Author Topic: usasc: South Carolina State highways  (Read 4217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline theFXexpert

  • TM Collaborator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:February 22, 2017, 01:35:32 pm
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #15 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?

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:35:01 pm
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #16 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

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 811
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:22:32 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #17 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).

Offline theFXexpert

  • TM Collaborator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:February 22, 2017, 01:35:32 pm
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #18 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. Is that enough? Or should they be treated like PA's quadrant routes and ignored.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Last Login:September 13, 2019, 08:17:39 pm
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2017, 01:32:46 pm »
Again there are probably too many to bother so they should probably be ignored.

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:35:01 pm
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #20 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. 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.

Offline theFXexpert

  • TM Collaborator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 88
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:February 22, 2017, 01:35:32 pm
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2017, 01:24:02 pm »
Alright. Thanks.

Offline dfilpus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:53:01 pm
    • Filpus Roadgeek
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #22 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.

Offline dfilpus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:53:01 pm
    • Filpus Roadgeek
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #23 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.

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:35:01 pm
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #24 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

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Last Login:September 13, 2019, 08:17:39 pm
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2019, 07:14:28 pm »
Mike, I am going to be editing this post route by route until you do each set of your updates.  Then I will start on the next post.  I hope to finish by the end of the month, but I honestly cannot promise anything.

SC 2:
1.  StaSt should be StaSt_S.  I am surprised that the at-grade railroad crossing just south of here was removed.
2.  It is interesting that it has two intersections with US 21/US 176/US 321.  I believe just using US21_S and US21_N is fine though.

SC 3:
1.  The TwoSisFerRd label should be shortened due to the road name (Two Sisters Ferry Rd) being three words.
2.  The route gets close to going out of tolerance at Orangeburg Rd west of Estill.  A point here would take it out of tolerance at Gravel Pass to the northwest.
3.  Branch Rd (BraRd) should be Beech Branch Church Rd (according to SCDOT Street Finder).
4.  S-3-41 should be Cohens Bluff Rd (CohBluRd) (based on SCDOT Street Finder, S-3-41 is probably correct, but 2008 GSV is too fuzzy to tell if it is correct.)
5.  +X001 could be replaced with a point at S-3-22 (Bluff Rd), but it would barely be within tolerance.
6.  I would consider a point at Hydrick Rd (HydRd), but it is not truly necessary as the route is still within tolerance either way.

SC 4:
1.  I see a SC 19 TRUCK at the US 1 TRUCK/US 78 TRUCK/SC 118/SC 302 SB intersection.  I will look more into this when I get to SC 19, but this route is not synced with the intersection if it is in the HB.
2.  A SC 4 TRUCK seems to begin at the same intersection mentioned above.  It goes south to US 78 and then east on it to State Park Rd.  It follows State Park Rd to its eastern terminus at the north end of the SC 4 concurrency with SC 302
3.  Maybe add a shaping point or visible point at Harness Race Ln between SC 394 and Tabernacle Rd (TabRd) as the route almost leaves tolerance.
4.   Replace +X200 with regular points at Dean Swamp Church Rd (DeepSwaChuRd)  and/or Samaria Rd.
5.  Consider adding visible shaping points at Juniper St and Rice St.
6.  SlaLanRd should be SlabLanRd (Slab Landing Rd).
7.  It looks like the eastern end of SC 4 should be truncated to US 21/US 21 BUS (with the label changed to US21/21Bus).  The posting in Orangeburg is sparse to begin with, but it is definitely not posted at the US 21/US 178/US 178 BUS intersection.

SC 5:
1. Maybe add a point at Reservation Rd for the Catawba Reservation.
2.  ESprRd should just be SprRd (Springdale Rd).  (also affects US 21)
3.  MaiSt should be moved to the Main St intersection and relabeled as MainSt_W.
4.  EasDr should be EasRd (Eastview Rd).
5.  There seems to be a realignment around SC 97.  The new SC 5/SC 97 intersection can be seen on here.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2019, 03:10:35 pm by Markkos1992 »

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:35:01 pm
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2019, 08:21:30 pm »
Mike, I am going to be editing this post route by route until you do each set of your updates.  Then I will start on the next post.  I hope to finish by the end of the month, but I honestly cannot promise anything.

SC 2:
1.  StaSt should be StaSt_S.  I am surprised that the at-grade railroad crossing just south of here was removed.
2.  It is interesting that it has two intersections with US 21/US 176/US 321.  I believe just using US21_S and US21_N is fine though.

