Author Topic: MT: 5 SR discrepancies  (Read 307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vespertine

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:January 22, 2020, 07:49:05 pm
MT: 5 SR discrepancies
« on: January 22, 2020, 07:49:05 pm »
I recently downloaded the Montana highway system routes map off of their site for some of my own roadgeeky purposes. In doing so, I found five discrepancies between what their map shows and what's shown in the HB.

  • SR204: The HB has this going from US2 to US191, but MDT shows it as just being ~2 miles long starting from US2 in Dodson, and most likely ending at Wagner Rd (where there is a change in pavement, anyway).
  • SR258: Checking the Reserve map shows that SR258 ends at Rock Springs Rd (or Whiskey Rd on the MDT map) in Reserve, instead of MT16.
  • SR287: Looks like this may not end at the edge of Willow Creek, but rather a little past it at Williams Bridge Rd.
  • SR290: MDT shows this as being ~16 miles, which puts the end not at Sixteen Mile Creek (despite its name!), but at either Pass Creek Rd or Menard Rd.
  • SR544: The HB shows this ending at US212, but well too far north of what MDT says. Looks like 544 goes through Belle Creek, then uses Ranch Creek Rd south then west to end within a mile of the town of Biddle.

I'm no expert on Montana's routes, and GMSV doesn't help with their ancient imagery, so I make no claims for this to be totally accurate...it's just what I've been able to try and figure out from MDT and other stuff. Anyway, hope this helps.

v.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 345
  • Last Login:Today at 02:46:33 am
Re: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2020, 03:28:11 pm »
The route log that the system was based on seems to agree with all of these.

One other thing I will note is that the designation "SR" itself is a TM invention. MDT refers to these as S-###. Not sure that this is worth doing anything about - the only other US/Canada jurisdiction with a current secondary system is Alberta, and there the secondaries just keep using "AB ###" nomenclature. Still, Alberta has no route number duplications between primaries and secondaries. Montana has exactly one (287), but that's enough to create a conflict if the same thing were to be done.

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:32:11 pm
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
Re: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2020, 02:26:33 am »
Alrighty, did some digging.
S-204: Looks like it used to go all the way to US 191, hence why OSM and Google still have it in there.
S-258: Also in OSM
S-287: Per MDT GIS (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=8a4fe70b08534341afb10a49fb5b7771), it does go all the way through Willow Creek.
S-290: Per MDT GIS, it is Menard Rd.
S-544: Also in OSM

These should be relatively easy to do since no one's been on the segments in question.

Not sure that this is worth doing anything about
I don't think it's that big of a deal.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:32:11 pm
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
Re: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2020, 12:50:45 am »
Got everything but the reroute
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:32:11 pm
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2509
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 05:57:12 pm

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 04:32:11 pm
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
Re: MT: 5 SR discrepancies
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2020, 06:17:37 pm »
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3671

+X05 is a tiny bit off, move?
+X06 much more so; it appears to be on
I didn't do anything with those other than clean up the hidden label the last time; guess I should have looked more closely at them.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton