User Discussions > Other Discussion

What will happen to the Select Numbered State Freeways system?

(1/5) > >>

bejacob:
Now that GA, SC, TN, and VA state routes are in preview status, 29 of the 41 routes in this set could be moved to their respective state systems. Other than keeping those routes as part of an active system, is there a compelling reason why these routes belong in a tier 3 system as opposed to a tier 4 system like the rest of the state routes?

I can understand not wanting to incorporate them into the state systems until the latter are activated, though from my perceptive, given that preview systems appear on the regional maps the same way active systems do, I wouldn't have an problem seeing these route moved now. I know the active stats would drop until the respective state systems are activated, but it would also get rid of the log errors on routes that are currently in both the state numbered freeways and their state system (VA7, GA316, etc.).

I know there would be some effort of the part of TM collaborators to make this change and there are probably factors I'm not considering.

Thoughts?

mapcat:
There's really no reason to delete these from usansf while their related state system is in preview. But there's also no need to have a version in a state system in preview while the version in usansf exists. One is enough and it's easy to merge them into their state system at activation.

dfilpus:

--- Quote from: mapcat on January 26, 2017, 11:34:30 am ---But there's also no need to have a version in a state system in preview while the version in usansf exists. One is enough and it's easy to merge them into their state system at activation.

--- End quote ---
There are several routes in usansf which are longer state routes that have been truncated to freeway only segments. One example is VA 7, which is in usasnf as va007fwy.wpt and in usava as va007.wpt. It has been proposed, but not implemented, to replace all of these files with the full length file (properly named) in usansf.

mapcat:

--- Quote from: dfilpus on January 26, 2017, 01:47:42 pm ---There are several routes in usansf which are longer state routes that have been truncated to freeway only segments. One example is VA 7, which is in usasnf as va007fwy.wpt and in usava as va007.wpt. It has been proposed, but not implemented, to replace all of these files with the full length file (properly named) in usansf.

--- End quote ---
Right, that's what I was saying. One complete route file would be enough rather than different ones in different systems, which Jim has said generates more questions about log issues than anything else.

bejacob:

--- Quote from: mapcat on January 26, 2017, 11:34:30 am ---There's really no reason to delete these from usansf while their related state system is in preview. But there's also no need to have a version in a state system in preview while the version in usansf exists. One is enough and it's easy to merge them into their state system at activation.

--- End quote ---

It sounds like the plan is to merge them into the state systems, but not until those systems move from preview to active. Is that what I'm hearing? That certainly makes sense. I wasn't proposing an immediate change, especially since GA and TN state routes just became preview system.

It seems the long range goal is to develop all the state systems, meaning eventually there would be no need for this to exist as a separate system. I assume the select numbered state system was developed to cover freeway routes in areas where the state routes had not yet been drafted. It's an unusual collection of roads that does serve a good purpose. I've driven almost 20% of the mileage and am in no hurry to lose the ~132 miles from my active stats.

I was just wondering what the eventual plan for the system might be.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page