Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Updates to Highway Data / Re: MD: some changes in US 40 corridor
« Last post by dave1693 on Today at 11:41:59 pm »
144fre is still signed west of JefSt, and MD 355 is still signed through Frederick. 144 is questionable, but there are enough 355 signs to extend it back north to 26. If we're only going to include routes that are still state maintained, we should put 144 on only Patrick Street.
The thing is we have solid documentation of MD 355's truncation:
Quote
MD 355 Transfers: Note - MD 355 north of IS 70 has been transferred to Frederick City, and is now all municipally maintained.  The “MD 355” route ID has been replaced with an appropriate municipal route ID for each named segment.
Signage does annoyingly persist but only because the city of Frederick has expended zero effort removing signs. Note how it is NOT signed from MD 26. I'm inclined to leave this be given the firmly documented history, under the presumption that as time goes on signs will gradually disappear.
As for 144, this is extra complicated by the fact that South St isn't state maintained... but I'm still inclined to leave the route mapped as is rather than presuming a section of it to be one-way.


I don't dispute that Frederick maintains the road. I do dispute that this automatically makes it no longer 355 for our purposes.
The City of Frederick isn't just uninterested in removing MD 355 signs. In the late 2010s I was almost certainly one of the heaviest travelers in and around Frederick among TMers, and I'm fairly certain I saw Frederick put up MD 355 signs in NEW locations during the past 6 years.

Frederick isn't willing to fight MDOT at the junction of MD 26 and Routzahns Way, however. (The Frederick city line runs between the EB and WB lanes of MD 26 there.) There *IS*, nevertheless a "TO 355" sign on MD 26 WB at Market St, and going SW on Market St approaching Routzahns, there's a "JCT 355" sign; then right AT the intersection with Routzahns, there's a directional sign saying "South 355" with a right arrow, soon followed by the first MD 355 reassurance sign (a sign that IIRC looked rather new, or freshly cleaned, last time I was there back in 2019). All these signs can be seen on GMSV.

So if I were to put 355 through Frederick on TM (a move I support) I might consider ending 355 at Market and Routzahns instead of going up Routzahns to MD 26 (the latter following the old MD 355 route that crossed 26 and went up Wormans Mill Rd to end at US 15 and Hayward Rd, an intersection that no longer exists at all). I don't actually have a string opinion on that.

As to MD 144, the last reassurance sign I see is JUST west of Jefferson St going west on Patrick. No signs after that, and none on South St eastbound before Jefferson St. So I'm okay with leaving 144 as is.
2
Updates to Highway Data / Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Last post by Duke87 on Today at 11:03:20 pm »
As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.

I have to second this philosophically. When it comes to the names of side roads that are not routes included in the project, it is interesting from a data integrity perspective if what the street sign blade says and what the official county map says don't match... but for our purposes as to which should govern in the waypoint label, my attitude is - what difference does it make really?

The HB tells the user what label to use. Whether it matches the name on paper or the name as signed doesn't materially impact its usability. I say let it be so long as the point is in the correct location and isn't named something totally out of whack.
3
Updates to Highway Data / Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Last post by US 89 on Today at 09:52:55 pm »
As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.

I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.
4
Updates to Highway Data / Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Last post by oscar on Today at 08:09:54 pm »
I do see neroute2's point, though. Everywhere else on Travel Mapping, signs trump everything else. Why is that not the case here?

Do note that I am a firm believer that what the DOT and maps say should trump signs, but that is not the law of Travel Mappin.

This might overstate the role of signage a bit. especially in the jurisdictions I manage, which include some where the signage is often weak/non-existent, outdated. and/or a joke (looking at you, New Mexico). For route definitions (where routes begin and end, for example), I stick closely to what official sources say. For waypoint labeling (which what we're talking about here), I tend to default to maps/official sources, but I'm open to comments on conforming labels to signage in the field (if any -- often there is none, especially in my Arctic jurisdictions).

But I'm not convinced that mislabeled waypoints really confuse users, trying to retrace their travels. I've not had much trouble using the maps in the Highway Browser (which we tell users to consult when composing their list files) to figure out more or less where I went, and which waypoints I should put in my list file, even if it doesn't quite match up with any signage I remember seeing.
5
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usaga: Georgia State Highways
« Last post by neroute2 on Today at 06:06:49 pm »
Can I get a point on 60 at Cooper Gap Road (south of GA180) please? That's where I turned off for a nice forest drive.
6
Updates to Highway Data / Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Last post by cl94 on Today at 03:33:03 pm »
I do see neroute2's point, though. Everywhere else on Travel Mapping, signs trump everything else. Why is that not the case here?

Do note that I am a firm believer that what the DOT and maps say should trump signs, but that is not the law of Travel Mappin.
7
Updates to Highway Data / Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Last post by neroute2 on Today at 03:28:15 pm »
Welcome to bizarro TM. Sorry I tried to help.
8
Updates to Highway Data / Re: MD: some changes in US 40 corridor
« Last post by Duke87 on Yesterday at 06:15:55 pm »
I don't dispute that Frederick maintains the road. I do dispute that this automatically makes it no longer 355 for our purposes.

I understand that.

One precedent comes to mind is TX 180 - another route which was officially truncated in the relatively recent past (2014, MD 355 was 2010), but which remains very consistently signed along its truncated segment. The decision made there was the same: that the official truncation overruled the lack of signage removal.

That said I'm open to treating this otherwise if a consensus to do so emerges. Anyone else care to weigh in?

I do want to note that US 40 SCENIC has a sharp angle error listed.
Ay, where'd that come from? (Edit: okay it's because the waypoint label on one end of the angle was changed)

Anyway it's an FP so I'll go ahead and mark it as such.
9
Updates to Highway Data / Re: MD: some changes in US 40 corridor
« Last post by Markkos1992 on Yesterday at 04:43:17 pm »
I do want to note that US 40 SCENIC has a sharp angle error listed.
10
Updates to Highway Data / Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Last post by bejacob on Yesterday at 01:19:16 pm »
You seem to be preferring maps (official and unofficial) over actual signs that have been posted or not posted. Why is this?

I am trying to think of the best interests of the user. The user is, for the most part, going to be entering their points after consulting a map. The user may have consulted the maps before or after the trip. My method is based on the idea that the user will see the name on the map, or compare it to a GPS track, and know "this is the point I'm looking for."

GPS's, for the most part, often default to using street names in urban areas, e.g. "turn left on Euclid Avenue" rather than "turn left on US 6". That doesn't mean I should rename the US6 point EucAve. This is not a perfect analogy because US routes are well-signed and county roads typically are not, but I am trying to convey that the name remains valid.

seconded!
These are the times when I wish there were a way to "like" comments.

I frequently refer to the HB before a trip, sometimes printing out maps to help me know where there are route segments I might want to drive. I don't care so much how the point is labeled as long as I can figure out at which corner I should turn. The method Highway63 mentioned works exactly as he intends (at least in my case).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10