Author Topic: usala: Louisiana State Highways  (Read 10069 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 598
  • Last Login:Today at 01:18:08 pm
Re: usala: Louisiana State Highways
« Reply #75 on: January 16, 2020, 07:22:30 pm »
3287 is also on the same district map (and is in GIS), running from 700 east to 343 on Gladu Road. http://wwwapps.dotd.la.gov/engineering/lettings/lets8230.aspx lists it for tentative repaving later this year. Could it be that these 870-* control section numbers are temporary routes for repaving?

Others I can find:
870-10 LA 3192 MP Cutoff (Moreauville-Plaucheville)
870-21 LA 3271 Bad Eye Road south of Farmerville
Neither appears on other sources.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
  • Last Login:Today at 11:56:53 am
Re: usala: Louisiana State Highways
« Reply #76 on: May 17, 2020, 02:51:26 pm »
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3881

Quote
1: ToLA8 -> LA8Spr (it's signed as LA 8 and inventoried as LA 8 Spur per GIS)
Other spurs are signed as spurs. This is not, so it either should be ignored, or go in as another LA 8. Thoughts?
Your readme lists a bunch of spurs that are not signed as spurs: 631, 655, 758, 1077, 1194, 3000, 3100.
Those all have signs on the routes themselves. LA 8 is only signed along LA 1, which according to the GIS, is not LA 8. Based on the sign northbound at the junction with LA 1 directing LA 8 onto the spur, I suppose I can add it.

Quote
2: US79Trk_S -> US79Byp_S: it's signed as TRUCK BY-PASS 79 and inventoried as 79 Bypass in GIS and RTP
Since it's specifically a truck bypass, I'm not convinced it's worth changing.
Why do you think it's specifically a truck bypass? It seems more likely that it was originally signed (or planned to be signed) as a plain bypass, but truck plates were added to direct trucks that way. If they wanted it to be a truck route they'd sign it as a truck route (e.g. the one in Minden). Note the difference in styles for US 79 and 9: it's NORTH TRUCK BY-PASS 79 but TRUCK NORTH 9.
There are different styles, yes, but following your logic it should be the truck route of "Bypass 79".

Quote
10: I doubt LaioRd is the correct name. Google shows it as the name for not just that short dead end but also for LA 10, and it has the looks of a TIGER error (LA10 somehow became LAIO).
Okay, maybe, but what other name would you give it? The GIS calls it Laio too.
https://atlas.geoportalmaps.com/ptcoupee calls it Balley-Hack Road.
The point isn't necessary for anything but shaping, so I replaced it with a hidden point.

Quote
Quote
10vil: UniPkwy -> LA467 per GIS and signage
467 does not show up on the "right size" map from 2017, which is newer than GMSV there.
That GSV link is June 2019. This is probably the 467-1 you mention in your readme.
The imagery was still 2016 when I edited the file. Added the point as LA467 and created a new Fort Polk segment of 467.

Quote
Quote
47/I-510: there seems to be no signage (other than a mile marker) taking I-510 south of exit 2C. And according to GIS, I-510 begins at the exit 2C gore, not the end of the bridge. Delete I-510_S from 47 and LA47_S from I-510?

I believe that the south end of I-510 is included under the "unsigned interstate" rule (and even if it shouldn't be, there's that mile marker, and no "End" sign), so I'm leaving the end there. GIS calls it I-510 all the way to where we end it. As far as I can tell, the end of the bridge is at the exit 2C gore (northbound).
The one point per interchange rule applies here.
Except the endpoint isn't part of an interchange.

107: HwyCutOff -> 115CutRd?

Changed to 107-115Cut which was closest to what was on the signs (Hwy 107-115 Cutoff Rd).

Quote
111: BonRd -> YvoBonRd?

GIS says it's just Bonner. Nothing in GMSV.

Quote
112: StrCroRd -> StrCro?

GIS calls it unnamed, so going with ESRI again.

Quote
113: McNCutOff -> McNCutRd

The sign has a space in Cut Off.

Quote
116: RanRd -> EslAF?

Using GIS name (Range Rd) since there is more than one entrance to the airport.

Quote
118: KisMoraRd -> End? I don't see any intersecting road

It's the name of the road that continues east of 118's end.

125spr is missing a file.

It's unsigned.

Quote
129: PoolRd -> PooRd? It looks like it's Poole Road, which makes sense since it serves Poole's Processing.

The GIS says Pool Rd.

Quote
129: LA565_E -> LA565_S, LA565_W -> LA565_N? I don't see any directional plates but it's diagonal and odd numbers generally seem to go north-south in Louisiana

This seems to indicate it's signed South-North, so agreed.

