Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: okroads on October 30, 2016, 04:48:35 pm
-
I have noticed a few changes which need to be made to Ohio state routes:
OH164: In Lisbon, the route does not duplex with U.S. 30. Rather, it follows Washington Street between Lincoln Avenue & Market Street. Signage in the field confirms this.
OH242: route was decommissioned in 2013
OH533: route was decommissioned in 2014
Thank you,
Eric Stuve
-
Thanks. I'll submit those later this week.
-
Changes are live now.
-
Rather than start a new thread, it seemed better to post on this one as one of the routes mentioned is relevant.
Earlier this year, I discovered signage on what used to be OH533 just east of Bellefontaine. While the route is properly signed as Logan County 5, there is signage for "Old 533" in both directions. The route is only a couple miles in length and there are 2 signs for drivers heading north and 2 more for those driving south, as well at markers at the intersections with OH47 and OH540 at each end.
I don't believe it is appropriate to add this route back to the HB. I bring it up because it is better signed than many routes that are included. IMO, no action is needed other than perhaps a further discussion of how signage on a road vs. legal definition of a route can lead to different decisions on what should be included on this site. I know a related issue has been brought up on the I-676 in Philadelphia thread. Old OH533 is just more food for thought.
-
You're not the first to bring up "Old" Ohio 533 on here.
https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2928.msg13205#msg13205
-
You're not the first to bring up "Old" Ohio 533 on here.
https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2928.msg13205#msg13205
Thanks for pointing that out. When I searched "OH533" I only found the thread I posted to, not the other one. Seems the space before the route number made the difference :P. In any case, we appear to be in agreement on the merits of leaving this route out of usaoh.
-
Agreed, "Old" is not a standard banner and its presence justifies omitting this route.
-
Agreed, "Old" is not a standard banner and its presence justifies omitting this route.
My thoughts exactly. Proves another important point that is worth considering elsewhere. Just because a sign is posted, does not mean a route should be included in the HB. Without some sort of 'official' designation, putting a sign on a route is not sufficient justification for including routes. Signage is certainly important, but it is not the only criterion. Just my opinion, though I'm glad to see (at least in this instance) that I'm not alone.