Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Topic started by: the_spui_ninja on May 07, 2017, 02:33:17 pm
-
Oh brother...
http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2017/05/07/interstate-additions-in-h-b-244/ (http://www.aaroads.com/blog/2017/05/07/interstate-additions-in-h-b-244/)
Not sure when these will be signed...
-
Thanks for the report. I'll watch for news about signage on I-169. Not planning on visiting the area anytime soon.
-
I'll be in Little Rock in a couple weeks. I doubt there will be any "Future I-57" signage posted along US67 yet, but I'll keep an eye out just in case.
-
Note to self. AR US67 has already gotten the Operation Arkansas Cleanup treatment (not uploaded yet). Better get on that. Mumble Grumble.
And then -- another Up-D*te once I-57(42) labels become a thing. Mumble Grumble indeed.
-
No Interstate signage on US67 (I-57) yet, though exits are now numbered.
-
I drove both routes last week, northbound in their entirety plus parts southbound. I saw no Interstate (future or otherwise) signs on either one. I've heard that at least the new I-169 needs more work to be eligible for even Future Interstate signs.
Since both routes are already covered in active systems, ISTM even if Future Interstate signage shows up, it should be a low priority to add them to our Future Interstates route set. Only once they graduate to full Interstate status do we really need to do anything.
-
https://twitter.com/shanebroadway/status/923571641422155776
large image #1 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNEvfvcUQAUJev5.jpg)
large image #2 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DNEvft5V4AEQeOT.jpg)
-
Two Future I-57 signs have been spotted out in the wild:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21289.msg2307839#msg2307839
-
Two Future I-57 signs have been spotted out in the wild:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21289.msg2307839#msg2307839
We're no longer adding miles to usaif except for routes not included in any other set, correct?
-
We're no longer adding miles to usaif except for routes not included in any other set, correct?
I, really... have no idea, at this point...
What have other contributors done recently when facing potential new usaif routes in their states? (I don't know the answer to that; haven't been following too closely...)
If it were my state, I'd probably add it in, and keep the system up-to-date & accurate, as long as it's still included. Even if it's a somewhat disliked system that's had some talk about going in the bin...
-
I'd say keep it up to date if it's going to be kept and ditch the system if it's going to be ditched.
-
I'd say keep it up to date if it's going to be kept and ditch the system if it's going to be ditched.
There are some Future Interstate routes that are not yet in active systems, such as FI-905 in California, a few FI-49 segments in Arkansas, and I think one in Tennessee that includes a state route signed only as an FI and so isn't in the HB as an active state route. The system is worthwhile for those cases, at least.
As for the ones that are concurrent with routes in active systems (usually US routes), no biggie if one isn't added to the FI system, and no biggie if one isn't removed from the system. Once we have active state route systems for all 50 states, we can figure out at that point whether the FI system is worth keeping around.
-
I am linking the AARoads Interstate Guide Page on I-169 here since the original link is broken. (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-169-ky/)
-
Apparently I-169 is now signed to some extent (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?msg=2951019) (though some speculate that this may be another AI group on FB that reported it). I-57 will soon be for anyone that has paid attention to the I-57 thread on the AARoads Forum.
-
Re I-169, since there's some debate on AAroads about the authenticity of that photo, I have reached out to KYTC for confirmation of the change.
-
On Facebook, I-169 conversion is announced as complete, with a photo.
https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=963449285820651&set=a.218039577028296
-
Thanks. I-169 added, along with an extension of I-69 per the same FB post and a December 20 KYTC release (https://transportation.ky.gov/DistrictOne/Pages/default.aspx) which confirms it extends to exit 0.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8021 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8021)
-
I am assuming I-57 still isn't signed in the wild in Arkansas, right (not counting "future" signs)?
-
I am assuming I-57 still isn't signed in the wild in Arkansas, right (not counting "future" signs)?
I literally live right off it, it's not signed yet. I remember when the "Future I-57" designation became official in late 2017, and "FUTURE I-57" shields weren't installed until February 2018. Biggest difference between adding those signs and the official designation, is replacing all of the BGSes and all of the individual US 67/167 shields, which could take weeks or months. I have no idea what the status of any future signs going up are, I haven't stopped by the ARDOT sign printing shop since its designation meeting, but I imagine they're in the process of working on it, it'll just take a while. I'll be one of the first people to know when it gets signed, and I'll let you guys know about it here (and on aaroads) once it's designated.
-
17 March 2025
The first I-57 shields have officially gone up in Central Arkansas! I took this photo a few minutes ago.
(https://i.imgur.com/UOVhVcn.jpeg)
-
Not replaced the 440 shield with a blue one though.
-
Yeah the BGSs won't be replaced for quite a while, this was literally the first I-57 shield that was installed. I counted four of them when I was driving up and down the frontage road between McCain Boulevard (Exit 1) and Exit 6
-
So, north of Exit 6:
* Confirmed, nothing yet?
* Just Don't know yet?
* Other?
Edit:
Arkansas is pushing to get I-57 signed from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge at least as soon as the Jacksonville reconstruction is completed in 2027.
Judging from this, the Jacksonville segment may be a while yet, and could potentially hold up signage north of there -- potentially even N of exit 6 itself.
With this in mind, should I just add I-57 up to exit 6 for now and extend it as more signage appears N of there?
For now, I'll catch up on the AARoads thread.
-
Supposedly, from AA Roads, the signage crew will be heading north to cover the existing freeway, signing it with trailblazer shields as one project.
Firstly you don't want to keep extending it.
Secondly no one's travels will be missing if you wait.
So I suggest waiting and seeing if that is true.
-
So, north of Exit 6:
* Confirmed, nothing yet?
* Just Don't know yet?
* Other?
Edit:
Arkansas is pushing to get I-57 signed from Little Rock to Walnut Ridge at least as soon as the Jacksonville reconstruction is completed in 2027.
Judging from this, the Jacksonville segment may be a while yet, and could potentially hold up signage north of there -- potentially even N of exit 6 itself.
With this in mind, should I just add I-57 up to exit 6 for now and extend it as more signage appears N of there?
For now, I'll catch up on the AARoads thread.
Posted this on aaroads but it probably won't be signed in Jacksonville proper until after the construction is completed there, although it may be signed past exit 11. Again I won't be able to check this for almost three weeks as I'll be halfway across the country during that.
-
Some photos have appeared on AA roads showing I-57 signs between exits 21 and 29.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21289.msg2975949;topicseen#new