2011-2012 Score Hockey Box Break

Disclaimer: This box was given to me directly by Panini after I had reported to them about a weird inconsistency with a previous box of 2011-12 Score that I bought and busted. Inside that previous box, I pulled 37 duplicate base cards which is really weird in a 500+ card set.

Anyways, enough of the chit-chat, let's get onto the break:

Cards per pack: 7
Packs per box: 36
Cards per box: 252

Duplicates: 0
% of base set (500): 183/500 (36.6%)
% of set with Hot Rookies: 201/549 (36.6%)

Hits:
Hot Rookies SPs (#551-#570): 2 (#554 Devante Smith-Pelly; #563 Justin Faulk)
Glossy: 36
Gold Rush: 1 (#158 Jamie Benn)
Making An Entrance: 3 (#1 Jamie Benn; #2 Joe Thornton; #3 Jordan Eberle)
Net Cam: 3 (#1 Tim Thomas; #13 Corey Crawford; #14 James Reimer)
Playoff Heroes: 1 (#5 Nathan Horton)
Score B: 1 (#5 Alex Ovechkin)
Sudden Death: 2 (#11 Ilya Kovalchuk; #14 Brandon Sutter)
The Franchise: 2 (#11 Nicklas Lidstrom; #22 Claude Giroux)

Thoughts:

My concerns have been laid to rest and proves that previous box was really an odd ball out there that just happened to land in my hands. Hopefully it was the only one like it out there, because it really did throw me for a loop when I busted it and tabulated what I pulled from it.

Anyways, all of the cards were in good shape, no quality control problems, and my dad and I had a fun time breaking the box together.

Thanks again Panini for showing you're a stand up company that cares about the collectors!! I can't wait till the 2012-2013 Score Hockey is out, so I can acquire a few boxes to bust. Hope you're considering my minor suggestion to add the word “Gold Rush” on the back of those cards as you do for the Glossy cards. Would make it easier to spot the Gold Rush cards if you're looking at the backs when trying to sort them. :)

BTW, anybody out there willing to trade with me so I can acquire the last Penguin base card I need to complete my team set? Still need the rookie card of Brian Strait (#531). Have several extra rookie cards that I can trade from the set in a 1-on-1 trade.

MapQuest Open Map rendering problems in the USA

Well, you guys are probably wondering wondering why I'm writing this blog post. Well, I just felt like it because I'm active in the OSM community and I do want to see the data rendered properly if at all possible.

Anyways, here's are some of the major glaring rendering problems that I've noticed here on the USA map (http://open.mapquest.com/), in no particular order:

1. Highway multiplex problems – This is personally one of my major annoyances of how MapQuest renders the data. They rely on the “ref=*” tags of the ways and this most of the time leads to no shields rendered at all. Sometimes it leads to having refs rendered with the incorrect highway shields. Either of those are really annoying. Here are some major examples of “rendering gone wrong”:
   1A. http://open.mapquest.com/link/7-cvFnPFj0 – While the highway name is shown (Penn-Lincoln Parkway West), it would also be helpful to show the highway shields that are on the highway. Right there, the “ref” tags are properly tagged (ref=I 376;US 22;US 30) in the OSM data. This also happens on all of I-99 because it's multiplexed with US-220 (ref=I 99;US 220) and also with US-322 for a segment (shows both areas: http://open.mapquest.com/link/3-jwvqATUu).
   1B. MapQuest renders Florida State Route A1A as just “1A”. Of course, pretty much all of Florida lacks the state tag in the ref's (not MapQuest's fault, it's the OSM data), still, it shouldn't always take the first or second letter away. Should only do that if it matches on of the state abbreviations, “US”, or “I” on the USA map. http://open.mapquest.com/link/2-tIvbuHFl (ref tag in OSM is “A1A”)
   1C. Here, two US highways mutliplex for awhile. However, they are rendered like they are State Highways instead of US Highways when they are tagged correctly in OSM data (ref=US 22;US 119): http://open.mapquest.com/link/4-gXaMRVED US-22 and US-119 should get separate shields here since there is enough space for it. Anyways, there are several other areas out there that you can see the same thing happening along US Highway multiplexes.
   1D. Here we have a US highway multiplexing with a State highway. However, they are “both” rendered as a State Highway. http://open.mapquest.com/link/2-ZcGR9DI6 (ref=US 22;PA 764)
   1E. Here we have a US highway multiplexing with an Interstate. Both are then rendered as an Interstate (which is incorrect, they “should” have two separate shields). http://open.mapquest.com/link/8-LAOEp0HM (ref=I 68;US 40) And here's another example of this where I-74 and US-74 multiplex. This looks really ugly seeing two “74's” in the Interstate shield: http://open.mapquest.com/link/1-EwcIWxCX (ref=I 74;US 74).
   1F. Here's a segment of highway that has 3 US Highway on it, yet, only two are shown and they are rendered as a State Highway. http://open.mapquest.com/link/2-otKX2OgR (ref=US 1;US 23;US 301) It seems that the middle route is completely ignored.
   1G. Here's a similar problem as 1F except it deals with an Interstate, US Highway, and a State Route. Here we have I-99, US-220, and PA-26 all on the same segment of highway. However, only I-99 and PA-26 are mentioned, and to boot, both are put together in an Interstate shield. http://open.mapquest.com/link/10-XdW1C8Jb (ref=I 99;US 220;PA 26)
   MapQuest, maybe it's time to start rendering by “relations” for highway shields. If the highway way doesn't have any route relation attached to it, *then* render by the ref tags.
   
