Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Topic started by: oscar on June 04, 2019, 07:35:35 pm

Title: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: oscar on June 04, 2019, 07:35:35 pm
With links and discussion at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25118.0
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: yakra on June 05, 2019, 01:55:38 am
The AR US63 reroute had been on my own personal Fictional list for a while, but I'd never really considered that one day it might actually happen. Good to see.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: Highway63 on June 06, 2019, 12:55:05 am
I can prepare all the Missouri changes except US 61 at Scott City because available aerial photos aren't recent enough. (And there goes my clinch.)

The nature of the change to BL I-55 in Illinois should probably result in changing US 66 as well.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: yakra on June 07, 2019, 02:31:56 pm
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2911

TX I-169 extended
Interstate, may or may not be a signed one, yadda yadda, close enough.
Going to go ahead and make this change right away.

TX US 175 realigned around Poynor
TX US 175 Business (Poynor) created
New divided bypass, new main thru alignment, all they have to do is sign it, I have little reason to believe they won't do so.
In it goes.
Nope, reconsidering that. Waiting until signage is confirmed. Edit: confirmed!

TX US 79 Business (Taylor) deleted
I should hold off on this one until confirming that field signage has changed. The relocation of the south end of the route was approved by AASHTO in Spring 2011, but this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.566788,-97.4387648,3a,36.7y,90.95h,85.53t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1spYqF4QkGJAgqnMMGmmOzTw!2e0!5s20161101T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) was still there in Nov 2016 (gone by Feb 2019), and this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5663229,-97.4342293,3a,18.7y,331.59h,92.02t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1sxQG22SlkHVH3X_EFG0Pc9A!2e0!5s20161101T000000!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DxQG22SlkHVH3X_EFG0Pc9A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D86.9721%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) is still there as of Mar 2019.

Similarly, one might think I'd have learned from the KS US40 debacle a few years back, but nope. I jumped the gun on the TX US90 reroute that was approved in Spring 2017. The most recent GMSV imagery shows a full complement of signage along the old route. Most recent signage is Aug 2018, EB at I-10(851). Oh bother. I suppose I should pull a KS US40 and undo the changes until I confirm it's actually signed? Yecch... Edit: Done.

TX US 62/US 85 realigned in El Paso
Quote
Prior to this application. US 62/US 85 existed on two separate roads in El Paso near the Mexico border: El Paso Street (one-way) and Stanton Street (two-way): the Texas Transportation Commission approved the removal of US 62/US 85 from the state highway system along El Paso Street from Paisano Street south to 6th Avenue: and that jurisdiction. control and maintenance be transferred to the City of  El Paso. The path of US62/US 85 still remains along Stanton Street. which is a two-way roadway.
OK, this one's a head-scratcher. Stanton St, two-way? Uhh, no! Maybe they're referring to just the very beginning of the route on the Good Neighbor bridge, until northbound traffic is looped back south thru the customs facility to Mesa & 9th?
62/85 was removed "along El Paso Street from Paisano Street south to 6th Avenue". All right, but what about the route south of there?
Designation files are no help here, listing the terminus only as a vague "El Paso". (I have yet to look up what AASHTO says about the end.)
In the shapefiles, When a route is on a split alignment, there are three arcs marked as that route: One on the EB or NB roadway itself, one on the WB or SB roadway itself, and another splitting the difference on the "center line", much as we do on TM. This "center line" for 62/85 only goes as far as 6th Ave (see attachment).
(We see a similar line on the grid map (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/apps-cg/grid_search/_includes/countymapbook/Pages/1006.pdf), but continuing one block farther south to 7th. Oh boy, and the Statewide Planning Map (https://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html) shows it to around 8th...)
Can this be considered, in some regard, the S/W end of the route? Was it just the most reasonable place TXDOT thought they could continue to represent a center line between the 2 alignments/bridges?
In that regard, if we consider 6th to be the "official" S end, then only mentioning decommissioning it that far down makes sense in a way.
It may make most sense to take a wait and see approach, until newer shapefiles, grid maps, and/or signage make things clearer.
Right now, signage at and south of Paisano is rather lacking. No signage at Stanton to direct either route southward. Only an EAST 62 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7557232,-106.4851759,3a,31.2y,72.37h,91.1t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1seZJnosrYEGq9SeDSKXQ1DA!2e0!5s20181001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) on EB Paisano. ON NB Santa Fe, there's just a NORTH 85 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7546808,-106.489225,3a,16y,357.15h,86.87t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1s7psuHXuYgOhFdlofn0p67Q!2e0!5s20170401T000000!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D7psuHXuYgOhFdlofn0p67Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D77.67252%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40), and nothing for 62.
Is this even going to change, or remain poorly signed?...
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: oscar on June 07, 2019, 04:38:43 pm
See my comments on the AARoads forum (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25118.msg2421470;topicseen#msg2421470) on the US62/85 mess.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: yakra on June 07, 2019, 05:50:15 pm
Quote from: oscar on aaroads
My other take is that my border-to-border clinch of US 85 from my very painful (truck broke down on the Santa Fe St. Bridge) 2017 border crossing is not undone by all this.
Sounds right, since you also have SB via Stanton St under your belt.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: rlee on June 16, 2019, 09:47:32 pm
The last time I was there in May, US 61 Business in Baton Rouge had no signage at all on the downtown surface street section between the two I-110 exits.  DOTD's right-size map for East Baton Rouge Parish shows that it had already been turned back to the city-parish.

