Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Completed Highway Systems Threads => Topic started by: froggie on August 17, 2018, 10:58:46 pm
-
By popular demand (i.e. enough private messages), and also because it's less complicated than Mississippi's system (despite the mostly-hidden concurrencies AL routes have underneath the U.S. routes), I've opted to begin work on the Alabama State Routes list.
Primary sources will be the route log located at the end of the ALDOT Annual Report (https://www.dot.state.al.us/ltweb/pdf/ArchivedAnnualReports/2017AnnualReport%20.pdf) (updated annually...linked is the most recent FY 2017 version), and the county-level Milepost maps (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/milepostmaps/default.htm) (which are typically updated more often than the county-level highway maps). I also have considerable experience with Alabama, having been to all 67 counties and being stationed twice next door in Mississippi.
Regarding underlying state routes concurrent with U.S. routes, my philosophy is such: if the underlying route is signed, I will include the segment. If not signed/it's hidden, I will not include the segment. So, for example, I will include AL 13 where it's concurrent with US 43 north of Spruce Pine because it's cosigned there, but I will not include AL 13 south of Berry because that's where it goes hidden. Because of this, the lowest route number I will be including is AL 5.**
(EDIT:) ** - AL 4 is a murky one. It's supposed to be the hidden concurrency with US 78 across the state, but it's also signed along some of the newer Corridor X segments. I'm not sure offhand A) whether to include it or not (despite what I mentioned above), or B) what the endpoints of its signing are.
-
First question-mark area: the 4-lane connector between I-20/59 Exit 1 and US 11/80 in Cuba. Officially, it's a hidden segment of AL 8. But there's very little in the way of signage. From I-20/59, it's signed as "TO US 80". At the US 11/80 intersection, there are a few TO I-20/I-59 trailblazers but nothing on the mainline itself leaving the intersection. And the street blade on the overpass at I-20/59 says "SPUR US 80".
It seems too important of a route connector to not include (it's on the NHS too), but I'm not sure how to mark it, or even if I should include it. Thoughts from the collaborator masses?
-
Not signed as part of AL8 itself, I'd say leave it out.
-
Awesome! Once this is in preview, there will finally be state route systems on the map for every state I've actually been to, and I'll finally have a .list file free of commented out "speculative" entries.
-
Not signed as part of AL8 itself, I'd say leave it out.
Agreed.
Thanks for working on this set.
-
My next problem area: what to do with ALT US 78. As best as I can tell, ALDOT hasn't asked AASHTO to decommission it, but ALDOT does not sign it anywhere anymore. It's signed only as its underlying routes: AL 74, US 43, AL 118, and AL 5. Given our past precedent with unsigned routes, I'm inclined to remove it.
-
My next problem area: what to do with ALT US 78. As best as I can tell, ALDOT hasn't asked AASHTO to decommission it, but ALDOT does not sign it anywhere anymore. It's signed only as its underlying routes: AL 74, US 43, AL 118, and AL 5. Given our past precedent with unsigned routes, I'm inclined to remove it.
Maybe set it for removal when usaal is activated? In similar situations, such as with usasf routes to be moved to the state set, we've left them alone (or extended them) until the new set is activated. Users don't like to lose mileage even with the promise that it will eventually be restored.
-
As 1 of those private messengers and a nearly life-long AL resident, I'm glad to see this effort.
I can help with signage questions especially in the Birmingham area and along Interstates 20, 59 and 65 between Birmingham and the Georgia and Tennessee state lines.
-
My next problem area: what to do with ALT US 78. As best as I can tell, ALDOT hasn't asked AASHTO to decommission it, but ALDOT does not sign it anywhere anymore. It's signed only as its underlying routes: AL 74, US 43, AL 118, and AL 5. Given our past precedent with unsigned routes, I'm inclined to remove it.
Maybe set it for removal when usaal is activated? In similar situations, such as with usasf routes to be moved to the state set, we've left them alone (or extended them) until the new set is activated. Users don't like to lose mileage even with the promise that it will eventually be restored.
However, our past precedent is that we typically remove a route if it's fully unsigned without waiting for "route system" changes. And this one will affect the US route updates I'm in the process of making as a preliminary step to creating the state routes.
-
Going to start documenting my known problem areas. My first one involves AL 126. This route effectively encompasses BOTH frontage roads along I-65 between Exit 11 and Exit 16, but T's with itself just north of Exit 11 with that spur extending a short ways to the northwest.
Two ways I can think of offhand to handle this one. First is to begin at the T, run east along the northern frontage road, then back west along the southern frontage road, back through the T, and on to the end of the spur. This option corresponds to the mileposts as documented in the Montgomery County Milepost map.
The second option would be to split it into two routes, a northern leg and southern leg. Not sure offhand where I'd put the eastern endpoint of both legs if I use this option.
-
Given our past precedent with unsigned routes, I'm inclined to remove it.
I agree with this.
-
I can help with signage questions especially in the Birmingham area and along Interstates 20, 59 and 65 between Birmingham and the Georgia and Tennessee state lines.
My first question for you then: is AL 378 signed along Finley Blvd yet?
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180604/74acd054ab84c1e28fa556a435d18de0.jpg)
This is at the end of the northbound exit ramp of I-65 at Finley Blvd.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180604/939cd42063ce18b9a665f74ee3ed2c7c.jpg)
This is at the end of the west/southbound exit ramp of I-20/59 at Arkadelphia Rd.
Photos courtesy Voyager75 on aaroads
-
Enough for me. I'll be sure to include it.
-
Next question for clong or whomever can answer: is AL 382 signed in Centreville? According to ALDOT milepost maps, it runs from AL 219 to the east end of the bypass.
-
Next question for clong or whomever can answer: is AL 382 signed in Centreville? According to ALDOT milepost maps, it runs from AL 219 to the east end of the bypass.
Jan 2017 GMSV shows it signed leaving AL 219: https://goo.gl/maps/EkN38BUR2ZD2
-
Was hoping there was signage at US 82...but GMSV is too soon for that.
-
A user on AA Roads stated that it was signed as of April 2017, but didn't give detail on where the signs were located.
I've messaged for further detail and will pass along if/when I get a response.
If I'm in the neighborhood, I'll swing thru there.
-
The user on AARoads confirmed that there was a AL382 sign on the US82 end.
-
In cleaning up the US routes prior to starting the state routes, I've run into a minor quandry with TRUCK US 98 in Mobile. The way we currently have it in the highway browser, it technically has a concurrency with mainline US 98, though it's missing a point where US 98 turns west from Broad St at Spring Hill Ave. I believe this was implemented because of signage along eastbound Government St (US 90) approaching Broad St suggesting that TRUCK US 98 begins at Government/Broad.
The question is how to handle the waypoints on the TRUCK 98 list. Currently, the "western endpoint" is labeled as US98_W even though US 98 technically turns east at this location. The US 90 waypoint is US98Bro_E here.
I have three ideas on how to handle this for the TRUCK 98 list. In both cases, the first point is the "western endpoint" at Government/Broad and the second point is where US 98 turns west at Broad/Spring Hill. Of note is that the US98_W label is currently in use...though it's hard to say whether people thought that meant where it meets US 98 the first time or the physical location at Government/Broad:
Idea 1:
US98_W
US98Bro_W
Idea 2:
US98Bro_E +US98_W
US98Bro_W
Idea 3:
US98Bro_E
US98_W
Thoughts? Suggestions?
-
I like idea 2. It's a good compromise between capturing the overlap accurately and not breaking .list files.
-
Whatever is done here, IMO the existing US98_W label should stay operational (either as the primary or an alternate label).
US98Bro would suggest there's such a US98Bro route in the HB -- US98_BroE and US98_BroW would be closer to the mark, but still miss it, as we don't use street names for these suffixes, just towns. US98_MobE is better in this regard but still a bit confusing, as the whole route is in Mobile. I think the best solution is
US98_A +US98_W
US98_B
...
US98_C
if truncating US98TrkMob isn't appropriate.
-
I used US98Bro because it's already in use for US 90 and I think better reflects the situation given the additional concurrency just east of the tunnels. I suppose I could change that but it would also require changing the US 90 labels. I am not using lettered suffixes as I fully disagree with how Tim implemented them (which seems to have been perpetuated into TM).
All three of the options I came up with continue the use of US98_W as that label is very much in use. I'm just trying to see if there's a better way to handle this.
-
I'd say that all of US90's labels referencing US98 could use a change, so edits would be worthwhile.
Bro and Mob as noted above.
US98Spa_E would look to just wanna be US98_Spa (rather than US98_Spa) by a literal reading of the manual (IE, I have ME US1 ME9_WelE wrong). But it seems that already starting an _A _B _C process back in Mobile, continuing with US98_D would be the way to go.
I10/US98_W and I10/US98_E are interesting. With the unusual intersection layout here, I'm fine with how the point coords worked out. Labels would want to be I-10/98_W and I-10/98_E, or heck, with the way the exits are split up & signed, I-10(35) I-10(35A) I-10(35B) could even work; I rather like that.
-
Late to the discussion but...
Why not have the first two points for US 98 Trk just be:
US90
US98_W
The logic would be that the signing of US 98 Trk on Broad St past Springhill to Government is for the benefit of traffic on US 90, as US 98 EB traffic would never get to the Broad/Gov't intersection for accessing US 98 Trk...
This would be the solution if US 98 continued east of Broad with no US 98 Trk (wrong-way) duplex and US 98 Trk were still signed down to US 90. Why does the solution have to be different since the wrong-way duplex exists?
-
Are there any bannered state routes besides BUSINESS AL 21 and TRUCK AL 47? (both in Monroeville)
-
I am not aware of any and have looked around at several places around the state that I thought there may be a possibility of one.
We may stumble across others later.
-
Two questions from southern Alabama:
- Is AL 100 signed in Andalusia?
- Is AL 302 signed in New Brockton?
GMSV is 5 years old for the former, and too old for the latter (AL 302 designated after New Brockton bypass opened 2 years ago).
-
Two questions from southern Alabama:
- Is AL 100 signed in Andalusia?
- Is AL 302 signed in New Brockton?
GMSV is 5 years old for the former, and too old for the latter (AL 302 designated after New Brockton bypass opened 2 years ago).
There is May 2018 GMSV at each end of AL 100 showing no postings...
https://goo.gl/maps/3aEKN9ovhtL2
https://goo.gl/maps/vSPmu7NEMWP2
There is Apr 2018 GMSV showing AL 302 posted at US 84
https://goo.gl/maps/RytUNB85DMp
-
I'd prefer something more concrete on AL 100, since there are cases where reassurance shields are posted but not trailblazers.
-
I've submitted the initial (incomplete) batch of Alabama state routes via a pull request for review as an "in development" system. Hope I got everything right for that.
This initial push covers from AL 5 to AL 113 and includes any bannered routes in that range (such as TRUCK AL 47 or BUSINESS AL 21). As noted upthread, I have omitted routes that are not signed, mostly because they are fully concurrent with a U.S. route.
-
Thanks for the work.
I'm starting to go thru my traveled routes. I noticed on AL47TrkMon that the endpoints were both labeled AL47_S.
-
Running into a minor quandary with AL 285. This route follows the former southern end of AL 165 into Lakepoint Resort State Park. According to maps (both the Barbour County map and ALDOT's Milepost map), AL 285 ends 1.29 miles south of AL 165...basically at the edge of what ALDOT maps show as the state park boundary.
However, AL 285 is signposted at US 431. There is no reassurance shield on the route itself there, but there are trailblazers on 431.
Between both June 2014 GMSV and other mapping data, I am unable to locate the exact southern end of AL 285 per ALDOT's data.
So I've decided (unless someone convinces me otherwise) to end AL 285 at US 431.
-
Need verification on AL 300 southwest of Tuscaloosa. It runs from US 11/43 to the Fosters interchange on I-20/59 (Exit 62). GMSV at US 11/43 and along the road is from before the designation, and exit signage hadn't been updated yet on I-20/59 when GMSV went through there.
(EDIT) Same question with AL 301 east of Oxford, which follows old US 431 between I-20 and US 78 before US 431 was rerouted onto I-20 and the Anniston Eastern Bypass. Much of the GMSV is too old, and the eastbound I-20 exit signage is blocked on this year's GMSV by a semi.
