County), but alas that map was a fail, with two extra chops incurred as the cost of making the trade.  Perhaps the map would still be on the pareto optimal frontier due to avoiding a bunch of road cuts in Pierce County.  Here is the Muon2 special map:



Also notice that chop in Okanogan County in the map above. The road connection across the Cascades  is through the chopped county of Okanogan (in fact that is why it is chopped – the population numbers don’t otherwise require it, because while the chopped portion may have a lot of bears, it has very few people).  Is that allowed? It needs to be.

Another map that was a fail is below, but I put it up below to show a bridge chop in Yakima County. Again, I don’t see a problem with it, and if the population numbers had been just a tad different, the map might have ended up being best. In fact, Washington is so filled with blockades - mountain blockades, water blockades (San Juan must be appended to Skagit and so forth), county shape blockades (e.g. Callum County is nested in Jefferson County), population blockades (Yakima County plus Clark County have too much population to both be put in one CD), UCC blockades (it’s inconvenient that Douglas and Chelan are in one UCC, and ditto for Franklin and Benton), that absent bridge chops, the map might have ended up something of a disaster. But the population numbers worked – barely – to avoid such unpleasantness – this time.

 

Some folks are not going to like that a winning map causes a CD like the blue one (Reickert’s new district) to be drawn, from the Pacific Ocean, then a ferry crossing, then a bridge crossing, than a Cascades Mountain crossing, and then almost all the way to the Idaho border. What kind of community of interest is that? It sucks!

And the intra county road cut rules with respect to macrochops favor chops going into lightly populated areas, where fewer localities append each other. Thus the erose shape of my WA-09, as it deliberately makes a right angle turn to chop into Snohomish County.  It looks like a gerrymander to me. Blame Muon2 not me for that. I just play the game - I didn’t design it (well my fingerprints appear here and there, but whatever).  And again, the community of interest folks might howl. It tends to cause urban folks in one county to be combined with more rural folks in the adjacent chopped county. That will be something that is rather systematic, given the rules.

So, given the fact that there is absolutely no partisan change, the map must be similar to the map in place in Washington, right? Well, not exactly.  The map that was adopted was a Pub map, because a Dem commissioner voted for it – sort of a Mathismander in reverse. It was drawn to save Reichert’s butt, as his CD stays away from all those Democrats near the water in what is numbered as WA-08. WA-01 on the map looks similar, and did push that CD into a more marginal partisan status. Maybe the Dem commissioner was into SKEW minimalization or something.   And county chops seem to be preferred, rather than eschewed. That is what happens when folks start playing with communities of interest concepts I guess, or something.  And in this case, it ended up being a paradigmatic example of a lot of sound and fury signifying next to absolutely no change in partisan effect at all.

[jimrtex]

Washington is at once boring and interesting.  It’s boring because the map below (and while the possibility exists that the ever talented Muon2 might manage to draw a higher scoring map, in this case I don’t think so) causes absolutely no partisan change whatsoever from the existing map. It’s 4D, 2d, 1e, 1r, 2R, just like the existing map.  It has a Dem SKEW of 1.  And because of the interesting part, I am putting this post on the Muon2 policy oriented thread, rather than my partisan impact thread.



The map almost ended up with a higher Dem skew. My penultimate effort, had a chop into Gray’s Harbor County, rather than Thurston County because I have a bias against chopping into urban counties. But it could not be drawn without an extra state highway cut, as the highway in Gray’s Harbor went into and out of the adjacent CD.  So the final map which chopped into Thurston was the superior map avoiding one state highway cut, and the cut there pushed WA-03 over the line from tossup into the lean Pub category. My penultimate map is below.



I tried doing a Muon2 special, to wit, incurring a pack penalty to avoid an extra macrochop (into Pierce County), but alas that map was a fail, with two extra chops incurred as the cost of making the trade.  Perhaps the map would still be on the pareto optimal frontier due to avoiding a bunch of road cuts in Pierce County.  Here is the Muon2 special map:



Also notice that chop in Okanogan County in the map above. The road connection across the Cascades  is through the chopped county of Okanogan (in fact that is why it is chopped – the population numbers don’t otherwise require it, because while the chopped portion may have a lot of bears, it has very few people).  Is that allowed? It needs to be.

Another map that was a fail is below, but I put it up below to show a bridge chop in Yakima County. Again, I don’t see a problem with it, and if the population numbers had been just a tad different, the map might have ended up being best. In fact, Washington is so filled with blockades - mountain blockades, water blockades (San Juan must be appended to Skagit and so forth), county shape blockades (e.g. Callum County is nested in Jefferson County), population blockades (Yakima County plus Clark County have too much population to both be put in one CD), UCC blockades (it’s inconvenient that Douglas and Chelan are in one UCC, and ditto for Franklin and Benton), that absent bridge chops, the map might have ended up something of a disaster. But the population numbers worked – barely – to avoid such unpleasantness – this time.

 

Some folks are not going to like that a winning map causes a CD like the blue one (Reickert’s new district) to be drawn, from the Pacific Ocean, then a ferry crossing, then a bridge crossing, than a Cascades Mountain crossing, and then almost all the way to the Idaho border. What kind of community of interest is that? It sucks!

And the intra county road cut rules with respect to macrochops favor chops going into lightly populated areas, where fewer localities append each other. Thus the erose shape of my WA-09, as it deliberately makes a right angle turn to chop into Snohomish County.  It looks like a gerrymander to me. Blame Muon2 not me for that. I just play the game - I didn’t design it (well my fingerprints appear here and there, but whatever).  And again, the community of interest folks might howl. It tends to cause urban folks in one county to be combined with more rural folks in the adjacent chopped county. That will be something that is rather systematic, given the rules.

So, given the fact that there is absolutely no partisan change, the map must be similar to the map in place in Washington, right? Well, not exactly.  The map that was adopted was a Pub map, because a Dem commissioner voted for it – sort of a Mathismander in reverse. It was drawn to save Reichert’s butt, as his CD stays away from all those Democrats near the water in what is numbered as WA-08. WA-01 on the map looks similar, and did push that CD into a more marginal partisan status. Maybe the Dem commissioner was into SKEW minimalization or something.   And county chops seem to be preferred, rather than eschewed. That is what happens when folks start playing with communities of interest concepts I guess, or something.  And in this case, it ended up being a paradigmatic example of a lot of sound and fury signifying next to absolutely no change in partisan effect at all.

No year-round crossing of the Cascades into Okanogan.