Recent Posts

1

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by Markkos1992 on Today at 06:34:52 am »

I think that the Lewis and Clark Trail in Pierre now has a broken concurrency resulting from the new points on US 14 TRUCK/US 83 TRUCK/SD 34.

2

Updates to Highway Data / IN: NW Indiana Point Requests

« Last post by the_spui_ninja on Today at 04:17:20 am »

I would like to request a couple of points in Northwest Indiana:

US 231: Division Street (OSM has the wrong name, just updated it to the correct one) in DeMotte (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.202622/-87.198756)

IN 2: Clay Street (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.289351/-87.276463)

3

Updates to Highway Data / IL: North Suburbs Point Requests

« Last post by the_spui_ninja on Today at 04:13:37 am »

I would like to request a couple of points in the Chicago area:

US 12/US 45: Touhy Ave in Des Plaines (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/42.00962/-87.885850)

US 14: Devon Avenue (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.997312/-87.766756)

4

Updates to Highway Data / Re: I-11 Nevada northern extension

« Last post by cl94 on Today at 01:27:09 am »

One thing to note is that 11 is partly a renumbering. We do include signed but unofficial Interstates (695 over the Key Collapse, 895 south of 695, 80 west of 101), so we would still need to keep 515 until we determine enough signs have changed that it's gone.

And this is why I haven't yet pushed the update. "Does 515 still exist?" is a real question. How many cases of something like this have we had in the history of TM? I'm fine holding off on pulling the trigger because we're not adding any mileage, just changing a number and extending an overlay. I could also do the intermediate step of extending 11 but keeping 515 because 11 now has multiple tangible signs of extending beyond AASHTO approvals and 1 interchange.

On the NDOT side, nearly everything internal has made the switch, though there are still public-facing items that refer to I-515. Signs, from what I can tell on the forum, are nearing 50-50.

5

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by Jim on Yesterday at 10:00:26 pm »

Going in from Highway63 with tonight's site update (assuming I got it all sorted into the right places): Jefferson Highway in Iowa.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/2ff33e9208460d461e79418cec53e755b83f39f8

6

Updates to Highway Data / Re: I-11 Nevada northern extension

« Last post by vdeane on Yesterday at 09:41:14 pm »

One thing to note is that 11 is partly a renumbering. We do include signed but unofficial Interstates (695 over the Key Collapse, 895 south of 695, 80 west of 101), so we would still need to keep 515 until we determine enough signs have changed that it's gone.

I feel like that hits the distinction between "not recognized by FHWA but signed as part of the interstate by the DOT" and "no longer an interstate, but the signs haven't yet been removed/changed".

7

Updates to Highway Data / Re: I-11 Nevada northern extension

« Last post by neroute2 on Yesterday at 09:06:38 pm »

One thing to note is that 11 is partly a renumbering. We do include signed but unofficial Interstates (695 over the Key Collapse, 895 south of 695, 80 west of 101), so we would still need to keep 515 until we determine enough signs have changed that it's gone.

8

Updates to Highway Data / Re: I-11 Nevada northern extension

« Last post by Duke87 on Yesterday at 06:19:21 pm »

There is a distinction between "this interstate is unsigned intentionally" and "this interstate will be signed but isn't yet".

An arbitrary distinction, perhaps, but it's why 444 is in and 344 is not.

9

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: Mexico: Revision of Federal and State Expressway systems (mexdn + mexedn)

« Last post by michih on Yesterday at 11:39:10 am »

the only one I couldn't was from changing MEX15D to MEX15DCha (since the obvious longer route became MEX15D).

It's fine if the route had no traveler since the alt route name would not be necessary at all. If there was a traveler, you should undo it since it is an active system!

Look at the route and tell me why the short spur should be 15D and the long trunk should have a suffix.

To avoid breaking user list file entries!

There are occasionally reasons to break them, including this. It's not going to give anyone a highway they haven't driven; it will simply not give them a short piece until they update.

We have a rule: https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/maintenance.php#break Our users are more important than any man-made route name.
You could simply add a suffix for both routes. Once the user - it seems that only ua747sp is affected in this case - noticed the log entry, the vanilla route name w/o suffix would be free. This way, no user would lose any mileage.

10

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by neroute2 on Yesterday at 01:23:23 am »

Would a National Forest Scenic Byway be eligible for this? One that I think would be worth adding is the Mountain Loop Highway in Washington, which does have a few custom signs posted like so:

That would probably fit in usanp, which has routes in other NFs.