131: needs another point for shaping; RTP shows a proposed state highway at what both OSM and Google call DA Biglane Road, but this is currently a minor dirt road

Actually it's paved, and it goes to an airport, so it works.

151: LA545_W -> LA545_S? it's signed north-south at LA146 (but east-west at LA545_E)
151: LA837_W -> LA837_N, LA837_E -> LA837_S? it's signed north-south at I-20(101)

LA 151 is signed northbound heading toward the north away from both I-20 junctions, which means you can't apply normal N-S route rules to it. For the points in between, I'm treating it like an E-W route.

Quote
153 is missing LA1265 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.017892&lon=-93.079112 (which needs field checking of signage, though Esri WorldImagery shows it has been rebuilt)

I added a point there (FiveForRd) but will hold off on creating a file for 1265 until signage is confirmed.

Quote
163: GorRd -> PRsomething?

My vision evidently is no better than yours, so since the GIS and the street blade say it's Gorton Rd, that's at least not wrong. I changed it to GorRd_S since there are two intersections with it.

Quote
175: per GIS and RTP, LA5_W -> LA5, LA5_E -> OldSR5, but this needs field checking

I agree it can wait.

Quote
182: LA178_W -> LA178_N, LA178_E -> LA178_S

182 is signed E-W, so I'm leaving these alone.

Quote
182: MLKingBlvd -> DrMLKJrBlvd

Yes, but that name is too long.

Quote
182: US90BusMor_E -> US90Bus/662 or just LA662_W (signs here give US90Bus a hanging end)

No, its E end is signed at US90.
Quote

182: GIS and RTP show that 653 has been extended back west to meet 182 east of LA3087; this needs field checking

November 2019 GMSV shows that the purported extension is still a private drive. The reference in the GIS dates to 2017.

Quote
182-2: StPorSt -> StDePSt

The manual suggests dropping propositions such as "de" in street names.

Quote
182-2: move the east end northwest to StEtiRd?

The interchange with US90 and LA 182 is under construction in the most recent imagery (March 2019), so it's not clear to me where 182 exits 90, which would determine where 182-2 ends at 182. I left this alone for now but the whole construction area deserves another look once GMSV is updated.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2020, 03:08:35 pm by mapcat »
Clinched:

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
  • Last Login:Today at 11:56:53 am
Re: usala: Louisiana State Highways
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2020, 05:57:26 pm »
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3885

316: BayBlueByp -> BayBlueRd (or BBBypRd?)

For Bayou Blue Bypass Rd, I don't see how either is any better than the other, so I'm leaving it alone.

Quote
319: where does the BayLn name come from?

ESRI. Changing it to VerBayLn since GIS and ESRI agree on that, and Bayview Ln may be a private drive.

Quote
336-1: per GIS and RTP the west end is at RaiSt

The GIS was edited last week, and now it appears that the end is LA 31, which is consistent with 2019 GMSV.

Quote
354 is missing:
LA341 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.334537&lon=-91.918670
LA31 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.353379&lon=-91.894476

Per the GIS, it's now an extension of 341.

378: IsleCapBlvd is part of the I-10 interchange, so delete? though it's signed both ways from the I-10 west offramp, so maybe not

That was my intention for including it.

Quote
384 is signed east-west at LA27 but east-west the opposite way at LA3092. Keep as is?

That's the only way I could think of to handle it.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2020, 01:54:44 am by mapcat »
Clinched:

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
  • Last Login:Today at 11:56:53 am
Re: usala: Louisiana State Highways
« Reply #78 on: May 22, 2020, 05:28:32 pm »
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3907

401: OldLA400 has a name but I can't make it out

Me either, but the GIS calls it Old LA 400 so there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote
402: per GIS and RTP the west end is now at End http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=29.952945&lon=-91.099555 ; this needs field checking

Well, there was no field check for the former w end, which was probably also based on the GIS at the time, so the new location is fine.

Quote
417 is signed as if there's no gap, and per RTP there are plans to take over the gap. So combine the two?

That imagery is from 2011 (and the sign was there in 2008 as well) so it's debatable whether it's indicating imminent future plans or just a mistake. I'd appreciate a field check before combining the segments.

Quote
427 has been deleted between LA3064 and LA3246 per RTP, GIS, and April 2019 GSV, so split it in two
427 has also been deleted between LA42_E and the parish line per RTP and GIS, but May 2019 GSV still shows shields, so this needs field checking

GIS shows it deleted between 3064 and the parish boundary (part of this relinquishment dates back to 2017 per GIS edits), so I'll leave the deleted part of the southern segment in for now, but give that segment the suffix since it's likely to be the shorter one eventually.