   
2. While MapQuest doesn't render highways with “highway=construction” as of yet, they do render the name of the highway still. This just makes the map look weird since they aren't showing the highway. Here's an example of this: http://open.mapquest.com/link/7-toNAWRmu This is the under-construction segment of the Mon/Fayette Expressway in PA. Here's the same area on the default OSM Mapnik rendering: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.9934&lon=-79.91457&zoom=16&layers=M MapQuest, if you want to render the name, render the highway under-construction too. Otherwise, don't render the name on “highway=construction” ways.
   
   
3. Rendering of “highway=motorway_junction” nodes shouldn't happen along “highway=construction” ways as well. It's just common sense. If you look at this view: http://open.mapquest.com/link/3-XTXyoGCE , you can see the just stick out very badly when they aren't attached to a highway. MapQuest, please don't render them on “highway=construction” ways unless you start rendering the “highway=construction” ways themselves as I mentioned in #2.
   
   
4. Exit number have also been cut off in some places if they are longer than the “green box” that they get rendered in. I know in the non-open version of MapQuest, this doesn't happen. Thus, why does it happen in the Open map? Here's some examples:
   4A. 1B-1C doesn't fit in the box properly: http://open.mapquest.com/link/7-QJQLVNS6 (the 1B-C just below it almost does fit, but the “C” only half fits)
   4B. Here we have a 3-digit exit number with a letter (362A). It doesn't fully fit in the exit number box as the “3” and “A” both stick out making it look ugly: http://open.mapquest.com/link/8-6baEnnBx
   4C. Here we have an exit number that's even longer (23 A-B). When rendered, the “2” and “B” are completely outside the box. http://open.mapquest.com/link/2-9jKt29ct
   MapQuest, I know you can do this correctly as on your normal maps, you don't have this problem.
   
   
5. The rendering of “highway=motorway_link” isn't constant. I've been noticing that when said “highway=motorway_link” is tagged with “bridge=yes” as well as the “highway=motorway” it's leaving being tagged the same, the “motorway_link” is rendered over-top of the “highway=motorway”. This type of rendering isn't consistent with the same situation when there is no “bridge=yes” tag involved. Here's a good example showing this: http://open.mapquest.com/link/3-xL7YIfzZ Exit #1B & #1D's ramps are rendered above the main highway unlike the ramp to the right of them joining I-279 SB and the HOV lanes in the middle of the highway.
   “highway=motorway_link” also doesn't even respect the layer tags when tagged with them (when they are bridges). Example of this can be found here: http://open.mapquest.com/link/8-q3PKQcwJ The two “motorway_link”s that you see in the middle of the interchange should be rendered below the segment of I-10 crossing them. I-10 is on layer=3, while the ramps are on layer=1 and layer=2.

Now, I may have other comments about rendering later, but these are some if not the most major problems I have noticed on MapQuest's Open map of the USA. If you want to comment about this, don't hesitate to make a post in my comments area. :)

– James Mast (rickmastfan67)

I-10/I-95 Interchange Reconstruction - Jacksonville, FL (10/21/09)

Alright, here are some recent shots that I have taken down in Jacksonville of the reconstruction of that interchange.