-
(EDIT) Same question with AL 301 east of Oxford, which follows old US 431 between I-20 and US 78 before US 431 was rerouted onto I-20 and the Anniston Eastern Bypass. Much of the GMSV is too old, and the eastbound I-20 exit signage is blocked on this year's GMSV by a semi.
SR 301 is signed on the surface: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6176932,-85.7228001,3a,15y,7.27h,93.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-OoHlg5ggSUQjd3sXOzvnw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-OoHlg5ggSUQjd3sXOzvnw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D181.7434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
-
Need verification on AL 300 southwest of Tuscaloosa. It runs from US 11/43 to the Fosters interchange on I-20/59 (Exit 62). GMSV at US 11/43 and along the road is from before the designation, and exit signage hadn't been updated yet on I-20/59 when GMSV went through there.
(EDIT) Same question with AL 301 east of Oxford, which follows old US 431 between I-20 and US 78 before US 431 was rerouted onto I-20 and the Anniston Eastern Bypass. Much of the GMSV is too old, and the eastbound I-20 exit signage is blocked on this year's GMSV by a semi.
AL 301 wasn't on the exit signage on I-20 back in March when I took these photos, but it is well signed on both ends.
-
Submitted a pull request to add the rest of the Alabama state routes. Once that's in, and unless I'm missing something, the system should be ready for preview.
I added AL 301 given rlee's photos, but I did not include AL 300 as I have no way yet to verify if it's signed.
-
I've made a few fixes and it looks like usaal will be in preview when the site update in progress runs to completion.
-
There's a problem with the routes that are also in usansf, especially AL 255 which was extended and I included the extension in the usaal version. How to fix?
-
See my message in the AL 255 topic.
-
A couple suggestions for AL 281:
- Possibly change "BunLoop" to "CheSP" or "CheStaPk" (Cheaha State Park)? Precedent elsewhere is to use state/national parks as waypoints even if the entrance road has a name (and the name here certainly isn't signed in the field).
- The CR 131 intersection is signed "TO US 431" and, from my drive on it in March, CR 131 is signed as "TO US 431" and "TO AL 281". Possibly change this point to US431 or ToUS431 (with a similar change on US 431)?
-
There's a problem with the routes that are also in usansf, especially AL 255 which was extended and I included the extension in the usaal version. How to fix?
For routes that are in eursf that are also in a tier 5 system, I've used x banners (or put an x in the number - cf Spanish ones, though I'm going to change that) on the tier 5 routes (eg POL DW902 in poldw (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?units=miles&u=blank&r=pol.dw902x) vs the eursf version (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=blank&r=pol.dw902)), when the tier 5 system is activated, I'll remove the route from eursf, and have the x-suffixed version as an AltName if necessary.
It doesn't matter much if they are different lengths, though arguably you'd want them concurrent. I think the GW Parkway question is literally unique - certainly it won't be an issue here.
-
A couple suggestions for AL 281:
- Possibly change "BunLoop" to "CheSP" or "CheStaPk" (Cheaha State Park)? Precedent elsewhere is to use state/national parks as waypoints even if the entrance road has a name (and the name here certainly isn't signed in the field).
Agreed. I'll change it to "CheStaPark" this evening (standard is to spell out the word if it has 4 letters...i.e. Park).
- The CR 131 intersection is signed "TO US 431" and, from my drive on it in March, CR 131 is signed as "TO US 431" and "TO AL 281". Possibly change this point to US431 or ToUS431 (with a similar change on US 431)?
Here, the precedent is to use the route number or road name of the connector if one exists. So in this case, since the connecting road is CR 131 (and was signed as such at one point), I'm leaving it as CR131.
-
A couple suggestions for AL 281:
- Possibly change "BunLoop" to "CheSP" or "CheStaPk" (Cheaha State Park)? Precedent elsewhere is to use state/national parks as waypoints even if the entrance road has a name (and the name here certainly isn't signed in the field).
Agreed. I'll change it to "CheStaPark" this evening (standard is to spell out the word if it has 4 letters...i.e. Park).
"SP" is a widely-used abbreviation for "State Park".
-
I prefer writing it out.
BTW, for you Oscar, I happened to notice that you submitted a list update and labeled it as including AL routes. Saw that you had included some comments including a few point requests:
- I included the AL 13 point but had to label it "CR24_Wal" as I also have a County Rd 24 point in the Florence area.
- I also included the CR728 point on the AL 73 list.
- Boll Weevil Circle around Enterprise is indeed AL 192, but AL 192 is unsigned so for that reason is not included.
-
BTW, for you Oscar, I happened to notice that you submitted a list update and labeled it as including AL routes. Saw that you had included some comments including a few point requests:
- I included the AL 13 point but had to label it "CR24_Wal" as I also have a County Rd 24 point in the Florence area.
- I also included the CR728 point on the AL 73 list.
- Boll Weevil Circle around Enterprise is indeed AL 192, but AL 192 is unsigned so for that reason is not included.
Thanks! I had meant to make the point requests separately on this forum, but this speeds up the process.
One point label suggestion: the south end of AL 255 is labeled RidRd, for the continuation road. But that doesn't pin down where on Rideout Road the state highway ends, especially since at that point there is no indication of a name change. What is at that point is an entrance sign for the Redstone Arsenal Army base, followed by other signs confirming that you're entering U.S. Government property. Would RedArs be a more informative point label?
-
^ I went by road name versus installation, as I recall that being the "standard" that was suggested in the past (Tim?).
And yes, after considerable research, where I placed that point is the endpoint.
-
On US 43/AL 69 in Tuscaloosa at 12th Street, there is a point for LurWalBlvd just on AL 69 just north of I-359 Exit 2, but that point is not on US 43. On my travels, this results in the section of AL 69 between LurWalBlvd and 9thSt not showing as traveled on AL 69 even though it shows as traveled on US 43.
Will the 4 lane spur route from I-20/59 Exit 1 at Cuba to US 11/80 be left off or designated as something?
-
On US 43/AL 69 in Tuscaloosa at 12th Street, there is a point for LurWalBlvd just on AL 69 just north of I-359 Exit 2, but that point is not on US 43. On my travels, this results in the section of AL 69 between LurWalBlvd and 9thSt not showing as traveled on AL 69 even though it shows as traveled on US 43.
I did it that way to delineate that US 43 follows the "old streets" (formerly 25th & 26th Aves) and not the I-359 mainline between 12th and 15th. It was to avoid having a non-matching point at 15th, which is what I otherwise would have had to do.
Though I am open to simplfiying the whole mess by eliminating the LurWalBlvd point and truncating I-359 to 15th.
Will the 4 lane spur route from I-20/59 Exit 1 at Cuba to US 11/80 be left off or designated as something?
This was discussed upthread. Short answer is that it will not be included.
-
Anyone interested/willing to peer review this system?
-
Anyone interested/willing to peer review this system?
If you're willing to do one of mine (PR, AR, LA) in exchange, sure.
-
I plan to add some comment on waypoint labels at least, soon.
-
I'll try and take a look at it and make comments.
-
If you're willing to do one of mine (PR, AR, LA) in exchange, sure.
I'll consider AR, though it's not exactly a small system. Smaller than LA, though.
-
I'll consider AR, though it's not exactly a small system. Smaller than LA, though.
OK, let me know what you decide.
-
AL 135 has been decommissioned; I was there over Memorial Day this year and there was no signage whatsoever.
-
As best as I can tell, it has not been decommissioned. Recent news reports (less than 2 months ago) still used the route's designation in describing a new speed limit where it goes through the state park.
That said, I'll take it out if it can be confirmed that they don't intend to resign it.
-
Looking at it again (The StreetView car went through about the same time I did), I can see mile markers but no other signage, which probably means it's still a route but it's not going to be signed (all of the visible signage is pretty recent).
Doesn't hurt to check, though.
-
Hi Froggie,
Thanks for the Christmas present! 🙂 When I get back home, I’ll be able to add the AL state routes I’ve traversed.
One item to request. In Mapleville, there is a truck routing for AL22 that uses Foshee Avenue from AL139 to connect to AL22 east of town across the tracks. Can this be added, or at least the waypoint for the eastern end? With a semi, I’ll never be able to drive the Main St routing there with 45,000 lbs of paper from South Coast Paper.
Many thanks,
-Ed S
-
^ Is it signed as TRUCK AL 22? If so, I can add it.
-
GMSV shows the Truck bannered signs on both ends, but is from 2013.
-
^ Is it signed as TRUCK AL 22? If so, I can add it.
Signed on both ends as of 2013 - https://goo.gl/maps/5bE474RbQLu
-
I've already seen GMSV. I'd like to see what his more recent observations are.
-
As of the last time I was there, a couple months ago, the signs still stand. Driving a semi, I’m not about to risk not following the signs in the process of clinching a part of a road I don’t have. 😏
Regards,
-Ed S
-
Hi Adam,
I was in Maplesville, AL again this week for another load from South Coast Paper. I came into town via US 82 to AL 22 (thus, entering from the south). Not only was the Truck AL 22 signs still present, but the sign denoting "Ordinance #82" stating "Thru trucks must follow marked route". With it raining and me moving, I couldn't get a good picture of the signs. If you look in Google Maps, they are there where I saw them.
Happy New Year (to everyone)
-Ed S
-
I've been looking though many of the Alabama State routes, and can't think of too many missing points, other than minor roads that some folks* might use as county-line "spinbacks". But unless there's a reason for the roads to be included, I don't know if every county line waypoint should be included.
As per a PM with froggie at AARoads, I've checked out about 1/3 of the usaal roads point-by-point. So far, nothing looks out of place. I see a good number of connections at all other SR's and many of the longer CRs or local roads.
Unfortunately, I can rarely promise a check them in the field for accuracy, because work takes me all over the country, but I take a ton of photos and browse the ALGIS features for reference.
* Weasel word or self-incrimination?...you be the judge. ::)
-
I'm about 2/3 done - still haven't caught any errors. So far, so good.
Mainly checking to see if one route cross-references another point, and connections between those on the official state maps (which includes a fair number of county routes, where room seems to to permit in some of the less-populated counties).
-
There are about 10 NMPs. Mostly where usaal intersect US routes.
-
According to a post on AA Roads and photos in this blog post, AL 21 in Piedmont AL has been rerouted onto AL 200 west of Piedmont. AL 200 is no more, and old AL 21 in downtown Piedmont is now a city street.
https://geekalabama.com/2019/04/11/roadscapes-wednesday-alabama-state-route-200-is-eliminated-in-piedmont/
-
^ Details?
-
Load al.nmp (http://travelmapping.net/logs/nmpbyregion/al.nmp) into HDX (http://courses.teresco.org/metal/hdx/). If you don't wanna / can use HDX, let me know...
-
Sorry...not in a position to use HDX, hence the ask.
-
OK :)
- US411 wp I-759(4) is off, should be synced with AL759 wp 4
- US280 wp US231/25 is off, should be synced with US231/AL25 wps
- US80 wp AL81_SB and US29/US80 wps AL81_NB should be merged into AL81 wp, there are just two one-way streets. US29 wp AL81_NB is in use, US80 wps AL81_NB and AL81_SB are in use. However, you can use them as alt labels for the only wp.
- AL22/US80BusSel wp US80/14 is off, should be synced with AL14, AL22TrkSel and US80 wp
- US80BusSel wp US80/41 is off, should be synced with US80 and AL41 wp
- US84 / US43 wps should be synced
- AL134 wp US431_N and US431 wp AL134/173 should be synced (btw: why 173 in wp name?)
- Are US231, US411 and AL23 wps in Ashville intended? I think so, let me know and I mark it FP.
- AL176 has two shaping points +x02 and +x03 close together. Is it intended? If so, I can mark it FP.
- Same at AL25 +x25 and +x26, intended?
- AL167 wps AL/FL and CR9 seem to be intended too. Mark FP?
-
Sorry...not in a position to use HDX, hence the ask.
One other approach is to look at http://travelmapping.net/logs/nmpbyregion/al.nmp, which will show all near-matches in Alabama including many just between non-usaal routes. That's what I use, never having given HDX a try. Disadvantage is that if the mismatch is too big, it won't be a "near miss" and so won't be flagged.
