Recent Posts

1

Updates to Highway Data / Re: ROU: DN2D in Focşani

« Last post by michih on Today at 12:18:42 pm »

I drove the "northern route" via Strada Mărășești and Strada Cuza Vodă today. However, I don't need to report anything since August 2023 GSV is available meanwhile

Long story short, we should likely keep it as-is. Longer story: The "northern route" is still signed as described above. There is that "new" sign on DN2 but there is still an "old" sign to the route we have in HB, see August 2023 GSV.

@panda80, what do you think?

2

Updates to Highway Data / Re: TX 310 has been extended north

« Last post by yakra on Today at 10:33:14 am »

This has been on my radar. Going to hold off on making any some changes until construction and signage come into clearer focus.

the bridges are being removed, so the only point that's absolutely necessary is PenAve to match I-45

I foresee putting them where US175 had them before for the benefit of those who traveled there back in the US175 days.

(although MLK is getting new ramps to/from I-45 to the north and better access to/from the south, so maybe 283B on I-45 should be moved there). A new northbound exit to Lipscomb Way (also 283B, yuck) and southbound entrance from 310 south of Lipscomb Way are also under construction.

🤮 Right now I'm thinking, probably go 1PPI and put a point halfway between Lipscomb & MLK, and that should be close enough for those who used the old US175 exit.
Existing 283B is probably where it is for historical reasons.
Southbound, SM Wright always appears to have been 283B at least while GMSV has existed. The plain "283" labeling may have been just a convenient early-CHM fudge to get unique labels.

Right now, 283B is not in use.
Makes sense to strike while the iron is hot, and give that point the axe. Those who used the historical exit (to/from the S only) would have exited/merged at just about exactly Lamar, so they can go ahead & use 283A in their .lists if need be.
The *283B label can move to SM Wright where it (for now) belongs, with +283 as an alt. The exit does appear to be closed for construction, so it gets an asterisk.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6844
Once construction is complete (or has progressed sufficiently), it can lose the asterisk & move southward between Lipscomb & MLK.

I'm not sure what to do with the north end of 310. The plan is to feed directly into Chavez, apparently without any access to Good-Latimer, and I don't see any planned I-45 ramps other than those mentioned above. So maybe it'll end at MLK or Lipscomb when all is done.

That would explain the annoying lack of a TX310 shield or space for one on the new sign at SB 283B.
Weird those posts above the left half of the sign though; is something gonna go there in the future?

There's also a missing interchange at BuddSt.

CarGarSt added.

3

Updates to Highway Data / Re: TX: TxDOT opens portion of U.S. 83 Relief Route in western Hidalgo County

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on Today at 04:31:41 am »

On a side note, do we 'possibly' have I-2 going 1 exit too far as well?  All signage from the ramps seems to indicate I-2 really starts @ Exit 131, not 130.

EB:
@ Future US-83/83Business interchange (no I-2 shield)
@ Exit 131 (I-2 shield present)

WB:
@ Exit 133 (I-2 shield present)
@ Exit 131 (no I-2 shield)

4

Updates to Highway Data / TX: TxDOT opens portion of U.S. 83 Relief Route in western Hidalgo County

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on Today at 04:10:46 am »

https://www.krgv.com/news/txdot-opens-portion-of-u-s-83-relief-route-in-western-hidalgo-county/

Phase two of the project opens the eastbound and westbound U.S. 83 main lanes and frontage roads from the U.S. 83 west connector in Peñitas —located east of Showers Road — to Jara Chinas Road, the news release stated.

The westbound U.S. 83 frontage road between FM 2221 and the U.S. 83 East connector in Sullivan City also opened as part of the phase.

Don't know what this might mean if any reroute of US-83 has happened yet, or any extension of I-2.

At minimum, if the US-83 reroute/I-2 extension isn't official yet, at least a new point from where the new route diverts from US-83 should at this time be added.

5

Updates to Highway Data / Re: HI: Lots missing

« Last post by Duke87 on Yesterday at 11:09:27 pm »

http://www.hawaiihighways.com/begin-county-31-narrow.jpg

http://www.hawaiihighways.com/route-39-jct-marker.jpg

Okay yeah I don't think either of those count. Gotta be the guitar pick.

