Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: vespertine on January 22, 2020, 07:49:05 pm

Title: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
Post by: vespertine on January 22, 2020, 07:49:05 pm
I recently downloaded the Montana highway system routes map (https://www.mdt.mt.gov/travinfo/docs/hwymap_system.pdf) off of their site for some of my own roadgeeky purposes. In doing so, I found five discrepancies between what their map shows and what's shown in the HB.


I'm no expert on Montana's routes, and GMSV doesn't help with their ancient imagery, so I make no claims for this to be totally accurate...it's just what I've been able to try and figure out from MDT and other stuff. Anyway, hope this helps.

v.
Title: Re: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
Post by: Duke87 on January 23, 2020, 03:28:11 pm
The route log that the system was based on seems to agree with all of these.

One other thing I will note is that the designation "SR" itself is a TM invention. MDT refers to these as S-###. Not sure that this is worth doing anything about - the only other US/Canada jurisdiction with a current secondary system is Alberta, and there the secondaries just keep using "AB ###" nomenclature. Still, Alberta has no route number duplications between primaries and secondaries. Montana has exactly one (287), but that's enough to create a conflict if the same thing were to be done.
Title: Re: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
Post by: the_spui_ninja on January 25, 2020, 02:26:33 am
Alrighty, did some digging.
S-204: Looks like it used to go all the way to US 191, hence why OSM and Google still have it in there.
S-258: Also in OSM
S-287: Per MDT GIS (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=8a4fe70b08534341afb10a49fb5b7771 (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=8a4fe70b08534341afb10a49fb5b7771)), it does go all the way through Willow Creek.
S-290: Per MDT GIS, it is Menard Rd.
S-544: Also in OSM

These should be relatively easy to do since no one's been on the segments in question.

Not sure that this is worth doing anything about
I don't think it's that big of a deal.
Title: Re: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
Post by: the_spui_ninja on January 28, 2020, 12:50:45 am
Got everything but the reroute
Title: Re: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
Post by: the_spui_ninja on January 29, 2020, 09:37:32 am
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3565 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3565)
Title: Re: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
Post by: yakra on March 15, 2020, 05:37:44 pm
SR544:
+X05 is a tiny bit off, move? (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.204421&lon=-105.063034)
+X06 much more so; it appears to be on an old road bed (https://historicaerials.com/location/45.254482809959164/-105.04596412181856/1980/17).
RidtoBoyRd -> RidBoyRd (http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#truncate)

MT59:
SR544 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.199813&lon=-105.331045
->
BelCreRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.199983&lon=-105.331115

RanCreRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.106000&lon=-105.338030
->
SR544 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.105993&lon=-105.338098
Title: Re: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
Post by: the_spui_ninja on March 16, 2020, 06:17:37 pm
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3671 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3671)

+X05 is a tiny bit off, move? (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.204421&lon=-105.063034)
+X06 much more so; it appears to be on
I didn't do anything with those other than clean up the hidden label the last time; guess I should have looked more closely at them.