Highway Data Discussion > Solved Highway data updates

CO: US34 minor point label

(1/2) > >>

yakra:
Should CO39/52 be just CO39, as only that intersects here, with CO52 passing thru the next interchange south on CO39?

the_spui_ninja:
From US 34, it's signed as both CO 39 and CO 52, so that's probably where that came from. Signage in that area (between US 34 and Old US 6) is kinda ambiguous on where the 39/52 split is, but per https://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/HighwayData#/ui/0/0/criteria/039A/0/7.571 it's at Old US 6, so unless anyone objects I'm going to move the 39/52 split there and change the point label on 34 to just CO39.

Alternatively, since there's signage for it (no reassurance shields, but that whole stretch doesn't have reassurance shields), I could extend CO 52 up to US 34 as well, and have a half-mile overlap between CO 52 and CO 39. That would probably be the cleanest from a .list file perspective.

yakra:

--- Quote from: the_spui_ninja on November 12, 2023, 05:34:19 pm ---Alternatively, since there's signage for it (no reassurance shields, but that whole stretch doesn't have reassurance shields), I could extend CO 52 up to US 34 as well, and have a half-mile overlap between CO 52 and CO 39. That would probably be the cleanest from a .list file perspective.

--- End quote ---
Yecch, please don't. :) The connection toward the east can't be made at that point. CO52 clearly stays south of US34, splitting from I-76. It's just how that split is made that gets slightly muddy. More on this below.
Not that I think there's much risk of this happening given your stated preference in your other paragraph, but still. :)


--- Quote from: the_spui_ninja on November 12, 2023, 05:34:19 pm ---From US 34, it's signed as both CO 39 and CO 52, so that's probably where that came from. Signage in that area (between US 34 and Old US 6) is kinda ambiguous on where the 39/52 split is, but per https://dtdapps.coloradodot.info/otis/HighwayData#/ui/0/0/criteria/039A/0/7.571 it's at Old US 6, so unless anyone objects I'm going to move the 39/52 split there and change the point label on 34 to just CO39.

--- End quote ---
Interesting. I was almost going to say something like
--- Quote ---Not saying the way it's done now is wrong, but another possibility is to "cut across the diagonal" of the couplet on CO52, and run it directly from CenAve to I-76(66B) without the intermediate I-76(66A) point.
I-76(66A) could become an AltLabel of I-76(66B). Only snowedin.list would be affected, showing travel along the SE leg of the triangle instead of the W one. Still correct as far as the granularity with which TM handles these things goes.

--- End quote ---
But then I noticed that CO39 ends at I-76 in the HB, and signage seems to agree. While there'd still be an indirect graph connection via I-76, the status quo at least avoids an ugly gap in the network, so I decided it was OK and to not bother posting.
Sometimes I break from the "cut across the diagonal" M.O. and just trace one direction of the route for the sake of better connectivity, such as NY5 & pals in Buffalo. Though this is certainly a more minor case.

Signage is a bit wibbly-wobbly. Sometimes DOT's will not post a TO banner when it's more technically correct to do so, and sometimes they'll not sign a "lame duck" route as going in one direction when it ends a short distance away.
That and the manual doesn't have much guidance on what to do when the end of an otherwise-signed route is unsigned. I'm sure there are cases in the HB where the full official route is included, and ones where it's based on signage, handled on a case-by-case basis.

TLDR, There are arguments for both keeping the status quo and for moving CO52 to the diagonal & extending CO39.
I could be OK with either.

One last point, snowedin's travels on CO52 look like a quick hop off the interstate for fuel and/or food. However they got back to I-76 from CenAve, they had to get there somehow, and would probably have to mark off that section of CO39 if it were extended. FWIW.

the_spui_ninja:

--- Quote from: yakra on November 12, 2023, 10:52:05 pm ---Signage is a bit wibbly-wobbly. Sometimes DOT's will not post a TO banner when it's more technically correct to do so, and sometimes they'll not sign a "lame duck" route as going in one direction when it ends a short distance away.
That and the manual doesn't have much guidance on what to do when the end of an otherwise-signed route is unsigned. I'm sure there are cases in the HB where the full official route is included, and ones where it's based on signage, handled on a case-by-case basis.

TLDR, There are arguments for both keeping the status quo and for moving CO52 to the diagonal & extending CO39.
I could be OK with either.

One last point, snowedin's travels on CO52 look like a quick hop off the interstate for fuel and/or food. However they got back to I-76 from CenAve, they had to get there somehow, and would probably have to mark off that section of CO39 if it were extended. FWIW.

--- End quote ---

For Colorado I've been using the official data as kind of a "tiebreaker" in the case of bad/missing signage, so that's what I'll plan to do if there aren't any additional major objections to this (move the south end of 39 to "CenAve" and truncate 52).

yakra:
Except that CO52 continues east along I-76.
Do you propose splitting it in 2?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page