-
Sorry...not in a position to use HDX, hence the ask.
One other approach is to look at http://travelmapping.net/logs/nmpbyregion/al.nmp, which will show all near-matches in Alabama including many just between non-usaal routes. That's what I use, never having given HDX a try. Disadvantage is that if the mismatch is too big, it won't be a "near miss" and so won't be flagged.
The ones that do not get flagged is part of why I have been doing an overhaul of the routes in PA and DE. I still have not touched HDX to this point.
-
AL134 wp US431_N and US431 wp AL134/173 should be synced (btw: why 173 in wp name?)
134 and 173 are concurrent, with 173 ending here. I think that's an artifact of 134 previously running through Headland on Church Street, as I seem to recall it doing maybe 10 years or so ago. (I used to drive this part of US 431 pretty frequently.)
Though by the same token, I suppose that also means AL134's waypoint AL173 should be renamed to AL173_N.
-
The ones that do not get flagged is part of why I have been doing an overhaul of the routes in PA and DE. I still have not touched HDX to this point.
Well, we use the nmp files for exactly this! HDX is used to visualize the NMPs. If there are unintended NMPs even more apart... I think Jim has offered to change the threshold to any desired value. E.g. creating al.nmp with a different threshold just for the check. It's surely quicker checking these point only instead of checking all points.
However, when I review a system, I check NMP file in HDX first, and do another round with checking that all "links" are indicated in HB. Checking all labels of all routes which should have links, that they really have them. If not, coordinates are different and are usually NMPs just with a bigger distance than our standard threshold. In addition, I use this manual check to figure out that the label names are complete - e.g. in case of more than one intersecting route.
There are many way. Just do it the way you think it's the best for you!
-
I think Jim has offered to change the threshold to any desired value. E.g. creating al.nmp with a different threshold just for the check.
Another possiblity is adding a commandline argument to use a custom threshold.
-
There are some LABEL_SELFREF errors: http://travelmapping.net/devel/datacheck.php?sys=null&rg=AL
AL261 wp "CR17/52/91" -> "CR17/52"
-
I see some confusion on city suffixes when used to disambiguate multiple intersections with same-numbered routes. In these cases, Add a suffix with an underscore and those 3 letters. (http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php) Otherwise, a plain "AL52Opp" or "US98Bro_E" would imply a banner of "Opp" or "Bro", or that they correspond to "AL52Opp" or "US98Bro" in the HB, of which we have none. (In usaal, only AL53Dot has a city abbrev + no banner.)
I ran a search to provide the "Good" examples:
yakra@BiggaTomato:~/TravelMapping/HighwayData/hwy_data$ grep _ AL/*/*.wpt | grep -v '_[NEWS] \|_[A-Za-z]\{4\}'
AL/usaal/al.al005.wpt:CR1_Wil http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.970868&lon=-87.642113
AL/usaal/al.al013.wpt:CR24_Wal http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.879301&lon=-87.635697
AL/usaal/al.al013.wpt:CR24_Col http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.730195&lon=-87.667809
AL/usaal/al.al041.wpt:AL136_C http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.465577&lon=-87.339839
AL/usaal/al.al079.wpt:CR33_Blo http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.947425&lon=-86.585242
AL/usaal/al.al079.wpt:CR33_Jac http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.863796&lon=-86.100765
AL/usaal/al.al095.wpt:CR47_Hen http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.406265&lon=-85.138239
AL/usaal/al.al095.wpt:CR47_Bar http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.779477&lon=-85.162776
AL/usaal/al.al133.wpt:AL157_Flo http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.801352&lon=-87.651082
AL/usaal/al.al134.wpt:CR55_Hen http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.354397&lon=-85.228457
AL/usaal/al.al145.wpt:CR42_Chi http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.014552&lon=-86.609226
AL/usaal/al.al145.wpt:CR42_She http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.122830&lon=-86.541892
AL/usaal/al.al157.wpt:CR24_Col http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.729741&lon=-87.634978
AL/usaal/al.al157.wpt:AL133_Flo http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.801352&lon=-87.651082
AL/usaal/al.al157.wpt:CR24_Lau http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.870770&lon=-87.692174
AL/usaal/al.al239.wpt:CR31_Bar http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=31.884053&lon=-85.503293
AL/usaal/al.al239.wpt:CR31_Bul http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.064024&lon=-85.669815
AL/usaus/al.us029.wpt:AL81_NB http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.423881&lon=-85.690092
AL/usaus/al.us078.wpt:CR35_Fru http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.730925&lon=-85.432756
AL/usaus/al.us080.wpt:AL81_SB http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.423388&lon=-85.690935
AL/usaus/al.us080.wpt:AL81_NB http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.423881&lon=-85.690092
AL/usaus/al.us090.wpt:I-165_End http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.699833&lon=-88.045866
AL/usausb/al.us098trkmob.wpt:I-165_End http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.699833&lon=-88.045866Underscores, and city suffixes. Looking good for the most part.
As an aside before moving on, I noticed the _SB and _NB examples, and looked into them. This defies the usual principle of tracing down the "median" of a couplet, and having one point on the intersecting route at that median. There'd be the occasional example for something with really whacked-out geometry, but this is overkill in a straightforward situation like this.
Suggest combining into one point at the existing point (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.423626&lon=-85.690497) where the route traces cross, with AL81_SB as an AltLabel on US80.
Back to the suffix issue, here are the labels that turned up as something in need of attention.
It's possible that some items could have been left out of the search; anything where Alt, Bus, Byp, Trk, Spr or Con referred to a city.
al.al005.wpt: CR29Alb AL25Bibb_S AL25Bibb_N CR29Nau
al.al009.wpt: CR66San CR66Nee
al.al010.wpt: CR7Swe CR23Wil CR65Wil CR7Sau CR65But CR59Luv CR23Bar CR25Hen CR57Hen CR65Hen
al.al014.wpt: CR19Pic CR23Pic CR23Per CR6Per CR37Sel CR19Aut CR6Tal
al.al017.wpt: CR20Was CR34Was CR9Cho CR9Sum CR20Sum CR34Sum CR8Pic CR24Lam CR8Lam CR16Lib CR24Col
al.al021.wpt: CR12Esc CR10Mon CR26Wil CR12Low CR26Low CR7Mon CR29Elm CR10Coo CR49Coo
al.al022.wpt: CR45Dal CR45Chi
al.al025.wpt: CR16Hale CR49Hale CR16Bibb AL5Bibb_S AL5Bibb_N CR49She
al.al033.wpt: CR6Win CR6Law
al.al039.wpt: CR20Sum CR20Gre
al.al041.wpt: CR56Wil CR6Wil CR56Dal
al.al051.wpt: CR11Dale CR2Bar CR2Mac CR11Lee
al.al053.wpt: TN7Truck
al.al055.wpt: CR107Red_S CR107Red_N
al.al069.wpt: CR44Cla CR44Mar
al.al123.wpt: US231Ari
al.al134.wpt: CR1Lev
al.al171.wpt: CR35Ham
al.us011.wpt: CR10Cuba_S CR10Cuba_N CR27Sum CR2York CR19York CR13Liv CR12Liv CR20Epes CR21Epes CR76Bol CR20Bol CR131Eut CR67Ral CR10Fos CR59Tus CR6Arg CR31Cal CR81Col
al.us029.wpt: CR25Rome CR14Ple CR59Luv CR27Bul CR53Tan CR45Cot
al.us031.wpt: CR6Cas CR30Wal CR45Gre CR14Mon CR24Pin CR27Mon CR23Aut CR40Pin CR59Aut CR20Pyr CR23Mid CR59Ver CR24Coo CR47Cla CR50Tho CR42Jem CR33Min CR26Sag CR5Blo CR7Blo CR9Ban CR23Lac
al.us043.wpt: CR84Sal CR6Cor CR10Jac CR16Cla CR35Doy CR16Mar CR47Mar CR20For CR67Ral CR10Fos CR55New CR35Ham CR16Lib
al.us072.wpt: CR24Tus CR71Lau CR33Lim CR71Lim CR33Jac
al.us080.wpt: CR10Cuba_S CR10Cuba_N CR23Dal CR37Sel CR7Low CR23Low CR7Mon CR9Cal CR13Mac CR29Mac
al.us082.wpt: CR35Pic CR30Pic CR49Ref CR16Gor CR47Tus CR30Tus CR1Bib CR16Eol CR29Bib CR16Ada CR15Chi CR1Aut CR10Aut CR29Pra CR22Mon CR15Bru CR22Bul CR35Thr
al.us084.wpt: CR3Cho CR21Cho CR3Cla CR21Cla CR23Zim CR22Wha CR39Cla CR39Mon CR1Per CR23Mon CR15Bel CR35Mon CR43Her CR7Cov CR21Cov CR95Opp AL52Opp CR38Opp CR1Lev CR31Dale CR55Ash
al.us090.wpt: US98Bro_E US98Bro_W US98Mob_W US98Spa_E
al.us098.wpt: US90Bro_E US90Bro_W US90Mob_W US90Spa_E
al.us231.wpt: CR14New AL123Ari CR22Mon CR29Elm CR49Coo CR29Wat CR26Ash CR29Blo CR26Blo CR49Blo
al.us278.wpt: CR49Bea CR35Ham CR49Ham CR57Win CR77Nes CR45Che
al.us280.wpt: CR41She CR41Coo
al.us331.wpt: CR95Opp AL52Opp CR59Mon
al.us411.wpt: CR26Ash CR22Cen CR31Cen
al.us431.wpt: CR12Hen CR137Gle_S CR12Rus CR137Gle_N CR137Pit_S CR137Pit_N CR137Sea_S CR137Sea_N CR137Rus_S CR79Roa
al.us098trkmob.wpt: US98Bro_E US98Bro_W
I have some stuff like this in my regions I need to fix too. The US1Alt labels on ME US1 are a bit dodgy...
-
Hey guys, I found a naming convention issue on AL 283. Currently, the south end point is shown as BUS411, but to conform across the site, I think it should be US411BusCen with the route, then banner, then city 1st three letters.
-
Or just vanilla US411Bus, as that's the only branch of US411Bus that AL281 intersects.
Heh. The existence of that route looks a bit silly. I guess ALDOT must not be too fond of business state routes, AL21BusMon aside.
Speaking of AL21BusMon, Drewry Road has been relocated southward. In Esri WorldImagery, the scar left over from the old route is pretty freshly visible, heading into the current waypoint.
Suggest one waypoint at the new Drewry Rd intersection, and tweaking the existing waypoint to IvySt, which should be close enough for those who want to mark the old alignment.
-
The following labels all have a banner preceding numerals:
AL/usaal/al.al009.wpt: BUS411
AL/usaal/al.al013.wpt: US72/ALT72
AL/usaal/al.al014.wpt: BUS80/22
AL/usaal/al.al017.wpt: US72/ALT72
AL/usaal/al.al022.wpt: BUS80_E
AL/usaal/al.al052.wpt: BUS84_W
AL/usaal/al.al052.wpt: BUS231/431
AL/usaal/al.al052.wpt: BUS84_E
AL/usaal/al.al053dot.wpt: BUS231
AL/usaal/al.al068.wpt: BUS411_W
AL/usaal/al.al283.wpt: BUS411
AL/usaus/al.us029.wpt: TRK29_S
AL/usaus/al.us029.wpt: TRK29_N
AL/usaus/al.us031.wpt: ALT72_W
AL/usaus/al.us031.wpt: ALT72_E
AL/usaus/al.us043.wpt: US72/ALT72
AL/usaus/al.us072.wpt: US43/ALT72
AL/usaus/al.us080.wpt: BUS80/22
AL/usaus/al.us080.wpt: BUS80/41
AL/usaus/al.us082.wpt: TRK29
AL/usaus/al.us411.wpt: BUS411_W
AL/usaus/al.us411.wpt: BUS411_E
AL/usausb/al.us084busdot.wpt: BUS231/431
AL/usausb/al.us231busdot.wpt: BUS84
AL/usausb/al.us231busdot.wpt: BUS431_N
AL/usausb/al.us431busdot.wpt: BUS84
AL/usausb/al.us431busdot.wpt: BUS231_N
-
AL 14 actually crosses I-65 at exit 181 and goes down Fairview Ave. to US31 than proceeds south to US82. I drove it yesterday.
