Author Topic: MD: Point Concerns After 11/20/2022 Trip  (Read 108 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2643
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:06:18 pm
MD: Point Concerns After 11/20/2022 Trip
« on: November 21, 2022, 12:47:30 pm »
US 301:  MD925_S >-BilRd

MD 6:  The west end seems to have been truncated to here.  There was a barricade and NO TRESPASSING signs at this driveway.  Signage does not show MD 6 WB going past MD 224.

MD 212:  I recommend relooking at the section between MD193 and PowMillRd_W, but I am unsure if I fully recommend any changes.

MD 224: 

1.  WelBlvd should be slightly relocated.
2.  Charles County GIS shows MarObsRd as US GOVT RD #17 though it also is not open to the public...
3.  Should a point be added at Stump Neck Rd?
4.  Maybe change LucThoPl to SmaChuRd.
5.  Maybe add a point here for Smallwood State Park.

MD 227:  TurHillRd should be relocated.

MD 382: 
1.  Cha/Pri should be moved to the County Line Creek Bridge
2.  Consider replacing the shaping point north of DulStaRd with visible point(s).
« Last Edit: November 21, 2022, 02:50:40 pm by Markkos1992 »

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1387
  • Last Login:Today at 12:20:45 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: MD: Point Concerns After 11/20/2022 Trip
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2022, 01:11:48 pm »
MD 382:  Cha/Pri should be moved to the County Line Creek Bridge.

OSM shows the county line, which follows County Line Creek. So we can use OSM for the corrected Cha/Pri coordinates.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
  • Last Login:November 27, 2022, 06:55:02 pm
Re: MD: Point Concerns After 11/20/2022 Trip
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2022, 07:13:30 pm »
MD 6:  The west end seems to have been truncated to here.  There was a barricade and NO TRESPASSING signs at this driveway.  Signage does not show MD 6 WB going past MD 224.

Highway Location Reference describes the endpoint as "Road End: Guardrail" and it being 0.73 miles from MD 224. That quite clearly corresponds to the physical end of the road at the water. Charles County GIS also shows it being public ROW all the way to the bank of the river.

This implies the barricade and no trespassing sign you encountered may have been placed there unilaterally and unauthorizedly by one of the property owners at the end of the road. This is a thing that has been known to happen with small roads in rural areas, local property owners assert domain over them either because they legitimately think it's private and theirs, or because they just want to keep people away from their property and assume if they put up gates and signs it'll scare people off and they won't challenge it.

I'd suggest reaching out to SHA about this since if someone did put an unauthorized gate across a public road, they could have it removed.


Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2643
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:06:18 pm
Re: MD: Point Concerns After 11/20/2022 Trip
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2022, 07:52:56 pm »
MD 6:  The west end seems to have been truncated to here.  There was a barricade and NO TRESPASSING signs at this driveway.  Signage does not show MD 6 WB going past MD 224.

Highway Location Reference describes the endpoint as "Road End: Guardrail" and it being 0.73 miles from MD 224. That quite clearly corresponds to the physical end of the road at the water. Charles County GIS also shows it being public ROW all the way to the bank of the river.

This implies the barricade and no trespassing sign you encountered may have been placed there unilaterally and unauthorizedly by one of the property owners at the end of the road. This is a thing that has been known to happen with small roads in rural areas, local property owners assert domain over them either because they legitimately think it's private and theirs, or because they just want to keep people away from their property and assume if they put up gates and signs it'll scare people off and they won't challenge it.

I'd suggest reaching out to SHA about this since if someone did put an unauthorized gate across a public road, they could have it removed.



It was definitely SHA signs.  I'll make sure I post it when I get to yesterday's photos. (which may be a while with me still going through photos from October 30th)

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
  • Last Login:November 27, 2022, 06:55:02 pm
Re: MD: Point Concerns After 11/20/2022 Trip
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2022, 11:26:29 pm »
It was definitely SHA signs.  I'll make sure I post it when I get to yesterday's photos. (which may be a while with me still going through photos from October 30th)

Oh, if SHA blocked it off then sure, I'll relocate the endpoint accordingly.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2643
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:06:18 pm
Re: MD: Point Concerns After 11/20/2022 Trip
« Reply #5 on: Yesterday at 04:50:08 pm »
It was definitely SHA signs.  I'll make sure I post it when I get to yesterday's photos. (which may be a while with me still going through photos from October 30th)

Oh, if SHA blocked it off then sure, I'll relocate the endpoint accordingly.

Linking the photo here for context:  https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10217954905664753&set=a.10217954944345720