Highway Data Discussion > In-progress Highway Systems & Work
usams: Mississippi State Highways
michih:
--- Quote from: yakra on October 24, 2016, 12:50:26 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
I think most of the drafting work must be spent to fulfill this requirement.
--- Quote from: yakra on October 24, 2016, 12:50:26 pm ---Something accessible that Joe Traveler can understand and follow signs for, and not esoteric obscurity that only makes sense to hardcore roadgeeks.
--- End quote ---
I don't think that he can remember all road signs. I think today's Joe Traveler is just useing GPS which usually have these "esoteric data".
Why to spend a lot of effort on it? Just because a rule was set in stone?
Why not updating rules to today's occurrences?
Well, froggie asked and I think we could discuss it. If mayority is refusing, I'll accept the decision.
bejacob:
I won't swear to it, but aren't there already some unsigned routes in the system? I don't recall seeing any signage for ID US95SprPay. Seems that the same was true in OK on US69BusDur/US75BusDur. Lots of "To US69" and "To US75" signs along the way, but nothing indicating the bannered routes.
These would be cases that the only way anyone would know to try to clinch these routes would be to research it here first. I think it's safe to say these route are official. It's just that there is no signage along the route. Perhaps business and spur routes might be different than unsigned primary routes. Just my two cents.
oscar:
--- Quote from: bejacob on October 24, 2016, 04:29:13 pm ---I won't swear to it, but aren't there already some unsigned routes in the system? I don't recall seeing any signage for ID US95SprPay. Seems that the same was true in OK on US69BusDur/US75BusDur. Lots of "To US69" and "To US75" signs along the way, but nothing indicating the bannered routes.
These would be cases that the only way anyone would know to try to clinch these routes would be to research it here first. I think it's safe to say these route are official. It's just that there is no signage along the route. Perhaps business and spur routes might be different than unsigned primary routes. Just my two cents.
--- End quote ---
In Idaho, I flagged some unsigned spur routes I noticed while clinching them. They were promptly removed from what was then CHM's database.
There are some exceptions we've made to the rule, most notably for unsigned Interstates like I-595 in MD and I-444 in OK. I think there may be other exceptions for non-U.S. systems.
Bickendan:
Also, Oregon's actually pretty bad about unsigned routes. The 2002 decision to sign them was what prompted the whole system to be included, but as I've noticed during my travels across the state, it's spotty and inconsistent at best. I really, really need to finish cleaning up the Routes set to bring them up to our standards, and this will include 'removing' the unsigned Routes -- quotes used, because since they're intended to be signed but aren't, I'll be moving them into a new Highways set.
si404:
--- Quote from: froggie on October 23, 2016, 10:23:43 am ---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
--- End quote ---
Include routes you know to be signed, and not do much research on the others, waiting for people to say "this route is signed" before including it?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version