-
I'd argue that CR6Cas CR30Wal CR45Gre CR14Mon etc. is the correct way to disambiguate same-numbered routes in multiple counties (assuming those are county name abbreviations). If disambiguation isn't necessary...probably don't.
-
Finally realized there was a standardization guide all along... :P
http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php
I'd argue that CR6Cas CR30Wal CR45Gre CR14Mon etc. is the correct way to disambiguate same-numbered routes in multiple counties (assuming those are county name abbreviations). If disambiguation isn't necessary...probably don't.
I agree.
Not sure how to go about very similar county names on the same route; US 280 passing through Talladega and Tallapoosa Counties might be the only issue for Alabama, and road names exist for the most prominent of that route category.
How should Alternate US 72 be denoted in shorthand? Many routes show ALT72, but "US72Alt" follows the format.
AL 9
CR66San -> CR66Elm (Elmore County, instead of minor place name)
CR66Nee -> CR66Clay (Clay County, instead of minor place name)
BUS411 -> US411Bus (only crosses US 411 Business once, don't need to mention the town of Centre)
Hey guys, I found a naming convention issue on AL 283. Currently, the south end point is shown as BUS411, but to conform across the site, I think it should be US411BusCen with the route, then banner, then city 1st three letters.
AL 13
CR22 -> CR22_N
CR22Spr -> CR22_S (same road and county; both unnamed, labelled "22")
US72/ALT72 -> US72/72Alt (or is that redundant (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?u=formulanone&units=miles&r=al.al013&lat=34.712584&lon=-87.671092&zoom=15)...thoughts?)
RoyalAve -> RoyAve
CourtSt - > CouSt
AL 14
MLKDr -> MLKingDr
AL 17
RoyalAve -> RoyAve
CourtSt - > CouSt
CR22Spr - > CR22Fra (located in Franklin County; same point as above in AL 13 - though 2 different CR22s in AL 17's HB)
-
AL 20 and US72AltDec
Would recommend two points be added...one for each route
JefSt (Jefferson Street in Courtland) >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/34.67948/-87.35273
- Leads to west end of town, former alignment of US 72Alt/20.
AL 21
MontRegAir -> MonRegAir
AL 22
Just drove this route last weekend through Maplesville - looks like AL 22 now goes though Foshee Avenue (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/32.78830/-86.87086), following the Truck Route on GSV. There's no "AL 22/139 Truck" on ALDOT (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/MilepostPDF/web/co11mp.pdf). Unfortunately, no camera, no proof, so this might have to wait.
AL 24
OldAL24 -> CR460 (signed that way, also used as a consistent description for points on AL 33 and AL 101)
*OldAL24Red -> Eliminate, doesn't point to anything, and not labelled as such. Perhaps use Winnie Frost Road (WinFroRd) instead? (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/34.43943/-88.12868)
AL 33
US72ALT/20 -> US72Alt/20
-
AL 34
CoveAceRd -> CoveAccRd (street sign is spelled properly according to GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4903786,-86.1385096,3a,50.8y,96.21h,80.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spP2yTW_FNhcJTaSgun9huw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), incorrect in OSM and Google Maps...or just use CR332)
AL 35
PineRidRd -> CR835 (as this is Old AL 35, preserve continuity with other side of old alignment, which should probably also have a point)
Not sure if CR44 is necessary, doesn't lead to much.
Would recommend a point for Airport Road (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/34.43794/-85.75223) (AirRd), as it's traffic-light controlled and rather busy (from experience). The little airport isn't busy, but the route serves as a defacto bypass to US 11.
-
Note to self that AL 180 has been turned back east of AL 161 per the January 2019 Baldwin County Milepost Map (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/MilepostPDF/web/co2mp.pdf) (which incidentally retains AL 135).
(EDIT). I'll need to fix AL 149 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=2462989;topic=3539.275;last_msg=2462995) as well.
-
http://travelmapping.net/devel/datacheck.php?rg=AL
AL5 long underscore
AL261 label slashes
etc.
-
What is a "long underscore"?
-
What is a "long underscore"?
http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#over2
Suffix with more than 4 characters or exactly 4 characters but the 4th character is not upper-case:
CR1_Bibb -> CR1_Bib
CR55_Dale -> CR55_Dal
The general label truncation rule (http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#truncate) doesn't apply to suffixes.
-
I am referencing the thread on AL 21 and AL 200 below partly because I just saw a new post on AARoads about it confirming that AL 200 was removed.
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3035.msg13971#msg13971 (moved post to this thread so link does not work, quote is below)
According to a post on AA Roads and photos in this blog post, AL 21 in Piedmont AL has been rerouted onto AL 200 west of Piedmont. AL 200 is no more, and old AL 21 in downtown Piedmont is now a city street.
https://geekalabama.com/2019/04/11/roadscapes-wednesday-alabama-state-route-200-is-eliminated-in-piedmont/
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5555.msg2467287#msg2467287
-
I've been driving a lot more for work, and have completed more mileage within Alabama.
I can confirm that AL 21's north end takes over AL 200 in Piedmont; I didn't see any signs for AL 200 on the old alignment of AL 21, so it can be removed. There's an end sign for AL 21 at US 278. (Map) (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/MilepostPDF/web/co8mp.pdf)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50449937193_b0b594d2ce_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jS67Fk)
AL 21 also took over AL 275's routing in Talladega, as expected by ALDOT. So AL 275 can also be removed, as it is no longer signed. I'll have to look at my photos to see if AL 77 shields were also posted along the former AL 275. (Map) (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/MilepostPDF/web/co61mp.pdf)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50673617753_44d34ed78d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kcRx7H)
-
I noticed AL149 is still on it's old alignment in the Highway Browser.
The eastern end has been extended slightly to the Mountain Brook city limit (the intersection with Cahaba Rd).
On the west, AL149 no longer turns north onto Greensprings, but continues on Lakeshore to the Birmingham city limit (roughly the intersection with Wildwood Cir).
-
Sorry to leave this unchecked for so long, haven't really had much time.
AL 28
This route points to itself (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=formulanone&r=al.al028&lat=32.266673&lon=-87.625408&zoom=17), instead of AL 25 in Thomaston.
AL 36
CR 41 -> DanRd (county road numbers are rarely posted used in Morgan County)
CR 73 -> CotFloRd (same reason)
* Also suggest UniHillRd for Union Hill Road, though very close to Cotaco-Florette Road.
CR 40 -> UppRivRd (see above)
AL 39
Would swap point for Williams Road for CR21/East Spruce Street in Gainesville, likely has more traffic.
AL 41
CR56Wil -> CR56Mon (point and route entirely located in Monroe County)
-
CR56_Mon ;)
-
- Boll Weevil Circle around Enterprise is indeed AL 192, but AL 192 is unsigned so for that reason is not included.
I saw some AL 192 signs when I was down there last week, and found some more on GMSV, for a total of seven AL 192 signs on AL 192 or intersecting routes:
AL 134 EB approaching Boll Weevil junction:
https://goo.gl/maps/oWbz62wrUGJKhd187
AL 192 EB east of AL 27 junction:
https://goo.gl/maps/UQ6Nw6KLL1EfVeDU7
AL 192 EB, end sign at AL 88/167 junction:
https://goo.gl/maps/291GJ8WCHp2Tt7a6A
AL 192 WB, west of AL 88/167 junction:
https://goo.gl/maps/VNhgJuaQ2FnwmdMU8
AL 192 WB, east of AL 27 junction:
https://goo.gl/maps/1giYFe4xbsSFQ1hp9
AL 192 WB, at AL 27 junction:
https://goo.gl/maps/ZCcvPfV9mTJjF5Ea6
AL 27 SB, north of AL 192 junction:
https://goo.gl/maps/mzz1cBL5NKKBwGSn8
That said, there are quite a few signs along AL 192 that say "To [some other route]" where you might expect an AL 192 marker.
The mix of AL 192 and "To [something else]" markers on AL 192 and its junctions is not the greatest route signage for AL 192, but it's not nothing.
-
Found this thread buried in the Updates to Highway Data sub-forum. https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3035.msg13971#msg13971
Apparently, it's never been updated in the HB, so I'm posting this here.
-
AL 200 and AL 275 are no longer signed (both have been absorbed by AL 21), and I believe are removed from the ALDOT's latest maps.
I almost finished off US 11 in Alabama today, but there's a 7-mile detour around Hammondville and Sulfur Creek onto I-59. (I got all of Georgia's US 11 as a consolation prize on the way to Chattanooga.)
-
AL 44:
Add a point for CR 61, though it's close to the point for CR95. (CR 61 is longer and connects to SR 253.
AL 48:
Point with GA 5 (the east end) is a little off at the border.
AL 49:
Recommend point at State Lake Road (StaLakeRd) between McVRd and CR31.
AL 50:
Recommend a point for Old US 280 at Camp Hill.
Chambers County actually uses a leading zero on county road signs, and even two leading zeros on some single-digit county roads. (Talladega County also does this.) However, they are a little inconsistent.
CR38 > CR038
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8466351,-85.5459957,3a,40.8y,297.26h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYuHCwPiuPmCrH35ijz3yBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
CR16 > CR016
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8371036,-85.4991805,3a,19.9y,144.79h,88.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLTQtb1aavE0vRGJyShwVgA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
CR83 > CR083
There's some inconsistency on this one... With (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.881034,-85.3906355,3a,16.1y,170.94h,87.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sguEy40bTiPf8bPo3qM5k-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) | Without (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.881491,-85.3899727,3a,75y,259.2h,89.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKQPJlidN6uT2NeKg95sHKw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
AL 51:
CR265 could be removed - short driveway on one end, dirt path on the other.
CR11Dale > CR11_Dale
-
Note to self: SPUI mentioned in another thread about NMPs in/near Selma.
-
From my last trip into Alabama, I noticed a some routing changes in Ozark.
First was a rerouting of AL-27 in Ozark. TM has it running along Enterprise Rd from US-231 to AL-249, but in the field it is now duplexed with AL-249 to US-231.
at AL-249 | 2013 (https://goo.gl/maps/jLtocZ9RQr1LqyJ28) | 2018 (https://goo.gl/maps/wBRnCJK3kfAuoieWA)
at US-231 | 2013 (https://goo.gl/maps/KJQhKUWvQ62RJv3L7) | 2018 (https://goo.gl/maps/NmF9mEdNQhWkn6ce8)
The other was the potential decommissioning of US-231 BUS. I did not see any signage at its endpoints with US-231, only at the turnoff from Union to Broad, and vice-versa. This looks similar with old US-84 BUS in Enterprise, where some erroneous signage is still present in downtown, even though TM does not have it as an active route.
at US-231 | 2018 north (https://goo.gl/maps/Wdt2m7fChZM2C3vZ9), south (https://goo.gl/maps/X7HmdtrBodtWC5Wy8) | 2019 north (https://goo.gl/maps/xW1ZVK3fbGoyw1z86) , south (https://goo.gl/maps/Foqu6Sie4yqqje8SA)
at AL-249 north | Feb 2019 (https://goo.gl/maps/hAF6FG6dmqQWGQ8MA) | Sep 2019 (https://goo.gl/maps/eemFtsDDetbfvi8T6) (also note the appearance of an AL-27 shield)
south terminus | 2018 (https://goo.gl/maps/mS2QdCHJZ2xuacXF7) | 2019 (https://goo.gl/maps/yUHsVBAepV5r5q6P7)
at AL-123 north | 2018 (https://goo.gl/maps/74i9mVYbKo1aJT2N6) | 2019 (https://goo.gl/maps/2pdvMzzo77LK62jt5)
-
I can confirm that AL 21 has been moved to the Talladega bypass. AL 275 is no more, and all signs are gone. AL 77 has also been moved onto the bypass east to miss the town square.
AL 77's new route from south to north begins at Battle St (former start of 21/77 overlap) and follows the former AL 21 alignment towards Anniston. At the bypass, AL 77 NB begins a wrong way duplex with AL 21 SB heading back to where AL 77 intersected the bypass.
