Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Updates to Highway Data / Re: IL: some changes in mostly-western Illinois
« Last post by bejacob on Yesterday at 06:18:58 am »
bejacob: Typo on my part. Had a space in it. Should be US24/57 now.

It is. I probably wouldn't have noticed it except that I was fixing some errors I made in my own list file form a recent trip to AR and LA and this one popped up as well. Figured I'd mention it. Thanks for fixing it so quickly.
12
Updates to Highway Data / Re: IL: some changes in mostly-western Illinois
« Last post by Highway63 on February 24, 2020, 10:14:26 pm »
Are you unaware of the links to GSV photos I have provided for most changes?
Many of your suggested changes are cosmetic changes to minor points that, quite often, are not technically wrong the way they are.

It's not my fault Illinois is inconsistent to the point of insane in how county roads are or are not marked. Might I be imposing a method of uniformity that is not there in the field? Yes. Should that require redoing handfuls of points on multiple routes? No. I am doing what I think works best for the overall function of the system and the user.

If two online maps and the DOT say a particular road is one thing, and signage says another, I will tend to go with the former because that is what the user will see when compiling a log. If there's an error in its road type, such as Street when it should be Avenue, it could just be GIGO as applied to the maps, or I might have entered something wrong way back in 2006-08.

These files were made, by and large, before Google Maps Street View existed. I worked off the best information I had available. If you see an error or change in alignment that needs to be corrected to make the existence of that route in the log correct, please let me know. But if the point as it exists conveys the information it needs to convey and is technically correct in some sense, especially for all those minor roads that a handful of users MIGHT need, I do not see reason to "fix" those.

bejacob: Typo on my part. Had a space in it. Should be US24/57 now.
13
Updates to Highway Data / Re: IA: some changes in eastern Iowa
« Last post by Highway63 on February 24, 2020, 10:14:21 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.
14
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Last post by neroute2 on February 24, 2020, 08:29:24 pm »
15
Updates to Highway Data / Re: MD: some changes in US 40 corridor
« Last post by neroute2 on February 24, 2020, 08:19:33 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.
16
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usaga: Georgia State Highways
« Last post by neroute2 on February 24, 2020, 08:06:49 pm »
On 11, US129BusCle_* -> US129BypCle_*
17
Updates to Highway Data / Re: MD: some changes in US 40 corridor
« Last post by Duke87 on February 24, 2020, 12:59:15 am »
Continuing onward...

US 40: ParDr -> PatValSP and move east to the underpass; delete +X100
Ehhhh... "Park Drive" is the name of the road there so the label is fine. The underpass would certainly be a valid location for the point but it's not wrong per se where it is... I'm leaving it alone.
Who says that's the name of the road? MDSHA just says "ENT TO PATAPSCO VALLEY STATE PARK". I can't find any street signs in GSV. OSM and Google both got their name from TIGER, which is OK but not particularly accurate, especially for this type of access road that doesn't have any houses.
Fair point. Okay, changing the name. Leaving the position alone.

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.


There should be some way to clarify that 144 eastbound uses South-Franklin-Patrick, especially because traffic on the Historic National Road is directed left on East to Patrick. Maybe a SouSt_E point halfway along Franklin?
I'm gonna go for a FraSt_E point instead, marking the endpoint of the one-way pair.

144fre: move I-70(56) west to the underpass
By ironly followed standards it should be there yes, but I actually kinda like the way it is better. Point is roughly centered within the interchange footprint and this makes the trace follow 144 more closely by not placing the point on the zig where the overpass is.

Why is 144hag signed east from MD910?
Probably just overzealous hyperliteralism. If you look at the HLR, MD 144WA ends 0.01 miles past MD 910C at "end roundabout", and the placement of the "end state maintenance" sign jives with this. That's not enough to treat it as a separate point for our sake, though.

144han: add WilRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.703159&lon=-78.229609 to stay within tolerance
Done

144new: is the end of state maintenance far enough west of RoyOakDr for a separate End point?
0.03 miles. Basically at the end of the shoulder taper for the turning lanes for the intersection. I'm going to go ahead and reposition the endpoint to the pavement change, but that's close enough to Royal Oak that it doesn't need a *separate* point there

144new: ONewMarRd -> OldNMRd?
Sure.
18
Other Discussion / Re: New Travels and Stats Discussion
« Last post by Bickendan on February 22, 2020, 11:38:56 pm »
Travels in India turned out to be far fewer mileage than anticipated but still fruitful.
About 110 km of AH 1, 170 km of NH, and 50 km of West Bengal SH.
More importantly, in field signage, aside for AH 1 and SH 13, reflects the old numbering and not the current assignments.

OSM coverage of India is not ideal, and GSV is non-existent.

I expect to get mileage around Jaipur, Agra, and Delhi in a future trip.
19
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usaga: Georgia State Highways
« Last post by neroute2 on February 22, 2020, 10:51:18 pm »
I also confirmed that it's not signed south of there, and mileposts 1 and 2 have been moved to reflect the truncation.

Also, the US 129/11/22 junction at Gray needs to be moved west.
20
Updates to Highway Data / MO: MO 46 point request
« Last post by the_spui_ninja on February 22, 2020, 05:54:11 pm »
The point in question is the intersection with Country Club Road on the west side of Maryville; it's a quick way to get to NW MO State from 46.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10