Author Topic: MD: MD 219  (Read 1941 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Last Login:Today at 09:13:11 am
MD: MD 219
« on: March 10, 2024, 08:21:18 pm »
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24933.msg2912853#msg2912853

Well it is in the 2022 HLR so I presume we have enough to put it in Travel Mapping as much as I do not want us to. 

https://roads.maryland.gov/OPPEN/2022%20Garrett.pdf (see page 16)

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:47:30 pm
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: MD: MD 219
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2024, 07:16:37 pm »
another reason to have unsigned routes in TM, especially if they appear on maps.  People who want to clinch them all regardless of posting status get jerked around when they suddenly become posted...

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Last Login:Today at 09:13:11 am
Re: MD: MD 219
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2024, 10:34:27 pm »
My main incentive to head all the way to Oakland just to clinch MD 219 would be to check signage along MD 36 for MD 935.

In other potentially posted MD Route news, I have already clinched MD 114 (Watkins Mill Rd, goes from MD 117 to MD 355 crossing I-270 at Exit 12) so if/when that becomes signed I am good there.

Offline vdeane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:26:03 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: MD: MD 219
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2024, 09:14:55 pm »
another reason to have unsigned routes in TM, especially if they appear on maps.  People who want to clinch them all regardless of posting status get jerked around when they suddenly become posted...
The hard thing with unsigned routes is that you eventually get into stuff like the NY reference routes.  I could see a case for "if the system is otherwise signed and the route is clearly part of said system", but then you get into things like Maryland's habit of assigning route numbers to random pieces of concrete on old alignments.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline mapmikey

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1179
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:47:30 pm
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: MD: MD 219
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2024, 08:40:08 am »
There should be some discretion on the part of the maintainer.  Maryland chooses to number some of its abandoned alignments and frontages with the same numbering system as its normal state highways.  Virginia does this with frontages and stubs designed to preserve property access that was taken away by a primary route's reconstruction.  Virginia considers these routes primary routes and posts 3/4 of them, but they have a separate numbering convention (F-routes) from their state route numbering.  So Virginia's F-routes can be easily ignored in TM until someone were to decide the whole system should be included.

But Maryland definitely has unposted routes that are real roads, often of independent utility, sometimes on maps, and are subject to posting at any time, like the recent MD 219 and MD 368/MD 568 which went decades without posting then suddenly were fully posted one day. 

And of course we should be including state routes that are posted but somehow deemed insufficiently posted (NJ and VA definitely have these).

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 961
  • Last Login:Today at 02:25:53 am
Re: MD: MD 219
« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2024, 11:39:18 am »
Maryland has way too many examples of "oh this half a block of a dead end street is MD 782F" (I made that number up, specifics are beside the point) for any sane person to attempt to clinch all the unsigned stuff. This came up in prior discussion about future inclusion of at least some unsigned routes.


Anyway, adding MD 219 since it's signed. Anyone else ever submitted an update from 36,000 feet in the air? Because I'm taking advantage of the wifi on my flight home from my grand European road trip to do that (among other things, including spending over 2 hours updating my own list file). :P

And if anyone is curious yes, logging into Noreaster and running datacheck does work from up here, with the most noticeable difference being a lot more lag than normal before it prompts for password. Datacheck itself runs as fast as on the ground.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7273


Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3109
  • Last Login:Today at 09:13:11 am
Re: MD: MD 219
« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2024, 05:48:53 pm »
MD 219 is written as MD 218 in the updates entry.  Anyway, I am glad I went to clinch this today.

Thankfully MD 935 is back is being signed the way it was before the detour.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1647
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 05:25:31 pm
Re: MD: MD 219
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2024, 11:13:55 pm »
Check the updates entry again. It's not appearing on the updates page.
Clinched:

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 08:13:22 am
Re: MD: MD 219
« Reply #8 on: March 17, 2024, 11:21:12 pm »
Check the updates entry again. It's not appearing on the updates page.

Because the line was listed as '2023' instead of '2024'.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1846
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 08:13:22 am
Re: MD: MD 219
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2024, 02:05:43 am »
Check the updates entry again. It's not appearing on the updates page.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7278