Fortunately but unknowingly at the time, I reclinched it by driving the one block of Chippewa St (soon-to-be-rerouted US 61 Business) from existing US 61 Business to I-110.

I'm not sure if US 61 Business needs to be rerouted now or wait for signs to be placed on I-110.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: rlee on June 16, 2019, 10:08:51 pm
US 190 Business should fully overlap with US 61 Business, but it isn't mentioned in the AASHTO application. I wonder if they meant to reroute US 190 Business onto I-110 along with US 61 Business?

The last time I was there in May, US 61 Business in Baton Rouge had no signage at all on the downtown surface street section between the two I-110 exits.  DOTD's right-size map for East Baton Rouge Parish shows that it had already been turned back to the city-parish.

Fortunately but unknowingly at the time, I reclinched it by driving the one block of Chippewa St (soon-to-be-rerouted US 61 Business) from existing US 61 Business to I-110.

I'm not sure if US 61 Business needs to be rerouted now or wait for signs to be placed on I-110.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: Jim on June 19, 2019, 01:09:32 pm
Highway63 sent me a substantial batch of changes related to this.  Any volunteers to take his files and get them into GitHub with proper CSV changes and updates entries?  I can email you his zip file.  Thanks.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: oscar on June 19, 2019, 01:19:32 pm
Highway63 sent me a substantial batch of changes related to this.  Any volunteers to take his files and get them into GitHub with proper CSV changes and updates entries?  I can email you his zip file.  Thanks.

No can do. I'm pretty much offline until next Sunday evening, since I'll be staying at a remote resort with limited Net access, and also pretty busy the rest of next week.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: Duke87 on June 19, 2019, 11:51:08 pm
Since I'm in Dallas for work for a couple days I decided to go drive down to Poynor this evening, both to reclaim my clinch of US 175 and field check the status of the routes there.

The bypass of Poynor is indeed fully open and carrying US 175 traffic (twinning from Poynor to Frankston is still under construction). There is not, however, any signage to be found for Bus 175 currently. At both ends of the business route, signs just point to FM 315. At the intersection with FM 315, all the old signage for plain vanilla US 175 is still in place.

Not sure if this really means anything for us since the easiest conclusion is "okay, they just got approval, they haven't gone and updated the signs yet", but figured I'd share in the interest of disclosure.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: michih on June 20, 2019, 02:20:02 am
Any volunteers to take his files and get them into GitHub with proper CSV changes and updates entries?

I'm not familar with US and I've no idea whether data is prepared well. If no one else has time right now, I might have a try but cannot promise that I'll manage it 100%.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: Markkos1992 on June 20, 2019, 07:11:21 am
Highway63 sent me a substantial batch of changes related to this.  Any volunteers to take his files and get them into GitHub with proper CSV changes and updates entries?  I can email you his zip file.  Thanks.

I could probably do it on Saturday.  I am still working on my Monday trip today (and may have limited computer time due to severe weather), and I have a church event to go to tomorrow night.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: yakra on June 20, 2019, 10:35:33 am
Or I could have a crack at it, maybe if you left the files on noreaster...
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: yakra on June 20, 2019, 05:52:18 pm
Since I'm in Dallas for work for a couple days I decided to go drive down to Poynor this evening, both to reclaim my clinch of US 175 and field check the status of the routes there.

The bypass of Poynor is indeed fully open and carrying US 175 traffic (twinning from Poynor to Frankston is still under construction). There is not, however, any signage to be found for Bus 175 currently. At both ends of the business route, signs just point to FM 315. At the intersection with FM 315, all the old signage for plain vanilla US 175 is still in place.

Not sure if this really means anything for us since the easiest conclusion is "okay, they just got approval, they haven't gone and updated the signs yet", but figured I'd share in the interest of disclosure.

Oh boy. The easiest conclusion, yes, but not necessarily the right one, and I may have been too hasty on reaching it upthread.
There's TX6Bus in Reagan, designated in 2015 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/bs/bs0006p.htm), but still unsigned as of Apr 2018. Similarly has signs for just FM (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2103607,-96.7793711,3a,72.8y,307.97h,91.11t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1si4AIqffLHiR8vcnZyfgMAA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) 413 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2208539,-96.7902225,3a,34.8y,131.38h,90.23t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sZZMtn7cB4FzKV9ISvMdhQw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
Also, US-Route-wise, there's US290Bus in Cypress, designated in 1992 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/bu/bu0290l.htm), also unsigned. Not recognized by AASHTO, FWIW.
Thinking now that maybe I should take a step back and remove this from the system until I can confirm it's signed, same as for US90 in Beaumont.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: yakra on June 22, 2019, 04:41:53 pm
I pulled a KS US40 and undid the relocation of TX US90 around Beaumont. Included an updates entry, as the changes have been in place for > 2 years.
•  One AltLabel retained, to preserve chaddean's travels.
•  A line in codyg1985.list was broken, but he's still fine due to an I-10 concurrency.
Also removed US175BusPoy. Here, I just deleted the updates entry, and modified the one for US175 proper, as the changes have only been here a couple weeks, with only Duke87 claiming travels so far. It never existed! :)

I'll watch out for (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1808.msg14179#msg14179) signage, and re-add the route when I confirm.
I'll be more cautious about similar edits in the future.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2935
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: Jim on June 23, 2019, 04:22:38 pm
Highway63 sent me a substantial batch of changes related to this.  Any volunteers to take his files and get them into GitHub with proper CSV changes and updates entries?  I can email you his zip file.  Thanks.

I'm taking care of these today, and just committed and pushed.  I wouldn't mind someone checking out the diffs of my commit as a sanity check. 

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/51cedcb095481615911d2745fba787fb8c9895bd
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: yakra on November 19, 2020, 09:10:05 pm
Stanton St, two-way? Uhh, no!
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/NPyHgTkMStCXC/200.gif)
I've just checked out every block of Stanton in GMSV, in every year available, and it's clearly a two-way.
Why in tarnation did I say that? Yet...

Quote from: oscar on AARoads (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25118.msg2421470#msg2421470)
In 2017, ... Stanton St. was definitely one-way southbound
Mandela Effect?

Anyway... I did some more looking around and found several signs I missed before, though not (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7512528,-106.4847739,3a,33.8y,188.76h,91.58t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1slFWm0ar86i9xu6_l0GDjyw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) all (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7558299,-106.4852487,3a,15y,110.99h,90.32t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sZ_HbDD_fYnkHTTvzsuIi0A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DZ_HbDD_fYnkHTTvzsuIi0A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D255.18301%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) that (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7553082,-106.4870949,3a,15y,79.4h,88.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sNg3bi_X-nuEoebHPt-H9Ng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) much (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7550484,-106.4882397,3a,21.2y,344.59h,93.61t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s8nxcCmVAP7XVwzuNOa8GWA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D8nxcCmVAP7XVwzuNOa8GWA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D68.50327%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) has (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.754273,-106.4878966,3a,43.4y,345.98h,91.57t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sVsJtWIJm6sSnjJs96MbIOA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) changed (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7542968,-106.4879082,3a,43.3y,345.54h,90.84t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sdC4qDBNO_7AAqbp0OYVkRw!2e0!5s20190401T000000!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) in years; these signs have been around a long time. None of this convinces me to move the routes yet. Most critically, there no shields directing SB traffic onto Stanton, or for traffic on NB Stanton at Paisano.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: Markkos1992 on February 16, 2021, 01:16:31 pm
The Monticello Bypass in AR was done via this thread (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2731.0).

I-55BL (Springfield, IL), US 30 (IA), US 52(IA) (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3781.0), I-94BL (Kalamazoo, MI) (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=mi.i094bskal), US 131 BUS (Kalamazoo, MI) (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=mi.us131buskal&lat=42.307181&lon=-85.609117&zoom=14), US 61 (MO) (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=mo.us061&lat=40.091730&lon=-91.630783&zoom=10), US 61 BUS (Kelso, MO) (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=mo.us061buskel), the deletions of US 65 BUS (Carrollton and Trenton, MO), and US 67 BUS (Cherokee Pass, MO) (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=mo.us067busche) have been done as well.  So all IL, IA, MI, and MO changes are in the HB.

I do not understand why I-49 has not been fully signed along I-20 and I-220.  Right now it is all just "TO I-49" shields both NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.492587,-93.7561844,3a,75y,344.85h,88.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNi_XuAvcv3L3JIxQ09JjbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and SB (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5416252,-93.7953727,3a,75y,186.12h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCd6SXKndoGite2tbnUlzlg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). 
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: vdeane on February 17, 2021, 12:58:05 pm
I do not understand why I-49 has not been fully signed along I-20 and I-220.  Right now it is all just "TO I-49" shields both NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.492587,-93.7561844,3a,75y,344.85h,88.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNi_XuAvcv3L3JIxQ09JjbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and SB (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5416252,-93.7953727,3a,75y,186.12h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCd6SXKndoGite2tbnUlzlg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). 
I've never understood why they requested it in the first place given that they're building a new urban freeway in Shreveport for that connection.  Maybe they realized they would just have to re-route it later when they finished building I-49 proper and decided not to sign it.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: Markkos1992 on February 17, 2021, 02:15:46 pm
I do not understand why I-49 has not been fully signed along I-20 and I-220.  Right now it is all just "TO I-49" shields both NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.492587,-93.7561844,3a,75y,344.85h,88.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNi_XuAvcv3L3JIxQ09JjbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and SB (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5416252,-93.7953727,3a,75y,186.12h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCd6SXKndoGite2tbnUlzlg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). 
I've never understood why they requested it in the first place given that they're building a new urban freeway in Shreveport for that connection.  Maybe they realized they would just have to re-route it later when they finished building I-49 proper and decided not to sign it.

They probably requested it because of the funding issues that they are having with the project.  I did find a news article from June 11, 2020, (https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/2020/06/15/shreveport-business-leaders-push-i-49-connector/3191925001/) on it (behind a paywall).
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: Markkos1992 on May 07, 2021, 07:15:35 pm
The US 63 and US 63 BUS (Jonesboro) changes in AR have been done. (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4741)
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: yakra on May 29, 2021, 08:13:22 pm
Signage (albeit a bit lacking) has been confirmed for US175Bus (Poynor). Back in it goes!
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4834

In the process, I discovered that US175 & its children are consistently signed east-west, so I flipped point order and adjusted _N & _S suffixes to _W & _E on intersecting/concurrent routes. This includes TxLp60, which has no signed cardinal directions of its own. Treating it as a notional child route of US175, and keeping its direction consistent. It's more of an east-west route anyway.
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: Markkos1992 on June 06, 2021, 08:32:39 am
New thread on I-265 in IN/KY:  https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4370.0
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: yakra on June 29, 2021, 02:03:21 pm
TX US 79 Business (Taylor) deleted
I should hold off on this one until confirming that field signage has changed. The relocation of the south end of the route was approved by AASHTO in Spring 2011, but this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.566788,-97.4387648,3a,36.7y,90.95h,85.53t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1spYqF4QkGJAgqnMMGmmOzTw!2e0!5s20161101T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) was still there in Nov 2016 (gone by Feb 2019), and this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.5663229,-97.4342293,3a,18.7y,331.59h,92.02t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1sxQG22SlkHVH3X_EFG0Pc9A!2e0!5s20161101T000000!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DxQG22SlkHVH3X_EFG0Pc9A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D86.9721%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) is still there as of Mar 2019.
Thru town, [BUS]{79} signage has been placed by vanilla {79} signage. I'm going to treat this as missing-TO trailblazer signage.
The only place left to potentially have any signage (other than one BUS I still saw in town) is the split on the east side o town, but GMSV isn't updated there yet.
Think maybe I've seen enough to remove this now?
Title: Re: AASHTO approvals Spring 2019
Post by: yakra on August 18, 2021, 01:16:42 am
TX US79BusTay deleted (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5047)