Author Topic: NC: US-70 issues  (Read 656 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 752
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:November 07, 2019, 11:17:31 pm
NC: US-70 issues
« on: August 24, 2019, 11:51:16 pm »
Some suggestions, some issues I've noticed on the route file.

.....
US321Bus
NC16Bus -> remove == reason?  No intersection, just an overpass.  Point needs to be removed from NC-16 Bus's file as well (see [1] below).
NEW -> 1stSt == straight line connection to I-40 Exit 130.
NC16
.....
OxfSt
NEW -> WikeRd == direct connection up to I-40 Exit 138.
NC10
.....
I-77
+x50 -> SalHwy == The current hidden point is so close to this road, there's a traffic light there, and it would break up a ~8 mile gap between usable points.
SR1793
.....
US601 -> US601_N == end of a multiplex
.....
NC150_E -> location needs to be corrected.  A little bit too far north of the intersection.  Must have been acquired before OSM was correctly updated.  Would need to be fixed in US-29 & NC-150's file as well.
.....
NC109 -> Location needs corrected, as now an interchange in a new location just to the East of the old intersection. NC I-85 BL (Lexington, NC), US-29, & NC-109 would need the same adjustment.
.....
US29/220
NEW -> HufMillRd -- missing interchange
I-840 -> I-785/840 -- Even though only I-785 is currently posted, might as well future proof the label for when the Loop is completed.
+x60
.....
NC61
NEW -> UniDr -- direct connection down to I-40/I-85 Exit 140.
NC54/62
.....
I-85(170)
maybe? -> +X*** shaping point here to move it farther from the parallel US-70 Business route?  Would also have to be added to I-85's file.
I-85(172)
.....
US70BusSmi_E
NEW -> DavMillRd -- Newly constructed interchange
HowRd
.....
PinGroRd
NEW -> SloRd -- New interchange being constructed here, so might as well add it now and save time in the future.
NC101_E
.....

[1] - For NC16 Bus Conover, recommend replacing US70 with a point @ either 7th Street (connection to US-70/US-321 Business), and/or @ 1st Street (connection to US-70 & I-40 Exit 130).
« Last Edit: October 03, 2019, 07:52:12 am by rickmastfan67 »

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 752
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:November 07, 2019, 11:17:31 pm
Re: NC: US-70 issues
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2019, 08:09:57 am »
nc.us070busdur:
On a side note, while just randomly looking @ US-70 Business (Durham), it could use a few points with some roads that directly connect to either I-85 or NC-147 interchanges.

Cole Mill Rd (direct connection to I-85 Exit 173)
Hillandale Road (the slip road, as that road connects to both I-85 & NC-147); maybe remove 'LawAve' to add this one in it's place?  But then again, 'LawAve' is currently in use. :-\


US15Bus/501Bus -> US15/501Bus +US15Bus/501Bus
On a side note about this point, it doesn't have a graph connection to those routes (it does for NC-98).  Seems US15Bus/501Bus both have separate 'US70Bus_*' points for it.  Maybe re-combine them in both US-15BusDur & US-501BusDur to restore the graph connection with US-70Bus & NC-98?

NC98 -> NC98_E (end of the multiplex)

=====

nc.nc098:
US15Bus/501Bus -> US15/501Bus +US15Bus/501Bus

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:46:53 pm
Re: NC: US-70 issues
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2019, 04:43:51 pm »
I am fine with making LawAve an alternate label for Hillandale Rd (HilRd).

Only tarheel61581 is currently using this point (file states US70_W LawAve) and would lose maybe a tenth of a mile at most.

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 468
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:49:26 pm
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: NC: US-70 issues
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2019, 02:34:37 pm »
All info above evaluated and changes are in the queue.

I have gotten contradictory suggestions on the format for 2 Business routes

x/yBus vs. xBus/yBus

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:46:53 pm
Re: NC: US-70 issues
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2019, 04:17:58 pm »
All info above evaluated and changes are in the queue.

I have gotten contradictory suggestions on the format for 2 Business routes

x/yBus vs. xBus/yBus

Part of that seems to be my fault.  I would prefer both Business designations if both are business routes.   

I think doing US25Bus/178Bus (see SC 10) is viable for the case that a business route actually is concurrent with a bannerless route (see US 52 at US 221/US 58 BUS in Hillsville, VA, with the label US221/58Bus).

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 752
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:November 07, 2019, 11:17:31 pm
Re: NC: US-70 issues
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2019, 07:33:21 pm »
I've honestly been told from the start that we can't have double banners in the file labels.  :-\  Hence, whenever I've had this issue, I've done 'US25/23Bus' type labels, even if both are Business routes.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 692
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:46:53 pm
Re: NC: US-70 issues
« Reply #6 on: October 09, 2019, 07:12:28 am »
Well, just noting this as apparently there will be a relocation of US 70 in the Greensboro area that we will need to keep an eye on.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25766.msg2448641#msg2448641

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • Last Login:Today at 04:12:11 am
Re: NC: US-70 issues
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2019, 04:05:36 pm »
The closest the manual gets to addressing putting two bannered highways in a waypoint label is:
Quote
If one of the two highways is already long as a label (e.g., a bannered route like US42BusKin), consider skipping the city abbrev. or even skipping the whole second route.
It'd seem that including Route+Banner for each route (when do we ever drop banners?) would be the right way to go; thus "xBus/yBus".

That said, I have a personal distaste for this, and go the "skip the whole second route" route.