11
Updates to Highway Data / Re: NC: Interstate 587
« Last post by Markkos1992 on September 28, 2022, 09:18:36 am »Note that the US 264 ALT line ends up north of the US 264 line briefly between 21 and 27.
News:
If you have any trouble registering for the forum, please email travmap@teresco.org for help.
Recent Posts
12
Updates to Highway Data / NC: US 17, NC 91, and NC 123 Point Concerns
« Last post by Markkos1992 on September 28, 2022, 09:01:29 am »US 17: Points should be slightly relocated at US17BusWas_S and 176 (NC 33).
NC 91: The shaping points should probably be replaced with visible points.
NC 123: Many of shaping points should probably be replaced with visible points.
NC 91: The shaping points should probably be replaced with visible points.
NC 123: Many of shaping points should probably be replaced with visible points.
13
Welcome & Notices / Re: Failed Site Update 9-27
« Last post by Jim on September 28, 2022, 07:37:31 am »Thanks for the fix. Looks like I made a stray edit unintentionally while searching for the original problematic line. I should know better than to try to save a few minutes by editing right on GitHub and not taking a closer look at the changes I'm about to commit. And then going to bed without waiting for the update to complete.
An update is in progress now.
An update is in progress now.
14
Welcome & Notices / Re: Failed Site Update 9-27
« Last post by si404 on September 28, 2022, 05:35:28 am »I made a bad updates.csv line (sorry), and Jim fixed it for me (terrible phrasing, I know, sorry!), but then somehow mucked up a different line, which I've just fixed.
15
Welcome & Notices / Failed Site Update 9-27
« Last post by Markkos1992 on September 28, 2022, 03:04:59 am »I did not run Datacheck on my pull request yesterday as it was just minor label changes, but it was successful when I ran it this morning so I am unsure what happened.
16
Updates to Highway Data / Re: CA: Extend CA 47 west by about 0.14 mile?
« Last post by oscar on September 28, 2022, 01:39:31 am »If you do extend it, I'd just do a brief concurrency with I-110 to Gaffey and call it a day because the north and eastbound lanes overlap.
I was referring to the one-way ramp carrying WB CA 47 traffic to Gaffey @ Summerland Ave., which isn't concurrent with I-110. Not the one connecting Gaffey @ Miraflores Ave. to EB CA 47. The Postmile Query Tool says the latter isn't part of route 47, until it merges into the ramp from SB I-110 to EB CA 47, but the Summerland Ave. ramp is. Sorry for the confusion.
FerSt -> 1B
...
CA103 -> 5 https://goo.gl/maps/pqLny6PJ6dnhS76NA
Yup. Those are the two exit number corrections I mentioned, already in my draft revised CA 47 route file (which will be shortly be pulled in, with or without the possible extension to Gaffney St.).
Quote
And why do we have CA-47 ending @ CA-103? Signage says it goes farther north of there. https://goo.gl/maps/n9JBPwhee3dQZFd96
Not a state highway north of CA 103, as confirmed in my re-check of the PQT, and previously discussed in the usaca preview thread. A Caltrans report that used to be online explained that it doesn't yet meet standards for adoption into the state highway system, but with improvements it could be added to the system at a later date, without additional legislative approval.
17
Updates to Highway Data / Re: CA: Extend CA 47 west by about 0.14 mile?
« Last post by rickmastfan67 on September 27, 2022, 10:53:51 pm »If you do extend it, I'd just do a brief concurrency with I-110 to Gaffey and call it a day because the north and eastbound lanes overlap.
I'll 2nd that.
On a side note....
FerSt -> 1B
Current StreetView (July '22) shows that the gore sign was knocked down. However, March '22 SV still shows it standing.
Also....
CA103 -> 5 https://goo.gl/maps/pqLny6PJ6dnhS76NA
And why do we have CA-47 ending @ CA-103? Signage says it goes farther north of there. https://goo.gl/maps/n9JBPwhee3dQZFd96
18
Updates to Highway Data / Re: CA: Extend CA 47 west by about 0.14 mile?
