Added new EDGG Sector Splits AIRAC2601

[K0nnyy]

Description of changes

Added new sector-splits for an update in EDGG with AIRAC2601. Added EDGG_N, EDGG_S, EDGG_A and EDGG_C_CTR (and their corresponding *A_CTR and *H_CTR variants). The "old" BAD, DKB, GIN and RUD will be much needed subsectors from now on. Added the *H_CTR variants for them as well. Additionally added three subsectors for the EDGG_GIN sectorgroup (SIG, TAU, HEF) that were wrongly displayed in the past as covering complete EDGG, while they were just covering a small part of the sector-group.

Reason and motivation

Without these changes, all controller online on one of the new sector splits will be shown to controll the whole FIR. As this causes issues on our side everyday, it is a must have to add these changes. Our FIR is one with the highest traffic-amount in the world. Correct displayed center sectors are crucial for frequency load as many user look on VatSpy (and tools using this data) for ATC coverage.

Approved contributior?

• I am on the approved contributers list
• I have sent an request by email to get approved
• Someone on the approved contributer list will review this request

[github-actions]

Validate data: https://vatsim-radar.com/data/vatspy/1112/compare

For controllers data testing visit https://docs.vatsim-radar.com/contributing/debug.html

[github-actions]

❌ Github login K0nnyy was not found in contributor list. Please read Readme to learn more.

Keep in mind: this message will not update automatically. Please, re-run validate-contributor job when this will be solved.

[LeoKle]

approved on behalf of VATGER

[Adrian2k]

Error: Fir EDGG-HMM boundary was not found
at file:///home/runner/work/vatspy-data-project/vatspy-data-project/scripts/bin/validate-dat.ts:105:26
at ModuleJob.run (node:internal/modules/esm/module_job:343:25)
at async onImport.tracePromise.proto (node:internal/modules/esm/loader:665:26)
at async asyncRunEntryPointWithESMLoader (node:internal/modules/run_main:117:5)

[daniluk4000]

Shouldn't EDWW be corrected for this change, or is this intended?

It wasn't like this before

[K0nnyy]

Shouldn't EDWW be corrected for this change, or is this intended?

It wasn't like this before

I see, good point, thank you! It is because the border differ depending on the level. I used the lower borders, which causes this issue. Just updated again, should be good now.