Author Topic: FL: Point Concerns After 3/2023 Trip  (Read 6832 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 08:13:22 am
Re: FL: Point Concerns After 3/2023 Trip
« Reply #15 on: December 20, 2023, 12:49:15 am »
US 27: 
1.  Consider adding a point at the entrance to Lake Louisa State Park.
2.  CitTowRd>-CitTowBlvd
3.  It looks like CR356_N should just be CR356 (one intersection).  (also affects US 221, does not affect US 19)
4.  Consider replacing the shaping point west of US19_N with a visible point.

1. Removed nearby 'BraRd' (not in use) and replaced with 'LakeLouSP' @ that intersection.
2. Fixed.
3. Hmmmm. In US-19, both are CR-356 Taylor, but seem to be 'separate segments'.  So, will 'fix' to CR356 in all 3 routes, and relabel 'CR356_S' in US-19 (& US-98/US-27Alt) to 'CR356_Tay' to keep them all synced (since none leave at either intersection).  Especially due to the love of FL using same CR numbers sometimes in other counties.
4. Point added @ StAugRd.

US 27 ALT (Perry): 
1.  US19/98_S>-US19/98
2.  CR356_S>-CR356

1. Since this is the end of a long multiplex with the two routes since it's Northern start/end, I think this is justified to leave as-is.
2. Went with 'CR356_Tay' as mentioned in #3 above.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7092

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 08:13:22 am
Re: FL: Point Concerns After 3/2023 Trip
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2024, 03:12:32 am »
US 41: 
1.  FL907_S>-FL907
2.  Should a point be added at Riverfront Blvd in Bradenton?  (also affects US 301)
3.  Consider replacing the shaping point south of FL 597 with a visible point.

1. Was to keep it 'synced' label wise with FL-A1A.  However, changed.
2. Hmmm, no 'EXIT' gore signage, however, classic partial exit design.  HOWEVER, are we even sure that's the road name?  I couldn't find a single street-blade w/ that name, or any signage mentioning the address.  Will defer on this till we can verify a road name for the point.
3. Done @ RheaSeeDr.

US 92:
1.  FL574_W>-FL574.  FL574_E should be edited as FL 574 here seems to be a secret designation.
2.  FL15A_S>-FL15A (only one intersection with the route unlike US 17)

1. Agreed.  Will also shorten FL-574 to FL-39 due to it being hidden the last block at least since 2008 per GSV.  Also, FL574_E -> ReySt.
2. Honestly, want to keep the labels synced here between the two routes, due to how long US-17 & US-92 share this multiplex. So, no change as this time.

==

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7268

Online Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Last Login:Today at 06:50:16 pm
Re: FL: Point Concerns After 3/2023 Trip
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2024, 06:42:59 am »
Quote
2. Hmmm, no 'EXIT' gore signage, however, classic partial exit design.  HOWEVER, are we even sure that's the road name?  I couldn't find a single street-blade w/ that name, or any signage mentioning the address.  Will defer on this till we can verify a road name for the point.

I think either 2ndSt or 3rdSt is fine.  The latter would be a duplicate label though.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2024, 07:02:39 am by Markkos1992 »

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
  • Last Login:Today at 05:42:14 pm
Re: FL: Point Concerns After 3/2023 Trip
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2024, 08:40:41 pm »
1. Agreed.  Will also shorten FL-574 to FL-39 due to it being hidden the last block at least since 2008 per GSV.  Also, FL574_E -> ReySt.
I'm not sure we should truncate it. The only difference between this and similar routes like I-670 is that there's no direct access from US 92 west to SR 574 west, so westbound signage is not to be expected.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 08:13:22 am
Re: FL: Point Concerns After 3/2023 Trip
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2024, 09:58:23 pm »
1. Agreed.  Will also shorten FL-574 to FL-39 due to it being hidden the last block at least since 2008 per GSV.  Also, FL574_E -> ReySt.
I'm not sure we should truncate it. The only difference between this and similar routes like I-670 is that there's no direct access from US 92 west to SR 574 west, so westbound signage is not to be expected.

However, with your example, I-670 has an END shield, but FL-574 doesn't.

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1043
  • Last Login:Today at 05:42:14 pm
Re: FL: Point Concerns After 3/2023 Trip
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2024, 10:41:45 pm »
So if I-670 had no end shield, would that change things?

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 08:13:22 am
Re: FL: Point Concerns After 3/2023 Trip
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2024, 10:49:02 pm »
So if I-670 had no end shield, would that change things?

I doubt it, since it's signed in the other direction @ the huge interchange.

With FL-574, there's 0 mention from US-92 EB, and usually FDOT is pretty good at signing stuff like this if they want to acknowledge the route.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 08:13:22 am
Re: FL: Point Concerns After 3/2023 Trip
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2024, 08:31:57 pm »
So if I-670 had no end shield, would that change things?

I doubt it, since it's signed in the other direction @ the huge interchange.

With FL-574, there's 0 mention from US-92 EB, and usually FDOT is pretty good at signing stuff like this if they want to acknowledge the route.

Also, this would be similar to the eastern end of FL-84.  GIS says it goes one block beyond US-1 to Miami Road, but it isn't signed as doing so from US-1.  However, just was randomly looking @ GSV and did discover a street blade that mentions it @ Miami Road as 'SR 84'.  And it's a recent install too, as the old one said 'ST RD 84'.  However, not too keen on extending it still, since people would only see 'WB FL-84' shields @ US-1.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 08:13:22 am
Re: FL: Point Concerns After 3/2023 Trip
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2024, 10:44:41 pm »
US 98: 
1.  SemPraWhiRd should be shortened.  (also affects US 441 and FL 80)
2.  CR35Alt>-CR35Alt_S (maybe CR35AAlt??) (may affect the CR35Alt_N label)
3.  OldCraHwy_S>-OldCraHwy (only one intersection unlike US 319)
4.  Consider replacing the shaping point west of FL 363 with a visible point.
5.  Consider replacing the shaping points east of FL 30A and CR 30A with visible points.

1. Changed to 'SPWhiRd'.
2. That road has an identity crises.  ::)  Half the time, it's signed as CR-35 ALT, the other times it's CR-35A ALT.  I mean, at that intersection, on the road itself, it has the CR-35 ALT shields.  Anyways, the GIS doesn't even show this segment on the county layer.  But down below, it has a small segment of the route shown as 'CR 35A'.  But that could mean anything, as FL doesn't normally have bannered routes.  Then again, Clinton Ave has the designation of 'CR-52A' in the GIS, but is signed as 'CR-52 ALT' in the field.  So, confusion all around there in that area.  Still, I don't think I'll be changing any of the labels here due to this fact.  The only reason I didn't have the '_S' at the southern junction was because that wasn't the end of the route, even though it doesn't connect back to US-98.
3. No change here, as I don't feel like messing around with this, as the label is in-use, and is technically correct, as I like to keep labels synced between routes along multiplexes as much as possible.
4. No, as over 0.1 miles would be lost if I adjusted it.  Not worth it IMO.
5. There's no roads there with any posted street blades w/ names.  So, no changes here.

Quote
2. Hmmm, no 'EXIT' gore signage, however, classic partial exit design.  HOWEVER, are we even sure that's the road name?  I couldn't find a single street-blade w/ that name, or any signage mentioning the address.  Will defer on this till we can verify a road name for the point.

I think either 2ndSt or 3rdSt is fine.  The latter would be a duplicate label though.

I'm going to go with RivBlvd.  This business has a website, and it lists the road as Riverfront Blvd.  That's good enough for me to ID the road name.

==

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7276