Author Topic: Spurs  (Read 2114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jayhawkco

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Last Login:Today at 12:16:41 pm
Spurs
« on: June 22, 2021, 04:13:31 pm »
Is there a precedent written out somewhere for how we treat Spur routes that aren't signed as such?  For example, the Idaho State Highway Spurs, none of them are actually signed as spur.  They are (in these cases) signed as the main route.  I'm fine leaving them in if they're signed as something, but was just curious if other states had done things differently.

Chris

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3903
  • Last Login:Today at 06:46:21 pm
Re: Spurs
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2021, 06:49:10 pm »
Was usaid a relatively early system?
Was it AndyTom who first got it going back in the CHM days?
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1683
  • Last Login:Today at 05:22:31 am
Re: Spurs
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2021, 07:16:17 pm »
The recentering and bringing labels up to code I did on that system years ago means it was very early stuff - roughly contemporary with the US highways (which had similar problems in many states).

Offline theFXexpert

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 134
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 09, 2022, 12:44:15 am
Re: Spurs
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2021, 09:17:39 pm »
FL 295 in Pensacola has some thing like this where the spur is signed identically to the main route.
It is treated like a different section for TM purposes.

Main: https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=fl.fl295
Spur: https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=fl.fl295wpe

FL 70 had a somewhat similar situation until signs for its spur were removed.

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 490
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 05:05:38 pm
Re: Spurs
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2021, 10:24:34 am »
OR 223 and 39 do this as well.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3903
  • Last Login:Today at 06:46:21 pm
Re: Spurs
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2021, 11:34:17 am »
How about MD's Interstate spurs?
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2579
  • Last Login:Today at 07:40:11 pm
Re: Spurs
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2021, 11:43:18 am »
How about MD's Interstate spurs?

They are practically signed by these mile markers.  (at least for I-895, I am unsure about I-270)

Of course, I would consider these more or less as similar to unsigned interstates.

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1025
  • Last Login:Today at 07:26:05 pm
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Spurs
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2021, 11:55:32 am »
How about MD's Interstate spurs?

They are practically signed by these mile markers.  (at least for I-895, I am unsure about I-270)

Of course, I would consider these more or less as similar to unsigned interstates.

I-270 SPUR is explicitly signed on a BGS - https://goo.gl/maps/cKKTLNrvyHYKWRZBA

Offline osu-lsu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:41:25 pm
Re: Spurs
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2021, 01:36:16 pm »
I vividly remember several spur routes for Louisiana state highways, south of Baton Rouge, during my LSU days (04-09).
I thought Arkansas may had some spur routes, but that is 20 years ago for me.

Offline jayhawkco

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Last Login:Today at 12:16:41 pm
Re: Spurs
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2021, 05:04:06 pm »
So tl;dr, do we want to leave them in as "Spur" even though the general convention is to not have things in TM that aren't signed?  I get that these routes are signed, but basically they're signed incorrectly if you boil it all down.

Chris

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1683
  • Last Login:Today at 05:22:31 am
Re: Spurs
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2021, 06:36:14 pm »
Either
1) they are bannered routes, whose banner is incorrectly missing
or
2) they are separate vanilla route segments

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 290
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 25, 2022, 12:43:55 am
Re: Spurs
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2021, 06:21:16 pm »
I'll have to spend some time tonight or tomorrow night looking into the spurs on GMSV. I just haven't had a chance to do this yet.

@jayhawkco, so you're saying that none of the spur routes in Idaho are signed? I'm aware of ID 128 Spur not being signed (which, given how short it is, I'm not surprised), but you're saying the other ones aren't signed either?

Offline jayhawkco

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Last Login:Today at 12:16:41 pm
Re: Spurs
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2021, 09:41:46 pm »
I'll have to spend some time tonight or tomorrow night looking into the spurs on GMSV. I just haven't had a chance to do this yet.

@jayhawkco, so you're saying that none of the spur routes in Idaho are signed? I'm aware of ID 128 Spur not being signed (which, given how short it is, I'm not surprised), but you're saying the other ones aren't signed either?

As far as I'm aware, none are signed with "spur".  They are generally signed as if they were the main route, but obviously they're not. 

Chris

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 290
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 25, 2022, 12:43:55 am
Re: Spurs
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2021, 11:14:37 pm »
I'll have to spend some time tonight or tomorrow night looking into the spurs on GMSV. I just haven't had a chance to do this yet.

@jayhawkco, so you're saying that none of the spur routes in Idaho are signed? I'm aware of ID 128 Spur not being signed (which, given how short it is, I'm not surprised), but you're saying the other ones aren't signed either?

As far as I'm aware, none are signed with "spur".  They are generally signed as if they were the main route, but obviously they're not. 

Chris

Thanks for the info. I'm still going to leave them as-is because ITD's GIS map considers them to be spur routes.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 696
  • Last Login:Today at 07:20:27 pm
Re: Spurs
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2021, 06:02:29 pm »
ID 128 Spur is not really a route in its own right so much as half of a wye junction. Even Corco, one of the most persnickety clinchers known, does not recognize it as a distinct route on his website. It is also, FWIW, not in any way signed.

As for the question of handling spurs in general, I generally agree with the principle of making it "Route XX Spur (Town)" if it's signed with a "Spur" banner in the field, but simply "Route XX (Town)" if no spur banner is present. Meanwhile if the spur is unsigned it ought to be left out of the HB as an unsigned route even if its unbannered parent is signed.