Travel Mapping
User Discussions => Other Discussion => Topic started by: jayhawkco on June 22, 2021, 04:13:31 pm
-
Is there a precedent written out somewhere for how we treat Spur routes that aren't signed as such? For example, the Idaho State Highway Spurs, none of them are actually signed as spur. They are (in these cases) signed as the main route. I'm fine leaving them in if they're signed as something, but was just curious if other states had done things differently.
Chris
-
Was usaid a relatively early system?
Was it AndyTom who first got it going back in the CHM days?
-
The recentering and bringing labels up to code I did on that system years ago means it was very early stuff - roughly contemporary with the US highways (which had similar problems in many states).
-
FL 295 in Pensacola has some thing like this where the spur is signed identically to the main route.
It is treated like a different section for TM purposes.
Main: https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=fl.fl295
Spur: https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=fl.fl295wpe
FL 70 had a somewhat similar situation until signs for its spur were removed.
-
OR 223 and 39 do this as well.
-
How about MD's Interstate spurs?
-
How about MD's Interstate spurs?
They are practically signed by these mile markers (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2118745,-76.624711,3a,37.5y,357.71h,88.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdNBQl-tsXzbwR5lVBoPi3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). (at least for I-895, I am unsure about I-270)
Of course, I would consider these more or less as similar to unsigned interstates.
-
How about MD's Interstate spurs?
They are practically signed by these mile markers (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2118745,-76.624711,3a,37.5y,357.71h,88.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdNBQl-tsXzbwR5lVBoPi3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). (at least for I-895, I am unsure about I-270)
Of course, I would consider these more or less as similar to unsigned interstates.
I-270 SPUR is explicitly signed on a BGS - https://goo.gl/maps/cKKTLNrvyHYKWRZBA
-
I vividly remember several spur routes for Louisiana state highways, south of Baton Rouge, during my LSU days (04-09).
I thought Arkansas may had some spur routes, but that is 20 years ago for me.
-
So tl;dr, do we want to leave them in as "Spur" even though the general convention is to not have things in TM that aren't signed? I get that these routes are signed, but basically they're signed incorrectly if you boil it all down.
Chris
-
Either
1) they are bannered routes, whose banner is incorrectly missing
or
2) they are separate vanilla route segments
-
I'll have to spend some time tonight or tomorrow night looking into the spurs on GMSV. I just haven't had a chance to do this yet.
@jayhawkco, so you're saying that none of the spur routes in Idaho are signed? I'm aware of ID 128 Spur not being signed (which, given how short it is, I'm not surprised), but you're saying the other ones aren't signed either?
-
I'll have to spend some time tonight or tomorrow night looking into the spurs on GMSV. I just haven't had a chance to do this yet.
@jayhawkco, so you're saying that none of the spur routes in Idaho are signed? I'm aware of ID 128 Spur not being signed (which, given how short it is, I'm not surprised), but you're saying the other ones aren't signed either?
As far as I'm aware, none are signed with "spur". They are generally signed as if they were the main route, but obviously they're not.
Chris
-
I'll have to spend some time tonight or tomorrow night looking into the spurs on GMSV. I just haven't had a chance to do this yet.
@jayhawkco, so you're saying that none of the spur routes in Idaho are signed? I'm aware of ID 128 Spur not being signed (which, given how short it is, I'm not surprised), but you're saying the other ones aren't signed either?
As far as I'm aware, none are signed with "spur". They are generally signed as if they were the main route, but obviously they're not.
Chris
Thanks for the info. I'm still going to leave them as-is because ITD's GIS map (https://iplan.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=06e0f910357340c5816d2214266660cd) considers them to be spur routes.
-
ID 128 Spur is not really a route in its own right so much as half of a wye junction. Even Corco, one of the most persnickety clinchers known, does not recognize it as a distinct route on his website. It is also, FWIW, not in any way signed.
As for the question of handling spurs in general, I generally agree with the principle of making it "Route XX Spur (Town)" if it's signed with a "Spur" banner in the field, but simply "Route XX (Town)" if no spur banner is present. Meanwhile if the spur is unsigned it ought to be left out of the HB as an unsigned route even if its unbannered parent is signed.
-
iawtp
-
ID 128 Spur is not really a route in its own right so much as half of a wye junction. Even Corco, one of the most persnickety clinchers known, does not recognize it as a distinct route on his website. It is also, FWIW, not in any way signed.
To clarify, I do plan on removing this one, but the others I'll keep.
-
This post makes me wonder if I should add the 'ON-427 spur' that was formerly ON-27 that has the exit @ Eglinton Ave.
Why you may ask? Because not only does it have ON-427 km markers on it (https://goo.gl/maps/imQaEmr3m5Gr2wev5), it has a SB ON-427 shield north of the ON-401 overpass (https://goo.gl/maps/gvMG2H4R7ifuGDAo8) as well as an 'END' shield for NB ON-427 (https://goo.gl/maps/68ay8NiED53mXoTU7) right across from it. Remember, these are the C/D lanes of ON-427 that separate just south of ON-401.