« Last post by Bickendan on September 27, 2022, 10:08:17 pm »If you do extend it, I'd just do a brief concurrency with I-110 to Gaffey and call it a day because the north and eastbound lanes overlap.
19
Updates to Highway Data / CA: Extend CA 47 west by about 0.14 mile?
« Last post by oscar on September 27, 2022, 08:26:39 pm »Caltrans' Postmile Query Tool has CA 47's west end at Gaffey St., about 0.14 mile west of I-110 where we now have the west endpoint.
That extension consists of a one-way (WB) ramp, which is how WB CA 47 traffic would connect to Gaffey St. south beyond I-110's south end into San Pedro, which used to be part of route 110. There is no ramp from CA 47 directly to I-110 SB. The corresponding ramp to EB CA 47 from San Pedro is from NB I-110 just after its intersection with Gaffey St. The extra mileage only for WB CA 47 traffic bothers me, though I'm not sure it should.
I'm tempted to go no-build on this, except two exit number corrections needed for the part of CA 47 already in the HB. Any thoughts?
That extension consists of a one-way (WB) ramp, which is how WB CA 47 traffic would connect to Gaffey St. south beyond I-110's south end into San Pedro, which used to be part of route 110. There is no ramp from CA 47 directly to I-110 SB. The corresponding ramp to EB CA 47 from San Pedro is from NB I-110 just after its intersection with Gaffey St. The extra mileage only for WB CA 47 traffic bothers me, though I'm not sure it should.
I'm tempted to go no-build on this, except two exit number corrections needed for the part of CA 47 already in the HB. Any thoughts?
20
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usaal: Alabama State Routes
« Last post by formulanone on September 27, 2022, 05:54:52 pm »AL 14
BUS80/22 -> AL22/80BusSel
AL 68
411BUS -> US411BusCen
...or use US411_N for consistency, because US411_S is in use?
AL 69
US43 -> US43_A
CR20/48 -> CR20 (no CR48 signage visible, only 20)
US43_S -> US43_B
CR44_Mar (I think this is an unnecessary point)
US43_N -> US43_C
5thSt -> RiceMineRd (consistent with AL 297 and with signage on US 82)
Recommend adding a point for MouPkwy, just north of CR50 in Moundville, which is a direct route to a point of interest.
AL 70, AL 71, AL 73
All good.
AL 74
The standalone portion is fine, but do we care about the 165-mile concurrency with US 278?
AL 75
For Albertville: Recommend removing OneCutOffRd, but including nearby Turnpike Road, a busier road.
AL 76
all good
AL 77
CR53 -> CR053 (this might be signed "053", as per most Chambers County signage, but can't tell from GSV)
...otherwise, all good.
AL 79, AL 81
all good.
BUS80/22 -> AL22/80BusSel
AL 68
411BUS -> US411BusCen
...or use US411_N for consistency, because US411_S is in use?
AL 69
US43 -> US43_A
CR20/48 -> CR20 (no CR48 signage visible, only 20)
US43_S -> US43_B
CR44_Mar (I think this is an unnecessary point)
US43_N -> US43_C
5thSt -> RiceMineRd (consistent with AL 297 and with signage on US 82)
Recommend adding a point for MouPkwy, just north of CR50 in Moundville, which is a direct route to a point of interest.
AL 70, AL 71, AL 73
All good.
AL 74
The standalone portion is fine, but do we care about the 165-mile concurrency with US 278?
AL 75
For Albertville: Recommend removing OneCutOffRd, but including nearby Turnpike Road, a busier road.
AL 76
all good
AL 77
CR53 -> CR053 (this might be signed "053", as per most Chambers County signage, but can't tell from GSV)
...otherwise, all good.
AL 79, AL 81
all good.