Recent Posts

1

Updates to Highway Data / Re: MO: US-71 MAJOR issue with Exits 17/18

« Last post by Markkos1992 on Today at 02:13:46 pm »

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8493

I put in Highway63's updates last weekend so I am probably at least somewhat responsible.

2

Updates to Highway Data / MO: US-71 MAJOR issue with Exits 17/18

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on Today at 11:45:56 am »

Code: [Select]

mo.us071 I-29(15),I-29(17),I-29(18) SHARP_ANGLE 160.09 mo.us071;I-29(15);I-29(17);I-29(18);SHARP_ANGLE;160.09
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/cceea82510a39c09cf6bd34d20f627420a7cba9f#r162144905

The coordinate change for the 'I-29(17)' label made on July 11th, needs to be revereted. Completely broke US-71 here along I-29.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.353646&lon=-94.761930 needs to go with Exit 18, while http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.345549&lon=-94.747982 needs to be back to being 17 to resync it with I-29.

3

Updates to Highway Data / Re: PRT A19 wrong exit numbers

« Last post by Jim on Today at 11:31:34 am »

My understanding is that if the route could be renumbered with the correct (not made up) new exit numbers, an updates entry is not needed but I also see no harm in adding on as it was a substantial change for the route.  I am strongly opposed to using labels that don't match what's posted just to avoid breaking list files.  Of course we use alt labels to minimize breakage but sometimes an accurate update will break some things and it will be up to users to update (if they care to do so).

4

Updates to Highway Data / Re: NY: I-190/NY-266

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on Today at 11:26:18 am »

I noticed that the pull request omits the Seaway Trail, which is concurrent with NY266 here. Shouldn't this issue be fixed there too?

Added in the pull request.

5

Updates to Highway Data / Re: PRT A19 wrong exit numbers

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on Today at 11:18:35 am »

Especially if those users don't seem particularly concerned (or simply don't check the updates entries religiously)?

This is why I suggested that there should be an update log entry for these changes.  The entire route got renumbered.  That's a news worthy change.

I didn’t change any point in use. Thus, not news worthy.

You're missing the point.  The ENTIRE ROUTE had it's visible labels changed.  That means it's 150% a news worthy change to let people know about that.  It doesn't matter if you didn't 'change' any label in use to another location.

Whenever a route has all it's labels changed, it's always been considered news worthy, even if only 2-3 people have been on it.

Examples:

Code: [Select]

2025-02-13 (USA) Connecticut CT 11 ct.ct011 Relabeled exits from sequential to mileage-based.
2025-02-13 (USA) Connecticut CT 2 ct.ct002 Relabeled exits from sequential to mileage-based.
CT-11 above is a perfect example of this. All labels got changed, news entry added, & no 'in-use' point changed.

6

Updates to Highway Data / Re: NY: I-190/NY-266

« Last post by cockroachking on Today at 11:08:32 am »

I noticed that the pull request omits the Seaway Trail, which is concurrent with NY266 here. Shouldn't this issue be fixed there too?

7

Updates to Highway Data / Re: PRT A19 wrong exit numbers

« Last post by michih on Today at 09:55:54 am »

Especially if those users don't seem particularly concerned (or simply don't check the updates entries religiously)?

This is why I suggested that there should be an update log entry for these changes.  The entire route got renumbered.  That's a news worthy change.

I didn’t change any point in use. Thus, not news worthy.

8

Updates to Highway Data / Re: PA: US 6/US 19 French Creek Parkway Lane Reduction

« Last post by Markkos1992 on Today at 08:59:07 am »

(For US 6/US 19)  PennDOT - District 1 News: Route 6 Reconstruction Project Moving into Final Phase

Work on the Route 6 Reconstruction Project is working into the final phase as traffic transitions to the new lanes later this month.

Traffic is expected to start using the reconstructed lanes of Route 6 on July 21, 2025, weather permitting. Drivers are reminded that the roadway will be one lane in each direction.

In Phase 3 of the project work will include updates to the intersection with Bessmer Street and Reynolds Avenue. Additional drainage updates will be made and the existing pavement from the southern side of the road and the temporary crossover will be removed. Construction of the multi-purpose travel in the area formerly used by westbound lanes will also be complete along with landscaping.

