Author Topic: FL: FL 399  (Read 985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 184
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:46:34 pm
Re: FL: FL 399
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2022, 04:15:53 pm »
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.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3903
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:18:08 pm
Re: FL: FL 399
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2022, 06:54:27 pm »
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.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2579
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:02:57 pm
Re: FL: FL 399
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2022, 01:54:02 pm »
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.

Offline US 89

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
  • Last Login:October 01, 2022, 02:23:11 am
Re: FL: FL 399
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2022, 11:47:15 am »
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.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2022, 11:28:39 am by Markkos1992 »

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2579
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:02:57 pm
Re: FL: FL 399
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2022, 11:29:01 am »
US 89, I corrected the "90" typo in your post to "98" to prevent confusion.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 29, 2022, 01:06:55 pm
Re: FL: FL 399
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2022, 02:18:50 am »
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

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2579
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:02:57 pm
Re: FL: FL 399
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2022, 02:13:13 pm »

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:September 29, 2022, 01:06:55 pm
Re: FL: FL 399
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2022, 10:46:03 pm »
Should the route have been put in flipped?

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.