Highway Data Discussion > In-progress Highway Systems & Work

usams: Mississippi State Highways

(1/27) > >>

froggie:
I have (slowly) begun work on adding Mississippi state highways, starting with their 1/2-digit routes (1 to 76).  The two primary sources for determining route designation are MDOT's 2014 Selected Statistics book (most recent year), which includes a route log, and their State Designated/State Maintained map, most recently updated two months ago (August, 2016).  Both sources are available online under the Planning Division part of MDOT's website.

Directional routing should be pretty straightforward.  All even routes are signed east-west and all odd-routes are signed north-south, even if they geographically have a different direction (such as MS 315).

Three-digit routes will be added in a future phase, at least through the 600s.  One issue that will have to be considered down the road are the 7xx, 8xx, and 9xx routes.  Historically, these were hidden routes.  However, some of them (such as MS 792 south of Columbus and MS 854 near NAS Meridian) have been signed in recent years.  I have three ideas how to address this:

- Not include any of the 7xx-9xx routes
- Include only those routes that are signed.  This would require a significant research effort to locate and attempt to find signage...impossible for me to do in the field now.
- Include all 7xx-9xx routes

Suggests/comments are welcome.

I have a similar issue with "locally maintained" routes.  These are state-designated routes or route segments, but are not maintained by MDOT.  For the most part (based on my past experience, since I was stationed in Mississippi twice for a total of 7 years), they're unsigned.  However, there are a number of these locally maintained route segments (including MS 50, MS 430, and MS 537) that are in between MDOT-maintained segments.  My inkling is to include these locally maintained segments if they'e directly connected to a state-maintained segment, even if the locally-maintained leg is unsigned (as is also the case with at least one part of US 11 within Mississippi).  Looking for suggestions on how to address this.

mapcat:
Great to know that you're working on these!

Since the general guidelines seem to be to include signed routes and ignore unsigned routes, to me it would make sense to include the signed 600, 700, and 800 series. As for researching whether or not they're signed, I can't see how using GMSV would be improper for this. If any lack imagery, leave them out until someone can field-check.

For the non-state-maintained routes, I agree with you that only those connected to a signed state-maintained segment deserve to be included. In the off chance that one of these is signed (formerly state-maintained, perhaps?) I'd be inclined to include it.

froggie:

--- Quote ---As for researching whether or not they're signed, I can't see how using GMSV would be improper for this.
--- End quote ---

Because Mississippi has some big GMSV holes as far as recent coverage.  Much of the state's coverage still dates back to 2008-09.  GMSV also has a tendency to not go down some of these lesser roadways...the type these 7xx-9xx route numbers are most likely to be on.


--- Quote ---For the non-state-maintained routes, I agree with you that only those connected to a signed state-maintained segment deserve to be included. In the off chance that one of these is signed (formerly state-maintained, perhaps?) I'd be inclined to include it.
--- End quote ---

Here, it gets murky, because Mississippi is by far not the only state that has such state-designated but locally-maintained routes.  This was before your time, but it was a big sticking point for getting Vermont activated on the old CHM.  A number of NYS routes are also locally-maintained.

michih:

--- Quote from: froggie on October 23, 2016, 10:23:43 am ---- Include only those routes that are signed.  This would require a significant research effort to locate and attempt to find signage...impossible for me to do in the field now.
--- End quote ---

I have a general question. What's the reason why unsigned roads are not drafted?

If there's official data (e.g. map of the road authority) and it's "signed" on maps and GPS, I see no reason why to exclude these routes.
Quite the contrary, I've seen signs on (European) roads which are not dedicated like the signs show! For instance, road numbers on signs at roads which just head to the indicated road...

yakra:

--- Quote from: froggie on October 24, 2016, 07:15:47 am ---Here, it gets murky, because Mississippi is by far not the only state that has such state-designated but locally-maintained routes.  This was before your time, but it was a big sticking point for getting Vermont activated on the old CHM.  A number of NYS routes are also locally-maintained.

--- End quote ---
The real kicker here for Tim on CHM was how a different style of route marker usually appeared on the town-maintained sections. (He was also conflating this with the concept of VT's Town Highways, something that I don't think we were ever able to straighten him out on before just kinda giving up...) Contrast that against NYS, or even ME & NH having the same style route marker on locally maintained sections.


--- Quote from: michih on October 24, 2016, 07:30:47 am ---I have a general question. What's the reason why unsigned roads are not drafted?

If there's official data (e.g. map of the road authority) and it's "signed" on maps and GPS, I see no reason why to exclude these routes.

--- End quote ---
The idea was to have a system that matches, as close as we can get it, what's actually posted out there in the field. Something accessible that Joe Traveler can understand and follow signs for, and not esoteric obscurity that only makes sense to hardcore roadgeeks.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page