Battle St, which was a part of AL 21 and AL 77, is no longer an ALDOT route. Court St and East St, which were part of AL 77, are no longer ALDOT routes from the bypass southward to Battle St.
I've been driving a lot more for work, and have completed more mileage within Alabama.
I can confirm that AL 21's north end takes over AL 200 in Piedmont; I didn't see any signs for AL 200 on the old alignment of AL 21, so it can be removed. There's an end sign for AL 21 at US 278. (Map) (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/MilepostPDF/web/co8mp.pdf)
AL 21 also took over AL 275's routing in Talladega, as expected by ALDOT. So AL 275 can also be removed, as it is no longer signed. I'll have to look at my photos to see if AL 77 shields were also posted along the former AL 275. (Map) (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/MilepostPDF/web/co61mp.pdf)
-
Here's the ALDOT 2021 Annual Report (https://www.dot.state.al.us/publications/general/FY19AnnualReport.pdf) (link rot on OP). Route descriptions begin on page 83.
AL 52
UseSt - unnecessary in Dothan (was this for the old alignment?); recommend using nearby ColHwy (Columbia Highway) which was the old alignment of AL 52.
Or should that be ColHwy_W because it joins that route again as AL 52?
*RngSt > RanSt (what was the asterisk for? old/new alignment?)
If signage is to be believed (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2896006,-85.1323154,3a,48.6y,69.96h,83.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfLJ41HT6fUiB7Bk6fH_DRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), AL 95 ends at CR 95 (which was SR 95 until a few years ago), but seems to have a useless multiplex end with AL 52.
AL 53Dot (Dothan)
CR55 > StaLineRd - as per GMSV no "CR 55" or signage that says "County Road" on it. Stop light at its other end on US 231 says "State Line Road".
BUS231 > US231BusDot <- Edit 9/27/2022
AL 53
TN7Truck > TN7TrkArd <- Edit 9/27/2022
I-65 > I-65/31 (include US 31, even though it's unsigned at this point?)
AL 54 - all good
AL 55
CR107_N > LloMill (?) or CR107_A - Lloyd Mill Road used on subsequent intersections, no CR 107 signage on shields nor street blades. But wait...
CR107_S > CR107_B - road of same name (on blades) and CR 107 (on shields). And then...
CR107Red_N > CR107_C - is this when we just use _A, _B, _C... because it's obvious that CR 107 is the former alignment of AL 55? I'm not sure.
CR107Red_S > CR107_D - see above
-
AL 56
I guess there an overlap with AL 17...(Photo from July 2014)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4699/39976062471_8362df7efa_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23UxLCp)
Otherwise, all good.
AL 57 (oh, that's US 45 north of the AL 17 split)
AL 58 (history)
AL 59
Foley Beach Expressway doesn't have its own entry? I guess it's just a short toll bridge and a bunch of at-grade intersections.
CR 1 is correct, as per GMSV
CR 8 is also correct; but incorrect on Open Street Map (will check my photos)
Point labels with US 90 and US 31 overlaps concur.
-
AL 60
Recommend the CR 36 point be adjusted to 4th Avenue South (4AveS), which leads to the town of Akron. GMSV also calls it "CR 36". Not a big deal.
AL 61
Recommend adding a point for North Street (NorSt) in Uniontown. (AL 183, located parallel to AL 61 has this point).
AL 62, AL 63, AL 64, AL 65
All good.
-
I'm looking at US 11 and AL 5 as part of route planning for the Natchez, MS, meet, and I am seeing tons and tons of label errors (such as WilkRd instead of WilRd, AcadRd instead of AcaRd_E or AcaRd, even 18thStBes and 19thStBes, etc.).
For now, I am considering this as something to keep in mind as the peer review continues as it is more worth my time to continue route planning instead of listing label point errors on these roads.
EDIT (1-18-2022): I also see that US 90/US 98 should have a point added at the entrance to Meaher State Park (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.6696245,-87.9346479,3a,75y,322.8h,86.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syTKYNOJjEcqmzPPJ5ibkdQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
EDIT (1-19-2022): I-65: Consider adding a shaping point west of the north end of AL 149 to keep the line in Mapview west of there.
-
^ The I-65 shaping point will be unnecessary b/c that end of AL 149 has been relocated onto a different road...just haven't updated it yet.
-
^ The I-65 shaping point will be unnecessary b/c that end of AL 149 has been relocated onto a different road...just haven't updated it yet.
Well I may consider clinching AL 149 dependent on how I do things around Birmingham. I am hoping to see my cousin who lives in the area.
-
If that is your intention, the new alignment of AL 149 stays on Lakeshore Pkwy to a point west of I-65, instead of turning north along Green Springs Hwy. I am not sure how far west of I-65 it extends...I have no access to ALDOT's website at home because of some stupid ISP thing.
-
The West end of AL149 is just west of Wildwood Circle N. Then End 149 sign (visible on Street View) is between Cook Out and All South Appliances.
I believe this is the City Limit border between Homewood and Birmingham.
And just found this route description in the 2020 ALDOT Annual Report:
149. From a junction with Alabama 38 (US 280) westerly along Shades Creek Parkway and Lakeshore Drive, to end at Homewood – Birmingham city limits approximately 300 feet west of junction of Wildwood Circle.
-
AL 135 has been decommissioned; I was there over Memorial Day this year and there was no signage whatsoever.
As best as I can tell, it has not been decommissioned. Recent news reports (less than 2 months ago) still used the route's designation in describing a new speed limit where it goes through the state park.
That said, I'll take it out if it can be confirmed that they don't intend to resign it.
It's still not signed as of this week, I'd say it's safe to 86 it.
-
AL 135 has been decommissioned; I was there over Memorial Day this year and there was no signage whatsoever.
As best as I can tell, it has not been decommissioned. Recent news reports (less than 2 months ago) still used the route's designation in describing a new speed limit where it goes through the state park.
That said, I'll take it out if it can be confirmed that they don't intend to resign it.
It's still not signed as of this week, I'd say it's safe to 86 it.
Yeah, if you follow the link in the below post they've updated the map to remove it.
Note to self that AL 180 has been turned back east of AL 161 per the January 2019 Baldwin County Milepost Map (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/MilepostPDF/web/co2mp.pdf) (which incidentally retains AL 135).
-
From the link, it appears Alabama 135 is now "Old AL0135", so it's been decommissioned. There was no signage near or upon the route when I'd visited Orange Beach last June.
-
I can confirm this. In addition, ALDOT has added AL 149 signage on the I-65 off ramps and cleaned up the signage at Green Springs Hwy (CR 99) to confirm AL 149 stays on Lakeshore. AL 149 signage has not been added on I-65 itself yet.
Glad to finally clinch AL 149.
The West end of AL149 is just west of Wildwood Circle N. Then End 149 sign (visible on Street View) is between Cook Out and All South Appliances.
I believe this is the City Limit border between Homewood and Birmingham.
And just found this route description in the 2020 ALDOT Annual Report:
149. From a junction with Alabama 38 (US 280) westerly along Shades Creek Parkway and Lakeshore Drive, to end at Homewood – Birmingham city limits approximately 300 feet west of junction of Wildwood Circle.
-
The east end of I-759 needs to be synced with US 411 and AL 759.
US 278/US 431:
1. CleveAv should be CleAve (I think) or removed.
2. I-59(183) should be I-59.
3. GoodAve>-GooAve.
US 411: I-759(4)>-I-759.
-
I was just in Talladega earlier today. AL 77, and perhaps AL 21, appear to have been rerouted through the city.
I followed the signage for AL 77. Approaching from the south, I took Haynes Street to North Street East then turned east (rather than to East Battle Street then turn west, as the HB now has it). From North Street East, I turned left onto the Western Bypass, then north on AL 77 at the intersection shown on Google Maps with East Street North (the road north of the Western Bypass has no name in GM, OSM, or other maps I've looked at).
AL 21 appears to have been rerouted as well, onto the Western Bypass. But I am less certain about this. I am more certain that AL 275, at least on the part of the Western Bypass I traveled, is no longer signed (at least westbound) and is probably toast.
I'm now just east of the Mississippi state line, heading west, with no plans to return home via Alabama.
-
Went back through old posts and corrected/updated a number of things on my latest pull request:
- Removed AL 135, 200, and 275. The latter two also involved AL 21 realignments onto the former routes.
- Removed BUSINESS 231 in Ozark. 2019 GMSV shows no more signage along 231.
- Added Truck AL 22 in Maplesville.
- Relocated AL 149 now that it follows more of Lakeshore Pkwy and crosses I-65.
- Added AL 192 around Enterprise now that (per Oscar) it's at least partially signed.
- Fixed several NMPs (including 759/411) and labels.
A fair warning: because of the routing changes and points in use with AL 21, AL 77, and the former AL 275, there will be messed up lists in Talladega. There was no way I could see to avoid that.
I have not gone in depth into formulaone's comments yet.
- US80 wp AL81_SB and US29/US80 wps AL81_NB should be merged into AL81 wp, there are just two one-way streets. US29 wp AL81_NB is in use, US80 wps AL81_NB and AL81_SB are in use. However, you can use them as alt labels for the only wp.
I feel like this is very much a unique situation compounded by US 29 splitting off US 80 in between, so I'm inclined to leave it as-is.
- Are US231, US411 and AL23 wps in Ashville intended? I think so, let me know and I mark it FP.
Yes, this is another crazy situation where the routes follow the long way around the courthouse block. This should be a FP.
- AL176 has two shaping points +x02 and +x03 close together. Is it intended? If so, I can mark it FP.
- Same at AL25 +x25 and +x26, intended?
Yes. In both of these cases, I was trying to avoid the "sharp corner" error due to the switchbacks on both routes (especially 176).
- AL167 wps AL/FL and CR9 seem to be intended too. Mark FP?
Yes. Here, the intersection is not at but is just north of the state line...too far away to consider both one-and-the-same.
[/list]
-
Looking at Tuscaloosa, I am seeing a broken concurrency at the north end of the I-359/US 43/AL 69 due to the point missing from US 43 (which I would relabel as 12thSt).
-
US 43 is not concurrent with I-359. It follows the service roads. This is why I did things the way I did. Though under 1PPI I could arguably truncate 359 to 15th.
-
Yeah I did not think about that, but you are right. One thing to mention about your last update is that an updates entry is needed for the deletion of US 231 BUS in Ozark. I presume that you overlooked it due to updates not being needed for the AL Routes since they are still in preview.
-
I think something weird just happened with AL 41. It looks like the US80_E point got moved causing a weird zigzag through Selma at the northern end. Attaching a screenshot. I think it moved from the green arrow up to the red arrow. So, it shoots up to US 80 going around the north of town and then back down to the next point almost mirroring the business route. I spotted it when I saw our mileage jump on AL 41. We went around Selma on US 80 and not through town which is how I spotted it.
Mike
-
I'm with michih on the 29/80/81 item. The midpoint of the couplet can just be collapsed into a single point with US29_S (that's the one that has the graph connection with AL81 anyway), call it US29/81 maybe, and give it whatever AltLabels it needs.
-
- Are US231, US411 and AL23 wps in Ashville intended? I think so, let me know and I mark it FP.
Yes, this is another crazy situation where the routes follow the long way around the courthouse block. This should be a FP.
- AL176 has two shaping points +x02 and +x03 close together. Is it intended? If so, I can mark it FP.
- Same at AL25 +x25 and +x26, intended?
Yes. In both of these cases, I was trying to avoid the "sharp corner" error due to the switchbacks on both routes (especially 176).
- AL167 wps AL/FL and CR9 seem to be intended too. Mark FP?
Yes. Here, the intersection is not at but is just north of the state line...too far away to consider both one-and-the-same.
NMPs marked FP: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5670/commits/56bee5f8a8e3435d534fbb94b667c407955c1eae
-
US 43 is not concurrent with I-359. It follows the service roads. This is why I did things the way I did. Though under 1PPI I could arguably truncate 359 to 15th.
Should we move beltway 8 off the Sam Houston Tollway in Texas then? ???
-
- Removed BUSINESS 231 in Ozark. 2019 GMSV shows no more signage along 231.