The 31 sign in your photo does not appear to still be around per GMSV, though a similar newer sign (green instead of white) is at the east end. There are state spec mile markers with "31" in a little tab on the bottom, but.... no guitar picks on the county section. So yeah it doesn't go in regardless.

6

Updates to Highway Data / IL: IL 8 Point Requests

« Last post by Markkos1992 on Yesterday at 09:26:59 pm »

I would like to have points on IL 8 where it turns onto Farmington Rd and just east of it at Sterling Dr.  The latter point is somewhat vital because it is signed as part of a detour currently in place for IL 8 in the area.  I just wish these intersections were further apart.

7

Updates to Highway Data / Re: HI: Lots missing

« Last post by oscar on Yesterday at 12:03:18 pm »

This in any case takes us into a rabbit hole. We were talking about county routes with route markers similar to those on state-maintained routes. Many county routes are unsigned or have dissimilar route markers, including at least one (county 31 in southeastern Maui) cited by the OP.

What sort of dissimilar route markers?

http://www.hawaiihighways.com/begin-county-31-narrow.jpg

http://www.hawaiihighways.com/route-39-jct-marker.jpg

8

Updates to Highway Data / Re: HI: Lots missing

« Last post by Duke87 on Yesterday at 11:19:40 am »

This in any case takes us into a rabbit hole. We were talking about county routes with route markers similar to those on state-maintained routes. Many county routes are unsigned or have dissimilar route markers, including at least one (county 31 in southeastern Maui) cited by the OP.

What sort of dissimilar route markers?

Since we don't include unsigned routes as SOP, anything that isn't signed is out regardless.

9

Updates to Highway Data / Re: HI: Lots missing

« Last post by bejacob on Yesterday at 11:03:31 am »

For the record, I am of the mind that "signage is the final arbiter if signage is consistent" and I would thus include any "county" Hawaii routes that are consistently signed. The casual traveler is not going to recognize any difference because it's exactly the same shield design, and if these routes are omitted this is only going to keep coming up as one by one people go to Hawaii, see a route signed, then wonder why it isn't in the HB and report it as missing.

Incorrect signage is a common theme. I recall the discussion of I-30Bus in St Helens OR when the sign should have clearly been US30Bus. I can remember a fair number of state routes that used the US numbered route shield. Clearly just the wrong shield being used. Hawaii doesn't have a separate shield used on county routes when they are signed at all.

Parts of county road 180 on the Big Island are signed, but the signage is sporadic at best. It's easy enough to pick out the proper route, but reassurance signage is almost non-existent between HI11 and HI190. 520 and 530 on Kauai are generally easy to clinch, mainly due to signs with the intersections with HI50 and with each other, but still doesn't make them state highways no matter what the signs say.

I'll admit the confusing signage led me to drive a couple county roads I might not have otherwise taken simply because I didn't want to return home to find out I'd missed clinching something. Since HDOT does distinguish between state and county roads (even if the signage does not), that's the distinction TM should take as well. When it comes up in future discussion (as it likely will), @oscar can post quick reply about the state vs. county roads in HI to explain why TM includes one set but not the other.

10

General Web Design Discussion / Re: Mapview starting location

« Last post by Jim on Yesterday at 07:33:53 am »

I wonder if there's a way it could be coded to keep the window responsive if the user wants to move.

I'm sure there is, but I don't know of a good way.  Maybe it could break up the SQL query into smaller requests and respond to the UI in between.  Bottom line, JS is single-threaded, and when JS code is executing, your browser window's not doing anything else until the JS code yields control back to the browser UI.  When it's taking in a huge chunk of data from the DB, processing it, and adding thousands of things to the Leaflet map, it's going to look like it's hanging.  Given enough memory for your browser and patience of the user, you can pretty much load anything you want.  It's just going to take a long time.

TM's been in somewhat desperate need of a true web developer since the start.  An analysis and possible redesign by DB expert wouldn't hurt either.  I've pieced a lot of things together over these 8 or so years but I'm the first to admit that I'm no web development or database expert.  If someone were willing to do for the DB and the web front end what yakra has done for the site update process, I am sure we would have a pretty incredible site.