SC 3:
1.  The TwoSisFerRd label should be shortened due to the road name (Two Sisters Ferry Rd) being three words.
2.  The route gets close to going out of tolerance at Orangeburg Rd west of Estill.  A point here would take it out of tolerance at Gravel Pass to the northwest.
3.  Branch Rd (BraRd) should be Beech Branch Church Rd (according to SCDOT Street Finder).
4.  S-3-41 should be Cohens Bluff Rd (CohBluRd) (based on SCDOT Street Finder, S-3-41 is probably correct, but 2008 GSV is too fuzzy to tell if it is correct.)
5.  +X001 could be replaced with a point at S-3-22 (Bluff Rd), but it would barely be within tolerance.
6.  I would consider a point at Hydrick Rd (HydRd), but it is not truly necessary as the route is still within tolerance either way.

SC 4:
1.  I see a SC 19 TRUCK at the US 1 TRUCK/US 78 TRUCK/SC 118/SC 302 SB intersection.  I will look more into this when I get to SC 19, but this route is not synced with the intersection if it is in the HB.
2.  A SC 4 TRUCK seems to begin at the same intersection mentioned above.  It goes south to US 78 and then east on it to State Park Rd.  It follows State Park Rd to its eastern terminus at the north end of the SC 4 concurrency with SC 302
3.  Maybe add a shaping point or visible point at Harness Race Ln between SC 394 and Tabernacle Rd (TabRd) as the route almost leaves tolerance.
4.   Replace +X200 with regular points at Dean Swamp Church Rd (DeepSwaChuRd)  and/or Samaria Rd.
5.  Consider adding visible shaping points at Juniper St and Rice St.
6.  SlaLanRd should be SlabLanRd (Slab Landing Rd).
7.  It looks like the eastern end of SC 4 should be truncated to US 21/US 21 BUS (with the label changed to US21/21Bus).  The posting in Orangeburg is sparse to begin with, but it is definitely not posted at the US 21/US 178/US 178 BUS intersection.

SC 5:
1. Maybe add a point at Reservation Rd for the Catawba Reservation.
2.  ESprRd should just be SprRd (Springdale Rd).  (also affects US 21)
3.  MaiSt should be moved to the Main St intersection and relabeled as MainSt_W.
4.  EasDr should be EasRd (Eastview Rd).
5.  There seems to be a realignment around SC 97.  The new SC 5/SC 97 intersection can be seen on here.


I have started on this but have not caught up to you yet.

My guess about the RR crossing in Cayce is that whenever a train came through it backed up traffic on both directions of SC 2 (which has had its loop through Cayce back to when SC 2 ran from Charleston to Greenville and US 21 bypassed Cayce in 1933).

SC 4 does end at US 21/21 Bus...not sure why I had it to US 178.  The SC 4 Truck is news to me (haven't been to those parts in 20+ years) through it is poorly posted leaving Aiken to get trucks to use US 78.  I will add that.  SC 19 Truck is already in the HB.

Oddly, I have the SC 5-97 intersection movement noted on my SC website...not sure why I had it wrong in the HB.  incidently, there is an error SC 5 Jct shield on SC 5 WB instead of a SC 97 Jct shield...

I have also already added the SC 6 Conn waypoint in Santee to the SC 6 file on my end when you get there.

Thanks for doing the SC peer review....i drafted this set before I had a ton of experience doing this and didn't know all the rules yet...

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Last Login:September 13, 2019, 08:17:39 pm
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2019, 07:03:28 am »
Quote
My guess about the RR crossing in Cayce is that whenever a train came through it backed up traffic on both directions of SC 2 (which has had its loop through Cayce back to when SC 2 ran from Charleston to Greenville and US 21 bypassed Cayce in 1933).

Yeah I saw on your website that SC 2 went from 250 miles to about 4.  I honestly would be fine if it was decommissioned.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Last Login:September 13, 2019, 08:17:39 pm
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2019, 05:31:22 pm »
Starting with SC 6:

SC 6:
1.  Points at Irmo Drive and River Road. (to move the line off the lake and stay in tolerance)
2.  A point should be added at Pleasant View Dr as the route goes out of tolerance just north of there.
3.  SC 302 is posted east-west here instead of north-south.  (may affect SC 4, I am glad to just see a directional banner.)
4.  PinPlaRd should be PinePlaRd (Pine Plain Rd).
5.  Potentially add a point around Andrew Chapel Rd as the route gets close to the tolerance line here.
6.  There should be a point at State Park Rd for Santee State Park.
7.  RanDr (Ranger Dr) should be RanDr_N.
8.  The route almost goes out of tolerance between ShoCutRd and SC 311.

SC 6 TRUCK (Moncks Corner):  US52_N should be US52_W.

SC 8:
1.  FirStaRd should be FireStaRd (Fire Station Rd)
2.  The SC 183 points should be S and N instead of W and E.
3.  LogRd should be LogHouRd (Log House Rd).
4.  Potentially add a point at White Crest Way as the route is close to going out of tolerance here.
5.  Since SC 8 is posted east-west, the route should be flipped to go from west to east.