Premature? I drove it last week, and it's still signed in Ozark, although the signage is still missing along US 231.
-
I think something weird just happened with AL 41. It looks like the US80_E point got moved causing a weird zigzag through Selma at the northern end. Attaching a screenshot. I think it moved from the green arrow up to the red arrow. So, it shoots up to US 80 going around the north of town and then back down to the next point almost mirroring the business route. I spotted it when I saw our mileage jump on AL 41. We went around Selma on US 80 and not through town which is how I spotted it.
Mike
I just saw that, too.
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&r=al.al041
Looks like the point was accidentally connected to AL 22 instead of at US 80, as before.
-
- Leaving 80/29/81 as-is. Someone going from SB 81 to WB 80 would not have that "graph connection" to 29.
- Fixed the bad coordinate on 41.
- Clarified the northern endpoint of I-359 as 15th St under 1PPI.
- Signage isn't "missing" on 231 for the Ozark business route. Per an upthread commenter, it has been removed. I interpreted this as the business route no longer exists. As that commenter also noted, remaining signage in Ozark can be explained by the fact that cities in Alabama are not unlike Tennessee (or Mississippi) when it comes to (lack of) removing old/outdated signage.
-
I am linking to this post related to AL 59 here since I think it got lost in the shuffle (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4817.msg26957#msg26957).
-
^ In the queue. I did lose it in the previous shuffle. Not a big enough change to where I feel the need to do more than just update the intersection coordinates.
-
I'll post any further comments I have for Alabama in this post for now. It may be a few days (if not longer) until I finish updating everything in my list file. (I will probably also do a general post for MS later as well, but obviously that is super low priority.)
I-65: I think that 260A should be 261D (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5214563,-86.8260217,3a,75y,199.14h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skBo7jnvMan6t-M9kux79vw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DkBo7jnvMan6t-M9kux79vw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D274.53683%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). Also 260 maybe should be 260B (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5078034,-86.8184487,3a,75y,6.58h,87.2t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skZ6s2MTztuNSK4NHV8vVhg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DkZ6s2MTztuNSK4NHV8vVhg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D169.32744%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).
I-165: I think that US90/98Trk is a better label for the south end than plain US90. I try to avoid using truck labels for the most part (especially with how often truck routes appear and disappear in PA), but using plain US90 here implies to my brain that there is no concurrency with I-165.
I-459: 23 needs to be recentered. (added 4/26/2022)
US 11:
1. BlkWarPkwy>-JoeMalPkwy (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1802514,-87.6114383,3a,37.5y,230.62h,85.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2oGLumQzwd8RrmNQ1g0biA!2e0!5s20190401T000000!7i16384!8i8192). (also affects US 43)
2. AcadDr>-AcaDr. (also affects AL 5)
3. VisLandPkwy>-AlaAvePkwy (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3845042,-86.9823208,3a,15y,243.35h,88.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEDZXKxkGLcmdPHH6Sy1Wng!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (also affects AL 5)
4. CentSt>-CenSt. (also affects US 78)
US 31:
1. I-459(13B)>-I-459. (added 3/31/2022)
2. BroMedCenDr needs to be shortened.
3. The ALT72 labels should be US72Alt instead. (added 6/29/2022)
US 43/AL 69: 9thSt should be StiBlvd (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2055804,-87.5681698,3a,75y,2.82h,93.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7INTcjmQ_C2gyxvYgvSPLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). Could UnivBlvd be shortened to UniBlvd?
US 45:
1. PleAv>-PleAve
2. I-65(8 )>-I-65.
3. BelRd>-UniBlvd (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.7859497,-88.1513553,3a,15y,201.38h,84.06t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smN2ph9zIpSYzLUxKBZMIWg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DmN2ph9zIpSYzLUxKBZMIWg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D353.12286%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).
4. AL17_N>-AL17. (since for TM purposes we are not considering AL 17 as concurrent with US 45)
US 78:
1. Should CR12_W and CR12 be merged into one point? (also affects AL 5)
2. PrattHwy should be PraHwy. (also affects AL 5)
3. 8thAveBir>-8thAve (also affects AL 5)
4. 24thSt>-24thSt_S.
US 82:
1. CR47_Tus>-CR47.
2. CR30_Tus should maybe be RiceMineRd as I did not see any CR 30 shields in the area. I did not look at the other CR 30s.
3. CampusDr>-CamDr.
4. I-59(73)>-I-20/59. (added 3/31/2022)
US 90: I-65(1)>-I-65. (added 4/5/2022)
US 278: I-59(183)>-I-59.
US 280: I-459 (19)>-I-459.
US 431:
1. EBroadSt should at least be shortened.
2. I-59(183)>-I-59.
AL 5:
1. FinBlvd>-AL378.
2. I-22(85)>-I-22 (added 3/31/2022, only one interchange between AL 5 and I-22)
AL 217: HigBlvd>-UniBlvd (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.7637212,-88.1579926,3a,37.5y,355.03h,100t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDVpjZklSjf1HdDJ9S7Uufg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DDVpjZklSjf1HdDJ9S7Uufg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D260.19006%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192).
AL 261: CR17/52/91 needs to be shortened.
AL 269:
1. 5PoiWestAve, NewMulLoopRd, AllShoCreRd, and PumCenCutOffRd should be shortened.
2. AdaEnsRd>-CR65 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5195925,-86.9125401,3a,75y,341.8h,72.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXupNklU8DatUyIoPyrw9Bg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
-
I saw some signs for AL4 in downtown Birmingham this weekend. I'm assuming it's not included in the HB because it's completely concurrent with US11 or US78?
-
AL 66 All good.
AL 67
US72ALT/20_W -> US72Alt/20_W
US72ALT/20_E -> US72Alt/20_E
CR41-> DanRd (Like Madison County, Morgan County rarely posts county roads, most shields do not exist.)
CR35 -> EvaRd
-
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.
-
The US43 labels on AL69 look OK:
If a non-exit-numbered highway is a cross road a third time, a suffixless label is an option. (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#suffixless)
I've not looked into the other comments.
-
AL 83
CR34 -> CR30/34
There are two CRs signed here, as per GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5420206,-86.9862788,3a,75y,53.57h,84.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDyDBWE0Vp7JZDj2FKikqpw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664). The CR30 shield might indicate a nearby CR30.
AL 85 - all good
AL 86
McDRd - needs to be more centered, off by over 1000 feet
AL 87
Recommend adding a waypoint for CR17, so it matches a nearby one for AL 153
Recommend adding a waypoint for CR474, so it matches a nearby one for AL 189
-
What is a "long underscore"?
http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#over2
Suffix with more than 4 characters or exactly 4 characters but the 4th character is not upper-case:
CR1_Bibb -> CR1_Bib
CR55_Dale -> CR55_Dal
The general label truncation rule (http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#truncate) doesn't apply to suffixes.
I didn't saw a comment on this from froggie. Your regions are the only regions with four character label suffixes beside China (not touched for very long time) and Chile.
https://travelmapping.net/devel/datacheck.php?rg=AL,MN,MS,VT&show=LONG_UNDERSCORE
-
AL 88 good; limited signage in GSV
AL 89 good
AL 91 good
AL 92 good
AL 93 good
AL 94 good, no GSV coverage
AL 95 good
AL 96 good
AL 97
- Would recommend a point for CR11 (Burgamy Swamp Road), which intersects AL 97 to the north and south.
- Nearby CR19 doesn't seem to have a sign (however, GSV is 15 years old through there) and only meets 97 at a T-intersection.
AL 99 good
-
While looking for SR 100 shields in Street View though Andalusia, I found some AL 15 shields; normally it's a hidden route number for US 29. This is most certainly the old routing of US 29 through Andalusia.
Posted at Sanford Road (AL 100) on Three Notch Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.3095204,-86.4687389,3a,73.4y,49.86h,80.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssguK9NcLW10mvF_q-ohxrA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Posted on east-facing AL 55 at Stanley Avenue (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2781224,-86.4752376,3a,41.9y,104.48h,86.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO1b5Jpg0oVYNmyoYOoFj0Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Posted on southbound AL 55 (Stanley Road) as a concurrency (?) (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2788542,-86.4739397,3a,39.2y,186.36h,83.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1savzRMufJhMv6_TRV7dY2uA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Stanley Road at Three Notch, with "To US 29" posted alongside, and a AL 15 South shield on the other side of the road. (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.3074846,-86.4708448,3a,75y,350.23h,90.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srVyQK-GRfcrh87Tf--pCpQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
AL 15 posted on US 29 South at US 84 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.3190595,-86.4616335,3a,49.2y,207.47h,92.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spG5HRuTIDAsrbitHF4krOg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
AL 15's beginning at AL 55 from US 29 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2769559,-86.5065376,3a,75y,29.75h,89.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4Cc1aFpR98V-foXEwsOYzg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Sure enough, it's on the ALDOT Covington County Milepost map. (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/MilepostPDF/web/co20mp.pdf)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/2069_22_12_22_11_16_03.png)
Based on this, I presume we shall need an entry for AL 15 (just this part) in the HB.
-
AL 100
Unsigned, no shields on GSV. Posted on official ALDOT maps.
AL 101
US72ALT/20 > US72Alt/20
CR314 is correct in field and Google Maps, incorrect on OSM
AL 102
US43 > US43/171
AL 103 good
AL 104 good
AL 105
CR36 also exists downstream, but paired with CR39. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/31%C2%B027'53.3%22N+85%C2%B036'46.0%22W/@31.4648226,-85.6149537,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0xb1bfdc326b3a3ccc!7e2!8m2!3d31.4648178!4d-85.6127646) Do we use CR36_E since it's posted with directional banners?
-
AL 283: In addition to the segment along Cedar Bluff road, this route is posted concurrently along US 411 North (well really southward and eastward, but ostensibly US411 North) to its intersection with Business 411. GSV confirms what I saw out "in the field" on Wednesday.
https://goo.gl/maps/8R3Yb6qBzcuUgUP8A
https://goo.gl/maps/Ux4Pa7UG8V3dSKLU9
https://goo.gl/maps/W6c7XJo5QgwQve7o6
https://goo.gl/maps/w9BuoA2w5qzzH6So8
-
AL 106: all good
AL 107: all good
AL 108: Not sure of the "22". It's Exit 15 on I-85 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3662594,-86.0904312,3a,75y,79.88h,95.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1pzh_nLj_KD0GnkbLNOKmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), and there is no exit number from AL 108 to I-85. Propose just changing it to "I-85"?
AL 109: all good
AL 110: all good
AL 111: South end appears to no longer end at AL 212, but at AL 14 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5534603,-86.2159922,3a,75y,67.28h,85.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-wQPEZh_cQSr-yFsLVg5xQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu); ALDOT Milepost maps confirm this. (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/MilepostPDF/web/co26mp.pdf) There is a straggler Mile Marker 1 on the deprecated section near 212, but the presence of "To 111" shields on AL 212 seem to be a good enough reason to truncate the route. (Looks like the change was as of March 1st, 2021.)
Truck AL 111: all good; despite an incorrect Truck banner on US 231... (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5495428,-86.1917119,3a,48y,96.06h,86.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slton8EShDhDFLrucGjF7Ww!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dlton8EShDhDFLrucGjF7Ww%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D119.87695%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) :P
Side note...I have to check out the Bibb Graves Bridge (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5388168,-86.2077469,3a,75y,118.96h,87.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9t3ZS4sUsUsZBPLOV8sQjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) near AL 212 in Wetumpka one day, looks neat. Just a guess that the low-ish clearance is why it's not part of SR 212.
-
AL 85's north endpoint, AL 248's east endpoint, and AL 249's south endpoint should be changed from FortRuc to FortNov, now that the fort has been renamed.
-
This is to set a reminder that Alabama SR 304 is now somewhat signed over a short distance of Huntsville–Browns Ferry Road from US 31 to a point near Bucee's at I-65. Will check it out on Friday.
However, it does not yet show on the ALDOT Milepost maps for Limestone County (https://aldotgis.dot.state.al.us/MilepostPDF/web/co42mp.pdf), nor the 2023 state highway map (https://www.dot.state.al.us/maps.html) (insets, main map, exit listings).