The temporary signal near Service Road and Meadville Forging Company in West Mead Township will remain in place but will only be used as needed to complete work.

Drivers should be alert for traffic pattern changes, lane restrictions controlled by flaggers and other short-term detours on Stan Road and Reynolds Avenue.

The project started in August 2024 and is on schedule for completion in fall 2025.

The contractor is Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. of State College, PA. The contract cost is $16,616,006, which is to be paid with a combination of federal and state funds.

Additional information on the Route 6 Reconstruction Project is available online under the Projects Near You portion of the PennDOT website.

This year PennDOT’s Northwest Region expects to do work on more than 100 projects. To see a full listing of all the anticipated work, check out the 2025 Construction Book available online at www.penndot.pa.gov/District1.

PennDOT urges motorists to slow down when driving in work zones, and also to be alert to changing conditions, avoid distractions and to pay attention to signs and flaggers. Drive responsibly in work zones for your safety and the safety of the workers.

Motorists can check conditions on major roadways by visiting www.511PA.com. 511PA, which is free and available 24 hours a day, provides traffic delay warnings, weather forecasts, traffic speed information and access to more than 1,000 traffic cameras.

511PA is also available through a smartphone application for iPhone and Android devices, by calling 5-1-1, or by following regional X alerts accessible on the 511PA website.

Subscribe to PennDOT news and traffic alerts in Crawford, Erie, Forest, Mercer, Venango, and Warren counties at www.penndot.pa.gov/District1.

Find PennDOT news for the northwest region on X or Facebook.

# # #

MEDIA CONTACT: Jill Harry, jharry@pa.gov or 814-678-5035

9

Updates to Highway Data / Re: NY: I-190/NY-266

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on Today at 03:14:52 am »

Since yarka sorta gave a green light to doing this on Github, I decided to at least quickly knock this out so the error on the error log can finally disappear after 2+ years.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8492

10

Updates to Highway Data / NC: NC-74 'northern' end

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on Today at 02:48:01 am »

Currently, NC-74 & US-52 share 'Separate' carriageways for a short distance thru the NC-65 interchange north of the major Winston-Salem Loop interchange.  Since I-74 will be taking over NC-74 & overlay US-52 in this area, we need to properly fix this before label issues become a major hassle when US-52's exit numbers convert to I-74 mileage 'soon'.

Changes to NC-74 that are needed as follows:
1) Extend the route north to north of the NC-65 interchange to the current start of the split carriageways.  This is currently where US-52 got new 'separate' Exit 119 signage, signifying it's being completely separate from Exit 117, & justifies NC-74 (I-74) carriageways are a completely separate entity from US-52's.  This should IMO, become the 'new' 41 point, since the PR from the US-52 renumber says it will become this.
    N.C. 74 (Winston-Salem Northern Beltway): Old Exit 119 → New Exit 41​
2) Add a shaping point here to break a false multiplex with US-52 since we need a graph connection with NC-65 in #3.
3) Add in a point for the NC-65 interchange here.  While, all the main ramps for it, only connect to the US-52 carriageways, there is a single solo ramp that directly connects to NC-74, justifying a graph connection with both NC-65 & US-52 here, as the center point for it all should be the same. As for the label in NC-74's file for this interchange, we could do either 118(52) or 41B, up to you.
4) Add a shaping point here to break a false multiplex with US-52 since we need a graph connection with NC-65 in #3.
5) 'current' 41 -> 41A

Changes to US-52 as follows:
1) Add Exit 119 for where the split with NC-74 happens.  No other changes will be needed, as all the multiplex breakage points will be in NC-74's file.

Changes to NC-65 as follows:
No changes needed till I-74 comes along in this area IMO.

Changes to NC I-74FutPil:
I would recommend shortening the route to the 'new' US-52 Exit 119 point, keeping the southern ending label 'as-is' & hiding the 'NC65' label under it.  Since the 'Future Interstate' files are on their death beds, this is the best option IMO till I-74 finally takes over this area and kills this file.