Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: Bruce on December 15, 2020, 06:09:40 pm
-
WSDOT has now added signs to WA 519 on Alaskan Way, so perhaps it's time to include it.
(https://i.imgur.com/f2Ykolv.jpg)
This has been discussed before: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1966.0
-
What's the exact routing?
-
What's the exact routing?
Can't be 100% sure until the 2020 State Highway Log is released in a few months (hopefully), but I think the general route is west on Edgar Martinez Dr (Atlantic) from I-90/4th Ave, then north on 1st Ave to Dearborn Street, then north on Alaskan Way to Yesler Way.
-
What's the exact routing?
Can't be 100% sure until the 2020 State Highway Log is released in a few months (hopefully), but I think the general route is west on Edgar Martinez Dr (Atlantic) from I-90/4th Ave, then north on 1st Ave to Dearborn Street, then north on Alaskan Way to Yesler Way.
That's the routing in the 2019 State Highway Log.
-
Oh man, it's been awhile since I've walked (or driven) down there. I'll have to drive this route and see if I see any other signs for WA 519. I guess this gives me a good excuse to get off of my computer and get outside today... ;D
-
Okay, so I just got back from driving SR 519's route this afternoon, and I can confirm I saw that one sign, but not any others. I'm still unsure about including it, as I don't see any other signs, not even a BEGIN 519 sign on Edgar Martinez Drive or anything like that. Though, if you follow the "Ferries" signs, they pretty much take you on this state route.
I still think I'm going to leave it out for now. There's not enough signs to enable a driver to easily follow this route.
-
I think one sign should be enough to include it. We don't require it be signed well.
-
There's not enough signs to enable a driver to easily follow this route.
I mean, the same is true of US routes in a lot of major cities, and yet those are still included...
-
I think one sign should be enough to include it. We don't require it be signed well.
Then again, if the route is meant to be hidden, you might want to wait to see if a few more shields are added.
Take a look @ the posts dealing with FL-375 (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3998.0) & FL-261 (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3997.0) that I recently had to deal with that are suppose to be hidden numbers under US-319 in two separate places in Florida.
-
I think one sign should be enough to include it. We don't require it be signed well.
Then again, if the route is meant to be hidden, you might want to wait to see if a few more shields are added.
How does one determine exactly if the route is "meant to be hidden"? Does WSDOT have an official policy on this? A lot of states (I would even venture to say the majority of states) do not.
-
I think one sign should be enough to include it. We don't require it be signed well.
Then again, if the route is meant to be hidden, you might want to wait to see if a few more shields are added.
How does one determine exactly if the route is "meant to be hidden"? Does WSDOT have an official policy on this? A lot of states (I would even venture to say the majority of states) do not.
WA does not have hidden routes, as Interstates and US Highways are also in the system under their respective numbers. Any highway designated by the state legislature is generally signed unless it does not exist (in the case of a few never-built routes). SR 519 and SR 513 are both minimally signed, but on the books.
-
I think one sign should be enough to include it. We don't require it be signed well.
Then again, if the route is meant to be hidden, you might want to wait to see if a few more shields are added.
How does one determine exactly if the route is "meant to be hidden"? Does WSDOT have an official policy on this? A lot of states (I would even venture to say the majority of states) do not.
WA does not have hidden routes, as Interstates and US Highways are also in the system under their respective numbers. Any highway designated by the state legislature is generally signed unless it does not exist (in the case of a few never-built routes). SR 519 and SR 513 are both minimally signed, but on the books.
I would still like to see proof that it is properly signed after the viaduct removal is completed.
-
I think one sign should be enough to include it. We don't require it be signed well.
Then again, if the route is meant to be hidden, you might want to wait to see if a few more shields are added.
How does one determine exactly if the route is "meant to be hidden"? Does WSDOT have an official policy on this? A lot of states (I would even venture to say the majority of states) do not.
WA does not have hidden routes, as Interstates and US Highways are also in the system under their respective numbers. Any highway designated by the state legislature is generally signed unless it does not exist (in the case of a few never-built routes). SR 519 and SR 513 are both minimally signed, but on the books.
I would still like to see proof that it is properly signed after the viaduct removal is completed.
Been awhile since I've responded to this. I didn't realize the threshold for signage was low enough that one sign is sufficient to add something to TM, so I'm happy to re-add it to TM given that's the case. And considering that that sign is on a newly-rebuilt section of Alaskan Way, I imagine more will pop up once all the construction on the waterfront is complete.
EDIT: I've submitted a pull request to re-add this route: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4598
-
I believe that the western end of I-90 needs its point label changed from 4thAve to WA519.
-
I believe that the western end of I-90 needs its point label changed from 4thAve to WA519.
Yup, you're right. I just submitted a pull request to fix this: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4617
I'm keeping the 4thAve waypoint as an alternate since it appears to be in use currently.