Edit: It's signed briefly from the I-65 exit ramps and a short snip of the route itself.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53399854020_d3f8c6060b_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pmLdbh)
No shields present on nor from US 31 towards I-65, though it is still under construction.
-
AL 108: Not sure of the "22". It's Exit 15 on I-85 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3662594,-86.0904312,3a,75y,79.88h,95.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1pzh_nLj_KD0GnkbLNOKmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), and there is no exit number from AL 108 to I-85. Propose just changing it to "I-85"?
I went down AL 108 last week. The "22" is the exit number marked souithbound, which I assume is the future exit number if and when they build the entire southern bypass and reroute I-85.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3460421,-86.0646975,3a,75y,197.22h,96.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQafs7Gx7dCyLNdQAqCxFoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
-
Just drove through Eutaw recently, and I think the routing for AL14 differs than what we currently have. Signage going eastbound on AL14 takes you down Mesopotamia St all the way to Wilson St (https://maps.app.goo.gl/v58QXTY7iVm6WzbF6), then Wilson to Boligee/US11 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/W8MsaNBenEeqCDYJ7). Westbound AL14, shows the similar turns with these two signs (US11 to Wilson) (https://maps.app.goo.gl/xgk5X2y4aS9aSiWr6) (Wilson to Mesopotamia) (https://maps.app.goo.gl/AWv8uZLyA2yuxYdE6).
There are signs on Tuscaloosa St/US11/US43 (sign here and in background) (https://maps.app.goo.gl/XtpyLp8dY9zA2ZA9A) that point to AL14 going down Tuscaloosa St, but these seems more like an implied "TO" shields, instead of having to turn 3 times quickly to go down AL14 west.
-
In Greenville, AL on AL245, AL Truck 10 and AL Truck 185 are co-signed for the entire length of AL245. AL Truck 10 has an end sign on the east end at the intersection with AL10. AL Truck 185 has a left turn sign there and a right turn sign at US31. There is an end AL Truck 185 at the intersection of AL185 south of Greenville.
Don't know if these are allowed for inclusion under the TM rules, but wanted to report what I saw in the field.
-
In Greenville, AL on AL245, AL Truck 10 and AL Truck 185 are co-signed for the entire length of AL245. AL Truck 10 has an end sign on the east end at the intersection with AL10. AL Truck 185 has a left turn sign there and a right turn sign at US31. There is an end AL Truck 185 at the intersection of AL185 south of Greenville.
Don't know if these are allowed for inclusion under the TM rules, but wanted to report what I saw in the field.
AL Truck 10 starts at AL 10's interchange with I-65 and runs concurrent with the interstate to AL 185. It's signed at the interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.823017,-86.6650268,3a,47.4y,98.25h,87.58t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sv8Fxkodt_TX7YlX9x42wAg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dv8Fxkodt_TX7YlX9x42wAg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D98.25053344560288%26pitch%3D2.421778274008787%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu) but I don't see any signs on I-65, until you get to exit 130. (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.8479351,-86.6445166,3a,75y,89.17h,91.47t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slT2bE5YjXGXCrV3rkcdT9g!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DlT2bE5YjXGXCrV3rkcdT9g%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D89.16819624102028%26pitch%3D-1.4683202370855213%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu)
-
One broken concurrency found: AL41 and AL21BusMon in Monroeville are not concurrent. AL41 has a point for Drewry Road (which looks about a block off); AL21Bus does not.
-
It looks like we have the usasf problem for AL 158. Since AL 158 should probably not be in usasf now, I propose it being removed so that AL 158 (and its new extension) show up in usaal.
-
The system has been in preview for almost 6 years. I'd think if there were major problems that need to be addressed before activation we'd have found them by now. It's not like this is some obscure system where no users have travels and there are limited resources to figure out routes.
If I don't hear major objections with good reasons we should wait, I plan to go ahead and activate it this weekend.
-
Froggie has done a wonderful job and most of my finds are minor nitpicks, to be honest. I think the only route completely missing is AL 15 in Andalusia, which I found around December 2022.
(Oh, and 304 from US 31 to Limestone CR 24 which has more signage now.)
No objections, but I apologize for delays in peer review. I've bitten off more than I can chew.
-
What's left? I might be able to check remaining routes next week.
-
The system has been in preview for almost 6 years. I'd think if there were major problems that need to be addressed before activation we'd have found them by now. It's not like this is some obscure system where no users have travels and there are limited resources to figure out routes.
If I don't hear major objections with good reasons we should wait, I plan to go ahead and activate it this weekend.
Give me a chance to go through what's been provided so far with peer review, at least. Not all the routes have been reviewed. If mapcat has time, he can continue on along the list from where formulaone left off (upthread).
-
AL-69: missing intersection needed for CR-222 that connects to I-65 Exit 305. That exit also needs to be added to I-65.
https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5799.0
-
Sure - let's see if some of the key things can be addressed so we can get this active.
I don't want it to be seen as a criticism of anyone involved. We all have different amounts of time that can be devoted to the project and that time isn't always spread out evenly.
-
AL 113-125 review
AL 113, 115, 116, 117, 120, 122, 124, 125 all fine
AL 114
MagSt -> CR11 (since the set seems to default to CR's when they're marked)
AL 118
Extend to MS via US 278 (it is signed, though not everywhere)
Exit53Con -> ?? There doesn't seem to be a name for that road; would I-22(53) be allowed/more intuitive since the point is at a junction with a short road connecting to the exit?
GamRd -> GamRd_S
AL 119
KentDaiRd -> CR26_W
CR44Al -> 2ndPl (no CR shown in GMSV)
CR68Al -> CR68
CahValTra -> CR14
ZieRd -> ZeiRd
AL 123
Point at AL 167 is too far south
CR14 -> KingSt (or move to CR31 one block west if a CR label is more desirable)
CR36 -> RoyParRd
-
AL 126-150 review
AL 128, 130, 131, 136, 138, 140, 141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 150 all fine
AL 126
PikeRd -> CR64/85
WarFerRd -> CR64
a shaping point on I-85 near the above two points would keep the lines from overlapping there
AL 127
UppFortHamRd -> MorRd (or UppFHRd)
AL 129
CR49 -> CR49_S
CR99 -> ForRd
OldDelRd -> SamLetRd or 6thAve to agree with signs
There's a connector between AL 129 and AL 241 signed as AL 129 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1282987,-87.7391519,3a,75y,118.38h,83.56t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7qmTuYdXbKaP_SKRE1bkmg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.441176844069346%26panoid%3D7qmTuYdXbKaP_SKRE1bkmg%26yaw%3D118.37959585081563!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D). May or may not be worth including as another route, but either way it deserves a point on both 129 and 241.
AL 132
TaiGapLp -> CR20
AL 133
US72ALT/20 -> US72Alt/20
WilDamRd -> CR40
CoxCrePkwy -> CoxCrePkwy_S
AL20 -> AL20_N
AL 134
NewGateRd -> HanFieRd
CR87 -> CR87_S
CR1 -> CR1_Hen
MainSt -> MainSt_S
AL173 -> AL173_N
AL 137
the intersection with US 29 has been realigned slightly to the south
AL 139
CR2 -> CR2_W
AL 143
AL14_E point is off center
CR262 -> ColdSprRd
CR20 -> CR20_E
AL 147
FarRd -> CR72 (and needs slight recentering)
StoRd -> CR95
CR21 -> MadRd
AL 148
The point labeled FR603 doesn't have any signage and that name isn't on any maps I could find. It's not in a particularly important spot. If something is needed between the two adjacent points, there's another unimportant (but signed) road to the east (FR675 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1708919,-86.1747635,3a,16y,150.58h,87.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saY-zc8ut4MPvoD2FIbMjig!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.8973243821888417%26panoid%3DaY-zc8ut4MPvoD2FIbMjig%26yaw%3D150.5791758938553!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)) or a more important intersection/trailhead at Bulls Gap Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.195602,-86.0637726,3a,60.6y,313.45h,81.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNAnW-yDQkSUBeJZzJLR_Aw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D8.066317868674162%26panoid%3DNAnW-yDQkSUBeJZzJLR_Aw%26yaw%3D313.449388702333!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D).
AL 149
Mile markers increase from northeast to southwest, but it might be worthwhile to flip it.
Lakeshore Pkwy is the name of AL 149, so instead of using LakPkwy at the end, change it to End or HomLim (since it's at the Homewood city limits)
GreSprHwy -> CR99
Consider adding a point at the entrance to Samford University
-
Exit53Con -> ?? There doesn't seem to be a name for that road; would I-22(53) be allowed/more intuitive since the point is at a junction with a short road connecting to the exit?
Supposedly it's part of AL-102, however, unsigned, since the connection to the main part of the route isn't built.
-
AL 126
PikeRd -> CR64/85
WarFerRd -> CR64
a shaping point on I-85 near the above two points would keep the lines from overlapping there
In addition for AL-126:
What's up with the 'spur' end of 'AtlHwy'? Don't think that's necessary, as no signage there confirms that it's part of AL-126.
AL-110:
Should connect up to I-85 Exit 11 & have a short multiplex with AL-126. WB I-85 ramp (https://maps.app.goo.gl/kw9JLh7xzhAXySRM8) EB I-85 ramp (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Z2Caa7kKjDLFLmzQ9)
Add a point @ Eastchase Parkway, since there's a loop there for I-85/AL-126 traffic due to the no left turns right below the I-85 interchange (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Uk3SUSA4ZcKRbqhE7).
-
In addition for AL-126:
What's up with the 'spur' end of 'AtlHwy'? Don't think that's necessary, as no signage there confirms that it's part of AL-126.
The route drafted matches the route defined by ALDOT. I have no opinion on keeping or deleting the short segment.
-
AL 118
Extend to MS via US 278 (it is signed, though not everywhere)
It's signed along the concurrency west of Guin?
-
At the state line (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8857446,-88.2287916,3a,75y,96.02h,81.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sn5F2R0HV5_AW_nD2qH-j_w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D8.23455365941797%26panoid%3Dn5F2R0HV5_AW_nD2qH-j_w%26yaw%3D96.01673732737498!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)
In Sulligent (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9008807,-88.1338636,3a,43y,74.02h,91.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suSK1VuD_17T214zP67vqnQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-1.8919594234433248%26panoid%3DuSK1VuD_17T214zP67vqnQ%26yaw%3D74.01683195536395!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)
In Beaverton (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9313034,-88.0204886,3a,75y,44.17h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sA8mKmVVtauKJtNjdg6rHQw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0%26panoid%3DA8mKmVVtauKJtNjdg6rHQw%26yaw%3D44.174786!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)
I mean, these weren't hard to find...
-
AL 151-175 review
AL 151, 152 (in usansf), 156, 159, 161, 162, 164, 166, 168, 169, 173, 175 all fine
AL 153
CR 10 -> CR10_W
AL 154
BruRd unsigned, could be turned into shaping point
ReeBraRd -> ReeHillRd
CR44 -> TalSprRd_W
AL 155
CR91 -> CR 46
AL 157
WilDamRd -> CR40
US72ALT_W & _E -> US72Alt_W & _E
CR41 -> DanRd
CR35 -> EveRd
EvaRd -> CR1435
AL 158 (in usansf)
WilRd -> JonRd
WilGeoRd -> CR63
ColPkwy -> CR55
AL 160
CR37 -> CR11/37
AL 163
CedPoiRd -> DauIslPkwy_S
+x01 -> CedPoiRd (this suburban segment is very long)
AL 165
CR43 -> SawRd
101stAirDivRd -> 101stAirRd
AL 167
AL 123 point is too far south
DauSt -> DauStExt (Dauphin St intersects 167 at another location)
split CR114/239 into separate points or choose one
Recenter AL87_S
AL 170
CR213 -> WilRd
AL 171
RoseBlvdCon -> ShaRd
CR23 -> MtOliRd
CR12 -> CR12_E
BypRd -> ? It's unsigned, and has no addresses. Fayette County GIS calls it "US 43 Bypass" while Marion County GIS calls it "Winfield Bypass". CR54 is practically across the street, so that could be used instead of this dead-end road ("Bypass" appears to be wishful thinking).
