Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Updates to Highway Data / Re: PA: NJ 90 in PA
« Last post by yakra on Today at 09:14:14 am »
^ Are the "TO" signs (or lack thereof) why you included NH VT105 but not NH VT114?  I'd think those would be examples more akin to the PA NJ90 discussion.
A few years down the line, my memory's getting a bit cloudy, but that does sound about right.
GMSV at 114 had a TO, with no newer imagery available.
Meanwhile, down at 105: 2014, 2015  ::)
Then, just to add to the screwiness, here's what we see in GIS. Came across this recently; can't remember if I posted about it in another thread yet. Or whether I even noticed it back in the day.
12
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: Italy Strada Statale (itass)
« Last post by Spinoza on Today at 09:06:57 am »
Most of Italian Autostrada routes (active itaa system) do not have numbered exits but use wp label names of crossing routes. Of course, many exits are called "SSxxx". It seems to be right according to OSM and to what's signed in the field but we do not have the SS routes in HB. Just an example: RA13 exit SS14. This SS14 segment is not in HB!

Is it ok or should the wp labels being changed? Or should the SS routes being drafted?

In that particular instance, the road USED TO be SS14 but now is classified as SR14. Problem is that many times, on the downgraded route, signs are not changed. OSM itself shows that route as both SS14 and SR14.
In my opinion, the wp labels at motorway intersection should be named as the official exit name, in this case "Sistiana".
13
And now I-295 PA has three travelers.  I expect we'll see that number climb quickly.  I didn't check how many people had those segments marked as part of I-95, but I'm sure it's a lot.
14
Updates to Highway Data / Re: TX: I-45
« Last post by yakra on Today at 01:18:16 am »
I've spent a LOT of time looking at Texas and its frontage roads. First 2½ years of Texas Cleanup, then three tier-4 state systems. :) Here's the philosophy I've developed along the way...

Our starting point is that points are placed at the center, at the crossroads, of an interchange. IE, ME US1 NewMeaRd should be centered here and not here.
Things get murky in TX, with sprawling elongated interchanges that frequently have a 50% overlap with adjacent interchanges. (Makes me think of MDCT blocks in audio codecs, mumble mumble...)
As I alluded to in the TX: I-35 thread, I "normally go with where the major crossroad is located," with a grade-separated crossing or numbered highway usually getting the nod. These almost always coincide with the destinations listed on BGSes. Thus 76A for Robinson Rd and 76B for Woodlands Pkwy both map to the same location, and thus collapse into a single point.

I almost considered a point at Vision Park Blvd ("79A"), but decided against that too. The SB offramp & NB onramp, I consider part of "77A", at Tamina & Research Forest. The SB onramp & NB offramp, I consider part of "79", at Needham & College Park. And at that point, it's much like the above case.
I like to see things as (sometimes glorified) volleyball interchanges in TX when I can; the frontage roads will set things up that way a lot of the time. Direct connectors as we see here, I will downplay as simply redundant connections within that framework.
15
My issue, at least, was solved by the second update.
16
Updates to Highway Data / Re: PA: NJ 90 in PA
« Last post by Markkos1992 on Yesterday at 10:09:58 pm »
This is the reason that I noted that I would not have even posted this as a consideration if it was not a freeway.
As far as its status as a freeway goes, I don't really have a problem with including BetRossBri in usasf. What the heck, we've got WA WSeaBri, right?

I'm fine adding it to usasf.  I'll probably do it tomorrow if there are not any objections. 

To note, even though the Betsy Ross Bridge will connect to Aramingo Ave directly in the future, I am planning to not include any points past I-95.
17
My new entry PA I-295 I-95/276 PA/NJ isn't generating an error in my log, but also isn't showing the new route as clinched by me in the HB.

Maybe this problem will go away on its own, overnight?


The update you submitted to your list came in just after the site update started.  I let the update run to completion, but I'll launch another now as you're not the only update.

So my run as the sole traveler on PA I-295 will last all of about an hour.

Yeah I had hoped that I would have more time for my update.  Oh well.
18
My new entry PA I-295 I-95/276 PA/NJ isn't generating an error in my log, but also isn't showing the new route as clinched by me in the HB.

Maybe this problem will go away on its own, overnight?

The update you submitted to your list came in just after the site update started.  I let the update run to completion, but I'll launch another now as you're not the only update.

So my run as the sole traveler on PA I-295 will last all of about an hour.
19
My new entry PA I-295 I-95/276 PA/NJ isn't generating an error in my log, but also isn't showing the new route as clinched by me in the HB.

Maybe this problem will go away on its own, overnight?
20
On site!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10