First, I'm going to start off going SB on I-95 toward I-10.  I'm going to first start off by showing the 1 Mile advance signage for the future I-10/I-95 SB at the C/D split:

Here we are coming now coming up on Exits #353B-C just past the #353D SB onramp:

Now, here we are coming up on the location of the future I-95/I-10 C/D split.  Right now, all traffic is being detoured onto the C/D lanes while the main "express" lanes for I-95 are rebuilt just past the bridges in the background:

Here we are now on the C/D lanes coming up on the I-95/I-10 split on the C/D lanes just past the onramp from W Bay St.:

And here we are now right at the split on the C/D lanes:

Now, here we are on I-10 heading toward US-17's & FL-228's split off of I-10:

Here we are now at the left exit split for US-17:

Now, let's start the NB direction along US-17 coming toward I-10.  Here we are where US-17 used to split off and go into downtown on the local streets:

Now, here we are just about to intersect with I-10.  This signage you will see was put up when FDOT rerouted US-17 and FL-228 onto I-10:

Now, here we are on I-10.  Can you notice something wrong with this picture?

Here we are now coming up on all of the construction for the reconfiguration.  At this point, the traffic for NB I-95 has already been split off (because of the construction):

Here we are a little farther on with some of the new BGS's already up, but partially covered over.  Can you also notice something wrong in this picture?

Now, here's a broader look at what has been completed for this interchange:

Here's a close up of the BGS you see on the left in the above picture:

And here's another picture showing the progress on the new I-10 > I-95 NB C/D ramp (at least I think that's what it's for, I could be wrong here.):

Anyways, that's all of the pictures I have for this.  I hope you enjoyed this look at how this interchange is progressing.  I honestly can't wait for it to be completed because it was "a pain in the behind" in it's old configuration.

All pictures were taken on 10/21/09.

FL I-95's newest Flyover @ I-295/FL-9A

Yeah, yeah, I know I haven't updated this in just about a year, but I do have something to post about now.

Recently, I was in the Jacksonville, FL area and I'm going to show you guys some of the current underconstruction projects that I had time to visit (only there for 2 full days).  I'll be documenting this new flyover as well as the current state of reconstruction of the I-95/I-10 interchange and one other thing that I'll mention later.

Anyways, FDOT is constructing a new flyover ramp @ the Northern I-95/I-295/FL-9A interchnage for the SB I-95 to SB FL-9A movement.  Currently, it's a sharp 270 degree loop which slows down traffic big time.  Plus with the completion of making FL-9A (will become I-295 Beltway East sometime in 2010) a complete freeway on the Eastern side of Jacksonville, will become the preferd route to bypass Downtown being 9 miles shorter than I-295 Beltway West.

Here are some current picture of how the flyover is progressing.  All pictures were taken 10/21/09-10/22/09.  (If you want to use them for your site, please contact me first.)

(This picture is going SB on I-95.  In this view, the ramp looks to be completed, but that is deciving.  You'll see why in a bit.)

Here's an even better view with that big rig out of the way.

Here's the view of the new flyover once you have completed the current loop from SB I-95 to FL-9A South (Future I-295 Beltway East)

Here you can see that they still have several more segments to go before they have this new flyover completed.  As far as I can tell, this will be wide enough for 2-lanes, but odds are they are only going to strip it for 1-lane.

Here you can see work going on the FL-9A SB overpass of US-17.  With the future configuration of the I-95/I-295/FL-9A interchange, they needed to expamd this bridge to allow enough room for people to merge onto the main 2-lanes of FL-9A SB and not get forced off onto the US-17 exit (Exit #36).

Now, here are some views going NB on I-95:

Well, enjoy everybody!!

I-99 to fully open Nov. 25, 2008.

Just saw on the Center Daily Time's website that I-99 will fully open on Nov. 25, 2008.

Here's the article so you guys can read it.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/948539.html

I-99 NB @ Skytop now open

Well, at 11:15AM Thursday Morning 10/30/08, the NB lanes at Skytop opened.

Here's the link to the article from centredaily.com with pictures of the new configuration:
http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/935167.html

However, I have no idea if I-99 shields are posted yet. If they aren't, I bet the will be by the time the SB lanes are opened @ Skytop.

I-99 NB @ Skytop to open Thursday 10/30/08

Just saw the PR on PennDOT's website.

If you want to read it, check it out here.