Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Is FRA-ARA D14-74 mapped along the old route labeled in OSM as D14, or the new route labeled D14A (but apparently signed as D14)?
2
Are the first three points on FRA-ARA D1201-74Alb supposed to be at the end of FRA-ARA D1201-74 instead?
3
Updates to Highway Data / LA: Waypoint Suggestions
« Last post by cenlaroads on Today at 12:08:25 am »
LA 1:  BPCORd -> JohChuRd - This is the only street signed here, and there is a corresponding point on LA485, for what that's worth.

LA 22:  WCswyApp -> CswyApp

LA 31 and LA 328:  I recommend adding a point on both routes at Poche Bridge Rd.  A good deal of traffic heading north from I-10 on LA 328 uses this bridge, since LA 31 does not have an interchange with the interstate and since this would be a shorter route even if it did.

LA 40:  BeaRd -> CheRd or HolRd

LA 44:  SchSt -> WatTowSt or move point southeast to Schexnaydre St.

LA 113:  EarlBuxRd -> DeSteRd or SteRd
4
FRA-NOR D973-50 has a new bypass around Avranches per OSM.
5
It seems that D960 has been realigned around Nuaillé.
6
On NL10, maybe break up the 25+ mile segment between CapeRaceRd and BackRd by adding a point at this park entrance?

NL10:  FerPondRd -> FaiPondRd
NL10:  LaMarRd -> LaManRd
NL10:  NL13 - could be moved NE to the intersection

NL11:  WarRd_E -> WarRd and WarRd_W -> LinAve ?
7
Other Discussion / AR: AR 722-1A
« Last post by Markkos1992 on March 26, 2025, 06:53:33 pm »
8
FRA-BRE D767-56 and FRA-BRE D767-56Loc don't connect properly at the north junction.

Edit michih: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8277
9
FRA-PDL D948-85 has been realigned between D2C/D2948 and D2.

Edit michih: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8277
10
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usams: Mississippi State Highways
« Last post by cenlaroads on March 26, 2025, 04:57:24 pm »
I checked all routes "quickly". I checked the labels of waypoints that intersect with other TM routes. I also looked into oddities I spot - almost everything was fine though. I agree with Jim, that a system with more than 100 travelers has undergone a community peer review anyway. For instance, one traveler has traveled 96 per cent of the mileage.

I did not systematically check wp labels without numerals. I only expect minor typos or missing cardinal suffixes where concurrencies end. Those are less important issues IMO*. I would activate the system anyway so that users benefit from update entries from future route changes.

Of course, you can go through all routes to check the non-numeral wp labels. Before system activation, or afterwards by reporting issues in the forum board for active systems.
However, I'd prefer if you'd volunteer to review one out of the dozens hundreds preview systems beyond usams ;)

*If numerous hwy data managers disagree, I would help shortly to check those wp labels to enable a quick activation.


That makes sense, I won't spend too much time then.  I'll report anything if I do run across it.  I'll look at the other preview systems to see if there are any I can help with.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10