Quote
429: LA44_N -> BurAve_N? see discussion with 44, and maybe split into two 429s?

As I did with 44, I'll leave this alone for now since June 2019 imagery at the western/northern 44/429 junction still has 44 signs.

Quote
430sprfra is mostly signed as plain 430, and GIS shows it as such, so treat the spur signs as remnants and merge the two?

For now I'll leave it. The spur was signed as mainline 430 back in 2014, and the most recent imagery of the 430/Spur 430 junction is that same year, so it needs field checking.

469's real south end is at End http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.139651&lon=-93.148586 per GIS and RTP; +X103442 can be removed

The GIS was updated in January, and June 2019 GMSV shows the end here now

Quote
480: DalRanRd -> End?

It ends east of an intersection, and the GIS calls the road that continues on Dalton Ranch Rd. Are you saying that 480 is also called Dalton Ranch Rd there?

Quote
481/191: OldLA539 -> OldHwy539

But when it was Hwy 539, it was LA 539, no?

Quote
491: add End http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.597952&lon=-92.841269 and delete RRLevRd

The GIS shows it going past the end of the pavement all the way to the road on the levee.

Quote
493: USFS339 -> FR339?

It's signed FS339.

Quote
498 is signed east-west, so reverse it

It is, but signed such that the west end (US 71 frontage road) is southeast of the east end (I-49), so the order is correct.
Clinched:

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 985
  • Last Login:Today at 11:56:53 am
Re: usala: Louisiana State Highways
« Reply #79 on: May 23, 2020, 02:21:02 pm »
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3909

519: GapFarmRd -> GapFarRd??

The GIS has no name for the road, but there's a business on it called Gap Farms Travel Center, so ESRI probably has it wrong.

Quote
523: move LA526 to the connector?
526: move LA523 to the connector?

I like making the graph connections when they're this close.

Quote
531: PR173 no longer has a shield, but it's still on the street sign (MimsGroRd)

More recent imagery shows the shield.

Quote
545 is signed north-south, so LA151_W -> LA151_S and LA151_E -> LA151_S

See comments for LA 151. 545 is sometimes signed N-S, sometimes E-W, which is why even you got confused when suggesting the new names.

Quote
568: OldLA568 -> ChuLn_W per GIS, ChuLn -> ChuLn_E
568: move MisAve southwest to HigPl?
568: US65_N -> US65_E or US65 or US65_Gol

I used MisAve since it's where a 90° turn takes place. And I don't see any directional signage on 568, so I'm leaving it as a N-S route since it parallels US 425 or 65 for its entire length.

Quote
577sprind now ends at End http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.290801&lon=-91.474062 per GIS and RTP; this needs field checking

Most recent GMSV is from 2009 so it definitely needs field checking. However I noticed that the existing point was still likely incorrect, so I moved it to the first westbound sign, which coincided with where the pavement began (and matches a section break in the GIS).

Quote
579: PanRd -> PanLakeRd

I don't know how you're getting Panther Lake from that image. The GIS says Panther Rd so I'd want to see some more evidence besides a nearby lake called Panther Lake.

Quote
588: RivRd -> End?

I don't see anything that tells me the rest of 588 is called River Rd, so no change.

Quote
593: add a point at PR10, a planned state highway per RTP

Let's wait until the new highway materializes. It's not needed for shaping.

Quote
593: BoatDockRd is a parking lot; move to BusParkRd?

The GIS gives it that name, and although it's not particularly important (it's there for shaping), it does serve a boat dock, whereas BusParkRd appears to serve about 4 trailers.

Quote
594: add a point at KanLn, a planned state highway per RTP
596: add a point at SchLn, a planned state highway per RTP

Neither is needed for shaping, so I'll wait.

602-1: signs point 601-1 [sic] west from I-20; should 602-1 be extended to the south frontage road? this may need field checking

The GIS has it extending south but still ending within the interchange, or barely outside; I'm comfortable leaving this alone (1PPI) unless field checking indicates signs south of the eastbound exit ramp.

Quote
655 is cut back to only the part from LA655Spr (-> MainSt or MainSt_Loc) to LA308 and 655sprloc is gone; this needs to be field checked

Both 655 and the spur are signed (as 655) from LA 1 in November 2019 imagery; the references in the GIS were changed in Februrary 2019.

Quote
693 is gone per GIS and RTP, but was still signed in May 2018 GSV. So this needs field checking.
694: LA693 is gone per GIS and RTP, but was still signed in May 2018 GSV. So this needs field checking.

I'll wait for the field check.
Clinched: