Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Topic started by: mapmikey on February 20, 2016, 03:05:07 pm

Title: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: mapmikey on February 20, 2016, 03:05:07 pm
Returning from my trip to Texas, I am trying to figure out if I need to do anything with any SC .wpt files to have the system put into official development and peer review.

Based on this aaforums thread - http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17029.0 it seems like it was decided that the small number on non-conforming labels weren't worth fixing...

Mike
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: mapcat on February 20, 2016, 07:23:51 pm
Regardless of whether they're worth fixing, I think we should move this system up to preview. The label issue could still be debated while the peer review is proceeding.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: Jim on February 23, 2016, 01:11:14 pm
Having heard no objections to the move, I am promoting usasc to preview status.  I hope to run a site update shortly that will include it.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: si404 on June 08, 2016, 08:23:27 am
Having skimmed a few routes and getting frustrated by the 'show markers' function not working (hence why this isn't a more thorough review), they seem mostly fine.

One issue, however, is where (say State St on SC2) the road turns off a road onto another and you've labelled it with the road name that the highway was on, but turns off. Directional suffixes (ie StaSt_S) are surely needed as the state highway runs concurrent with the road of that name.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: Quidditch33 on June 08, 2016, 12:19:07 pm
I agree with si404.

Thanks,
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: mapmikey on June 08, 2016, 08:16:56 pm
A couple thoughts on this...

State St is the street SC 2 turns onto from Frink in the regular convention of directions.  Also, the amount of State St south of this intersection is 150 ft before the road is closed (i.e. it is not a real road).

There are, however, probably a few other examples like this in the SC set.  If what you are describing is what the policy is (best I can tell this is not covered in the CHM rules) then I will fix any that are pointed out to me...
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: mapmikey on August 06, 2016, 02:57:07 pm
The SC 5 CONNECTOR created by SC 5's reroute in Rock Hill a few years back is shown in GMSV to be fully posted at both SC 5/901 and SC 322.

A file was created for this and sent in for update...
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: Jim on August 07, 2016, 02:17:03 pm
The SC 5 CONNECTOR created by SC 5's reroute in Rock Hill a few years back is shown in GMSV to be fully posted at both SC 5/901 and SC 322.

A file was created for this and sent in for update...

Changes are now in.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: oscar on October 07, 2016, 10:55:29 pm
For SC 19, SC118 => US1Trk/78Trk ?

SC118 would be OK if it weren't concurrent with the two US truck routes, which I think "outrank" the state route for waypoint labeling purposes. Also, when I edited my list file to add an SC 19 entry for my travels earlier today, I was initially thrown off by the current label.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: froggie on October 09, 2016, 12:49:06 pm
Given that, by and large, TRUCK US routes are not recognized by AASHTO, I feel that the state route would "outrank" the truck routes.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: mapmikey on October 09, 2016, 08:12:44 pm
If I were to change it to a truck route it would be SC 19 TRUCK...

Note that none of the 3 truck routes that follow SC 118 are posted from SC 19 NB...only SC 118.

Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: theFXexpert on January 13, 2017, 10:02:26 am
Other than copying over what's in usansf, Anything else needed to activate this?
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: mapmikey on January 13, 2017, 03:20:40 pm
Other than copying over what's in usansf, Anything else needed to activate this?

I don't know if anyone has done a complete review behind me...only a couple issues have been raised in this thread.

I was going to offer to review the Georgia set in exchange for a SC review, if nobody has committed to reviewing the Georgia routes...
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: theFXexpert on January 17, 2017, 09:44:25 am
I don't know if anyone has done a complete review behind me...only a couple issues have been raised in this thread.

I was going to offer to review the Georgia set in exchange for a SC review, if nobody has committed to reviewing the Georgia routes...
Nobody has yet. I can take a more thorough look at SC once I'm done getting the remaining GA routes uploaded unless someone wants to beat me to it. I assume review consists of making sure waypoint labels and locations are correct. Right?
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: mapmikey on January 19, 2017, 09:15:10 pm
Also checks for convention violations; doesn't need shaping points, etc.

When you complete the Georgia set I can look through it...
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: theFXexpert on February 09, 2017, 11:15:54 am
I should ask this before I start reviewing: Are secondary highway numbers such as 'S-27-17' acceptable as labels even if road is named?
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: mapmikey on February 09, 2017, 07:39:08 pm
Don't see why not...secondary numbers are used in Virginia's set sometimes and sometimes not.

I have just returned from Florida and can now address the feedback I received on Virginia.  once done with that I will start reviewing Georgia routes...

Thanks-
mike
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: oscar on February 09, 2017, 09:26:51 pm
And for weird secondary route numbers, there's 3-1-09 in Newfoundland. Its junction with the TCH is a waypoint in the latter's route file. It's also well signed, and indeed I clinched it in 2011 (not that it ever is likely to end up in our HB).
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: theFXexpert on February 11, 2017, 01:08:29 pm
My question has more to do with whether they are considered to be visibly numbered highways or not. Virginia at least has shields for secondary routes. SC secondary routes are signed with small black and white blades on stop signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.464486,-81.0271018,3a,16.8y,48.09h,85.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHgMfwXPBgJ2O6TOPVxx9Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en). Is that enough? Or should they be treated like PA's quadrant routes and ignored.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: Markkos1992 on February 11, 2017, 01:32:46 pm
Again there are probably too many to bother so they should probably be ignored.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: mapmikey on February 11, 2017, 02:29:27 pm
My question has more to do with whether they are considered to be visibly numbered highways or not. Virginia at least has shields for secondary routes. SC secondary routes are signed with small black and white blades on stop signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.464486,-81.0271018,3a,16.8y,48.09h,85.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHgMfwXPBgJ2O6TOPVxx9Tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en). Is that enough? Or should they be treated like PA's quadrant routes and ignored.

These markers are visible at highway speeds...

Also, in some counties (Horry being the most prominent) the street names for some secondary routes are just Highway x, with x being the secondary route number.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: theFXexpert on February 12, 2017, 01:24:02 pm
Alright. Thanks.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: dfilpus on February 11, 2018, 01:31:15 pm
On SC 34, the waypoint for US1/601_S is not identical to the waypoints on US 1 and US 601, breaking concurrency.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: dfilpus on March 01, 2018, 11:05:33 am
The intersections of US 278, SC 125 and SC 28 in Beech Island SC need to be cleaned up.
There are three waypoints on US 278 that follow the east bound route through the interchange. I think these should be collapsed into one waypoint, which is used on all three routes.
If the three points are kept, SC 28 should have a waypoint at the SC28 waypoint on US 178 and SC 125 should have a waypoint at the SC 125 waypoint on US 278.
Title: Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
Post by: mapmikey on March 08, 2018, 08:47:39 pm
The intersections of US 278, SC 125 and SC 28 in Beech Island SC need to be cleaned up.
There are three waypoints on US 278 that follow the east bound route through the interchange. I think these should be collapsed into one waypoint, which is used on all three routes.
If the three points are kept, SC 28 should have a waypoint at the SC28 waypoint on US 178 and SC 125 should have a waypoint at the SC 125 waypoint on US 278.

Believe it or not, that dogleg is the official route of US 278 in both directions (posted in the field that way too and is explicitly shown on SCDOT official map of Beech Island), so that is actually correct.  I added a point to SC 125 at the interchange itself and moved the SC 28 point at S-2-5 over to the adjacent US 278 split...

Quote
On SC 34, the waypoint for US1/601_S is not identical to the waypoints on US 1 and US 601, breaking concurrency.

Corrected and submitted