SC 9: (currently at HerPlyRd)
1.  The shaping point between NC/SC and SC 11 should be at Little Africa Rd (LitAfrRd).
2.  A point at Valley Falls Rd may be useful (helps with shaping and has an interchange with US 176).
3.  Is the US176/221Con designation correct?  (also affects US 176 and US 221 in the area)
4.  IsoSt should be IsomSt.  (also affects US 176)
5.  SC 296 seems to not be posted here, but instead there is a US 29 BYPASS that seems to follow US 176 WB/SC 9 NB to Daniel Morgan Ave back to US 29.  This probably needs to be looked into further.  (also affects US 176 and maybe a truncation of SC 296)
5.  +X000(US176) would be better served at Whitestone Glendale Rd as it easily stays within tolerance.  (also affects US 176)
6.  A shaping point between SC 150 and CedGroRd may be useful as the route almost leaves tolerance.
7.  +X003(SC9) should be replaced with a visible point at Littlejohn Rd (LitRd).
8.  Visible points at Old Pump Station Rd, Philippi Church Rd, and Bailey Town Rd should be able to easily replace the shaping points +X005(SC9) and +X006(SC9).
9.  The points for SC 49 should be S and N instead of W and E. 
10.  Visible points at Mt Pleasant Church Rd and Roy Wade Rd should be easily able to replace the shaping point +X007(SC9). 
11. WCheSchRd should just be CheSchRd.
12.  GasFarRd should be GasFarmRd(Gaston Farm Rd).
13.  +X012(SC 9) should be replaced by a visible point at Sunshine Rd (SunRd).
14.  +X014(SC 9) should be replaced by a visible point at Tradesville Rd (TraRd).
15.  GriTerRd would be better served at Airport Rd (AirRd).
16.  +X014(SC 9) should be replaced by a visible point at Wamble Hill Rd (WamHillRd).  (Verified via SCDOT Street Finder)
17.  +X018 should be replaced by visible points Teal's Mill Rd (TeaMillRd) and Sand Bed Rd.
18.  2ndSt should be 2ndSt_S. (also affects US 1 and US 52)
19.  US52_N should be US52_W.
20.  BeaSpoRd should be BeaSpotRd (Beauty Spot Rd).
21.  +X020(SC 9) should be replaced by a visible point at Palmetto Chase Rd (PalChaRd).
22.  A point at Tatum Hwy (TatHwy) would be useful as the route is close to the tolerance line.
23.  StaParRd should be StaParkRd (State Park Rd).
24.  +X023(SC9) should be replaced by a visible point at Piney Grove Rd.  (verified via SCDOT Street Finder). 
25.  The SCDOT Street Finder shows SC 41 CONN as SC 9 CONN.
26.  A point at Scott St (ScoSt) would be useful for shaping purposes.
27.  +X026(SC9) should be replaced with a visible point at Old Stage Rd (OldStaRd).
28.  The MouOliChuRd label should be shortened based on the manual.  (maybe MouOCRd)
29.  +X028(SC9) should be replaced with visible points at Camp Swamp Rd (CampSwaRd) and Hemingway Rd (HemRd).
30.  Since SC 9 is posted south-north, the route should be flipped to go from south to north. Note that this includes the labels for referencing both the business routes and the business routes referencing SC 9 need to be N-S instead of W-E.

SC 9 BUS(Chester):
1.  GadSt should be GadSt_W.

SC 9 TRUCK(Cheraw):
1.  The US 52 points should be W and E instead of N and S (see #19 under SC 9).

SC 9 BUS(Loris):
1.  The point with US 701 needs to be synced.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2019, 08:14:19 pm by Markkos1992 »

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:35:01 pm
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: usasc: South Carolina State highways
« Reply #29 on: September 13, 2019, 03:21:38 pm »
I have caught up through SC 8.

The SC 296 change evidently occurred in 2016.  Current Spartanburg County and State Officials now show Daniel Morgan as not primary anywhere along its path from Reidville Rd to US 176.  SC 296 has definitely been rerouted to stay on Reidville Rd to US 29.

The US 29 Bypass postings may be to specifically route folks around a lane closure where St John approaches Church St (see the Oct 2018 GMSV)

My philosophy on South Carolina's CONN routes:  If they have route signage with TO banners on either end then I tend to want to call the road its designated CONN route.  In the US 176/221 CON example for SC 9, this should be changed to Wood St because there is no route signage on either end.  However, on the US 221 file the other US 176 CON route that follows old SC 9 should remain called that because it is posted as TO US 221 South from I-585 and as SC 9 from US 221...

I would only put the CONN routes in the HB with their own route files if they are actually posted in the field as a CONN route (like SC 5 CONN).

Thanks-
Mike