Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: Duke87 on January 12, 2022, 09:55:44 pm
-
So, almost all of route 399 is county, but the westernmost 0.32 miles consisting of the northern approach to Bob Sikes Bridge from US 98 are FDOT-maintained and... as of just last month, there is at least one FL 399 shield posted in the field (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3576,-87.1611104,3a,15y,289.74h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1tbyC5yBusKPU_vkdOc-dg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
This should be added to the HB as a signed state route.
-
From the FDOT straight-line diagram:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/2069_12_01_22_9_56_51.png)
-
So, almost all of route 399 is county, but the westernmost 0.32 miles consisting of the northern approach to Bob Sikes Bridge from US 98 are FDOT-maintained and... as of just last month, there is at least one FL 399 shield posted in the field (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3576,-87.1611104,3a,15y,289.74h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1tbyC5yBusKPU_vkdOc-dg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
This should be added to the HB as a signed state route.
Please see this post (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=323.msg6058#msg6058) as to why I didn't have it in the first place, and still think this is the best plan of action since those begin/end state maintenance signs are completely inside of the interchange.
Thus, it's clearly a 1 PPI situation here sadly, thus doesn't qualify for the site, even though there is some limited signage. Had this been a 'proper' intersection and not an interchange, or it at least extended to the first intersection beyond the interchange, this could be a completely different story.
-
or it at least extended to the first intersection beyond the interchange
I mean it... basically does. The pavement change is less than 200 feet from the median break for the first intersection.
At any rate, I don't think it is appropriate application of the 1PPI policy to send an otherwise signed route into oblivion by rounding its length down to zero, and indeed there is precedent elsewhere for including signed routes that exist entirely or almost entirely within an interchange footprint. See for example TX Spr97 (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=duke87&r=tx.sp0097). Furthermore it doesn't sit right with me to see a route which officially exists and is signed excluded - a user who has clinched FL 399 should be able to claim the clinch.
Anyone else care to weigh in here?
-
I don't think it is appropriate application of the 1PPI policy to send an otherwise signed route into oblivion by rounding its length down to zero, and indeed there is precedent elsewhere for including signed routes that exist entirely or almost entirely within an interchange footprint. See for example TX Spr97 (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=duke87&r=tx.sp0097). Furthermore it doesn't sit right with me to see a route which officially exists and is signed excluded
Agree. LOL, I opened up TXSpr97 in the HB before even reading your post! :D
-
I think that TXSpr97 is a slightly different situation since it does connect to a route in usasf (International Pkwy).
I honestly am not sure what my official position is on this. My 3:20 AM brain thinks that both sides have a case in this discussion.
-
or it at least extended to the first intersection beyond the interchange
I mean it... basically does. The pavement change is less than 200 feet from the median break for the first intersection.
But it doesn't. Did you even see where the 'begin/end state maintenance signs' are for FL-399 (one example (https://goo.gl/maps/YSgpKxNaaNL2))? They are completely still inside of the interchange ramp configuration (which is why I considered it as a 1 PPI situation here). Plus those signs match up EXACTLY with where the GIS data says the route ends.
Thus, this is completely different than the TXSpr97 situation, IMO. Especially since it's signed on the main lanes itself & after the interchange with TX-183, while FL-399 doesn't even leave the interchange itself (no signage beyond the one you pointed out and a mention on the BGS the other way on US-98), hence why I considered it as a 1 PPI and didn't add FL-399 to the site when crafting usafl.
-
I am linking to the BGS (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3577894,-87.1645406,3a,75y,147.5h,95.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxLWLiM95ilVcEP4VRqkOJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) that rickmastfan67 is referring to. I am a bit surprised to see an APL here honestly.
-
Frankly, if the state-maintained portion is ~823 feet, that's longer than the intersection in question. It links to a bridge which would be of both tourist and local interest. So it's not just the intersection. See Florida SR 470 as a similar example in TM, although that extends beyond both sides of I-75.
There's more substantial routes out there with a single sign. Maryland is loaded with these kinds of examples (not to pick off Maryland, but there's several short one-sign routes that get the nod.)
No, I don't have it clinched...just my two cents.
-
Would it be different if were an at-grade intersection rather than a trumpet?
-
Would it be different if were an at-grade intersection rather than a trumpet?
For sure if it was at-grade intersection.
-
If you're not going to call it a route, the label on US 98 needs to be changed.
-
No, I don't have it clinched...just my two cents.
If it at all matters, I don't yet but will be in the area in a couple weeks - and as I have not been on any other 399s, whether or not this is added will be the difference between whether or not I get credit for the number here (https://travelmapping.net/user/routesbynumber.php?units=miles&u=duke87).
I'm claiming credit for it in my own offline records whether or not it is added, but if it isn't then it makes that page inaccurate and less useful.
-
If a route is part of the state highway system it should be included, period. In this case, there are even signs, so it would really be utterly arbitrary to exclude it. I see no reason not to map SR 399 with the north end at US 98 and the south end at the pavement change.
-
Trying to think from the typical TM user's perspective, I'd want to map my travels on even what amounts to such a tiny piece since it's actually part of the system.
-
FL 399 would be nowhere near the shortest item in the TM database. VT 26 immediately comes to mind. The questionable and similar-length Cross Bay Parkway in New York has worse signage by TM standards and is included.
The rule for TM is "include it if signed". Thus, it should be included. So what if it's short and within an interchange, it's still signed. Excluding stuff within an interchange is quite arbitrary when it meets every other criteria for inclusion.
-
Cross Bay Parkway may not be the best comparison, as it's part of a system of named routes instead of numbered, which by their nature have different standards for what counts as signed.
That aside, I agree with all the comments in this thread in favor of inclusion.
-
I will also add the notion that keeping FL 399 out of the HB would keep me from having a 399 on my route number list. (though I have also clinched unsigned VA 399) I am in favor of its inclusion.
-
I drove this road in May and am just now seeing this thread. I am strongly of the opinion that FL 399 should be included. It’s on the state highway system and is signed as such. There are shorter routes in TM. FDOT could have easily left this unsigned but chose not to do that. This isn’t a situation like Idaho 79, which still exists on paper but has been reduced to the bridge between the ramps of a diamond interchange in I-84.
I don’t see this as a 1PPI situation at all as pavement change/end of state maintenance isn’t even really within the interchange. There is no way to use that interchange going to or from 399 that does not drive over state maintained 399 pavement. Even if you’re going north and exit for eastbound 98, you will drive on state maintained 399.
-
US 89, I corrected the "90" typo in your post to "98" to prevent confusion.
-
While I'm personally still against inclusion due to, IMO, being a 1PPI situation due to where the End/Begin Maintenance signs are (and the GIS agreeing with them), I've added the route tonight.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5949
-
Should the route have been put in flipped? (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.357758,-87.164452,3a,75y,137.24h,93.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seZAauWoA28jMMFPoSK0lSQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
-
Should the route have been put in flipped? (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.357758,-87.164452,3a,75y,137.24h,93.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seZAauWoA28jMMFPoSK0lSQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Honestly, could be debatable. I based it off the entire route (FL-399 + CR-399) due to the state route portion being all inside of the interchange and having no other signage.