CR35_Ham -> CR35_Mar (it's in Marion County, not Hamilton County)
AL 172
CR31 -> HinRd
CR45 -> TesRd
AL174
CR16 -> BlaFarmRd
Also, there are truck routes for AL 28 and AL 41 around Camden in case they weren't mentioned upthread.
-
AL 176-199 review
AL 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 196, 198, 199 all fine
AL 181
SheHigRd -> CR24
AL 182
StaParkRd2 -> CamRd per Gulf State Park map
some more points at beaches may be helpful
AL 183
NorSt -> CR12
CR33 -> CR20 (change on AL 5 too)
MatMooRd -> CroRd (that's the road that's signed there)
AL 184
CR48 -> CouLineRd
Truck 185 exists, as well as Truck 10 (both follow AL 245)
AL 188
W end is at the End State Maintenance sign (next to the Waffle House) per the ALDOT county map, but signage at I-10 does not mention that segment
move CR19 to center of roundabout
CR23 -> PadSwiRd
AL 193
CR22 -> CR 20
LauRd -> LauRd_W
N end is at End State Maintenance sign (Hermitage Rd) per county map, but like AL 188, the signs stop where the point currently exists
AL 195
CR25 -> RoseHillRd
CR23 -> CR3434
-
I've begun doing peer review edits, going back to the first batch that formulaone began 5 years ago. For this first round (pull request submitted just now), I've gotten through about halfway on page 9 of this thread. A handful of things I'd like to point out in response to some of the peer review suggestions:
- AL 15 is now signed through Andalusia (confirmed via recent GMSV) where it is not concurrent with US 29 (AL 15 is primarily the hidden state route for US 29). So I've added the standalone portion through Andalusia. No AL 100 shields yet.
- GMSV shows a single AL 300 reassurance shield departing from US 11/43. Given precedent, I've added AL 300 to the system.
- Per ALDOT milepost data, mainline AL 22 was realigned in Maplesville onto the former TRUCK AL 22. So the latter route is now removed.
- The *OldAL24Red point on AL 24 is because that's where the four lane ended for many years and old AL 24 contined into Red Bay proper. It's intended for those users (like me) who traveled AL 24 before the Red Bay bypass was built. Utilizing such points where alignments change after the route list is originally made is a long-standing policy and the asterisk is meant to highlight those "change" points.
- Some of the points I chose (like CR44 on AL 35 or CR265 on AL 51) are intended as shaping points, but following another long-standing policy of using active points instead of hidden shaping points where feasible.
- The AL 48/GA 5 border point is in the correct location, per field review and GMSV. It's the map companies that show the state border as slightly off its actual location. There may be a few others like this.
- A false positive will be needed on AL 50 at "Old280Rd". That's the actual name of that road per street blades.
- I don't remember if it had been requested or not, but UseSt on AL 52 (and US84BusDot too) is a waypoint in use. Presumably as a connection to Range St (which underpasses AL 52/BUS 84). As it's an in-use waypoint, I'm not removing it. That said, the Range St point is indeed useless and not being used so I'm removing that.
-
Second round of peer review edits has been submitted. Have gotten up to AL 133 now, so into mapcat's comments. Some specific responses, primarily for F-1 and/or Mapcat since they provided the majority of peer review comments:
- It was suggested to add Truck US 98 to the US 90 label at I-165's endpoint. I opted not to because I already have 2 hidden labels in use at that point and I am loathe to add a third.
- Leaving 5thSt on US 43/AL 69 as-is because the road is signposted as such on both sides of 43/69 and is a point-in-use.
- I have not included AL 4 because signage is somewhat inconsistent and it's completely concurrent with US routes or I-22. If there was a clear segment that it was consistently signed along, I'd be open to include it given precedent next door in Georgia.
- Since F-1 brought it up, same deal with AL 74's concurrency along US 278. It does appear that there is signage along the 278/74 concurrency now. Does that signage go all the way to the Georgia line? Doing a quick GMSV check, 74 appears to be signed as far as Double Springs but not in Cullman.
- McDRd on AL 86 is actually in the correct spot. If you look at satellite imagery, the road was relocated to the west of the creek.
- On AL 105 near Ozark, the existing CR36 point is primarily for shaping purposes, but following the aforementioned policy of using waypoints where feasible. I don't see a need for that CR 36/39 point at the present so a directional suffix isn't required.
- I'm a little confused about AL 304. Project information I've found suggests it's supposed to run between US 31 and I-65, but the reassurance shield photo F-1 posted upthread is east of I-65. How far east is it supposed to go?
- RE: AL 14 in Eutaw. What we have in the browser is correct as of 2014, but it does appear that sometime after I created the lists, ALDOT rerouted AL 14 to follow the route as described by vespertine. I've fixed this, though in the process I also had to tweak US 11 around the county courthouse. I'll need to keep more existing points than I'd like to b/c they're in use and at least one user list will be broken on AL 14 but it can't be helped.
- Added TRUCK AL 10 and TRUCK AL 185 (both in Greenville).
- Extended AL 118 west concurrent with US 278 per signage as reported by mapcat.
- Mapcat mentions a small stub off of AL 129 connecting to AL 241, which is also signed as vanilla AL 129. It's intended as the connection between 278 West and 129 North. I'm not sure how (or if at all) to incorporate it.
-
- Mapcat mentions a small stub off of AL 129 connecting to AL 241, which is also signed as vanilla AL 129. It's intended as the connection between 278 West and 129 North. I'm not sure how (or if at all) to incorporate it.
'Named' segment of AL-129?
Did something similar to that with FL-295.
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&r=fl.fl295&lat=30.425826&lon=-87.272998&zoom=16
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&r=fl.fl295wpe&lat=30.425826&lon=-87.272998&zoom=16
-
Just gonna throw this in here, a few AL threads in the main area that should also be addressed so they can be finally marked as solved.
AL 4 signage (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5466.0)
AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*" (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3475.msg20781#msg20781)
AL: I-85 southern end now has an exit number (0) (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5801.0)
-
^ I have deleted the two that have already been addressed.
-
Just gonna throw this in here, a few AL threads in the main area that should also be addressed so they can be finally marked as solved.
AL 4 signage (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5466.0)
AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*" (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3475.msg20781#msg20781)
AL: I-85 southern end now has an exit number (0) (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5801.0)
^ I have deleted the two that have already been addressed.
None of them is "marked solved" though.
-
Just gonna throw this in here, a few AL threads in the main area that should also be addressed so they can be finally marked as solved.
AL 4 signage (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5466.0)
AL: US98/US90 incorrectly formatted waypoint labels "I10*" (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3475.msg20781#msg20781)
AL: I-85 southern end now has an exit number (0) (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=5801.0)
^ I have deleted the two that have already been addressed.
None of them is "marked solved" though.
These are the 2 he removed:
https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4307.0
https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=6447.0
-
AL 201-225 review
AL 201, 202, 207, 208, 211, 213, 221, 225 all fine
AL 204
ReeMillRd -> ReaMillRd
AL 205
OldGunGadRd -> OldGunRd (per signs)
PhiDr -> BeuCutRd
MainSt -> MainSt_E
SolRd -> RabTownRd (the only road with a sign)
OneCutOffRd -> OneCutRd
PleGroRd -> PleGroRd_S
AL 210
FortSt -> ForSt
There's a Truck 52 following AL 210 on the south loop
AL 212
AL111 -> BriSt_E
remove segment east of that point
AL 215
35thSt -> 10thAve (35th has a new name, if you like that better) (it's long)
15thSt -> 15thSt_W
AL 216
KeeMillRd -> CR32
BraSt -> CR93
RocBraRd -> CR109
ALJctRd -> AlaJctRd
AL 217
HigBlvd -> UniBlvd
NewRd -> CR31
AL 219
SheHugRd -> SheHueyRd
BarRd -> BarCemRd (per sign)
AL 223
CR8 -> CR8_W
CR22 -> CR22_W
I'll try to finish the rest this weekend.
-
AL 227-269 review (won't get the rest until tomorrow)
AL 229, 233, 237, 247, 253, 259, 261, 263 all fine
AL 227
DuckSprRd -> Eto/Dek
AubCarrSceDr -> LakeGunSP
AL 235
ForHillDr -> ForHilDr
CR203 -> PlaRd
AL 239
MidSt -> MidSt_S
CR31_Bar -> CR31 (see below)
CR14_E -> CR35
CR14_W -> CR14
CR31_Bul -> CR31_E (CR31 continues west on Daniel Rd)
AL 241
add a point for the short AL 129 connector if you don't draft a file for it
AL 243
CR69 is unsigned, and has no name in the ALDOT GIS (or in the low-functionality county GIS), but CR6 is the next road north and it is signed
AL 245
ConSt -> CR45
NewSeaRd -> CR41 (same for Truck 10 and Truck 185)
AL 248
East end is probably okay (ALDOT GIS agrees it's at the gate, but the mileage figure on county map places it inside Fort Novosel at the Red Cloud Rd/Andrews Ave split)
AL 249
Signage places the north end at Enterprise Rd, so it should have a short concurrency with AL 27
AL 251
LinLn -> CR63 (and recenter in the roundabout)
CR109 -> LimRd
CR96 -> WooSprRd
CR103 -> GatRd
AL 255 (in usansf)
add point for Mid City Way north of Bradford Dr (separate ramp)
AL 257
CR41 -> BurAcrRd
extend north end to Marina Dr per ALDOT GIS and county map (N end of Duncan Bridge)
AL 265
AL56 -> CR56
AL 269
NewMulLoopRd -> NewMulLp
AllShoCreRd -> ShoCreRd (per signage)
PumCenRd -> CR61
CR61 -> CorGorRd
-
AL 271-759 review
AL 273, 279, 289, 291, 293, 295, 297, 300, 301, 302, 378, 382, 759 (in usansf) all fine
AL 271
TayRd -> UniCt and recenter point on intersection
AL 277
CR96 is now barricaded, so switch to CR579 or the entrance to the Google facility.
AL 281
CheStaPark -> CheSP
CR24Con -> CR24
FR500 -> CR500
AL 283
CR22_Che -> CR22
US 411/Business 411 in Centre are signed Truck 411/US 411. Some of each are unbannered but I never saw a Business sign.
AL 285
Technically it's not in the state system within the park, but it's signed as if it is so I agree with how it's drafted.
AL 287
Signs north of I-65 in both directions show it ending/CR 47 beginning roughly 1/4 mile north of the interchange.
AL 605
AL605_S & _N -> US231_S & _N
Review complete.
-
US 411/Business 411 in Centre are signed Truck 411/US 411. Some of each are unbannered but I never saw a Business sign.
https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=6447.0
-
Submitted my next batch of edits, up through AL 182 (and not AL 172 as I mistakenly put in the pull request). Some specific comments/responses:
- Left CR21 on AL 147 as-is because that is the road name AFAICT. It doesn't help that there are no shields or streetblades on the AL 147 side but there is a CR 21 shield on the Waverly end.
- On AL 148, the reason for the FR603 point is to break up a 10+ mile segment with a minimum of intervening shaping points, because of the winding nature of 148 through Talladega National Forest. FR603 appears on ALDOT's Talladega County map for the road south of 148, so given the lack of signage at the intersection (not uncommon for parts of rural Alabama), I used that designation.
- The reason I have AL 110 end at AL 126 and not I-85 is because that's its endpoint per ALDOT Milepost Maps. Yes, AL 110 is signed off of I-85 but that's probably to reduce driver confusion. Worth noting that both Atlanta Hwy and the "southern leg" of AL 126 were US 80 prior to 2010 so that played a factor as well. When US 80 was relocated onto I-85 that year, AL 126 took over instead of AL 110.
- On AL 154, leaving CR44 as-is because there's a CR44 reassurance shield just west of the intersection.
- On AL 171, instead of Shamblin Rd, I'm using Shamblin Cutoff as that's what the road is signed as on Rose Blvd and I intended this point as the connection between AL 171 and Rose Blvd.
- Added TRUCK AL 28 and TRUCK AL 41, both in Camden.
-
The final round has been submitted. Once that's ingested, I don't see anything else preventing us from activating usaal.
- Added TRUCK AL 52 Dothan.
- ALDOT defines the western terminus of AL 188 as being 0.126 miles north of the I-10 centerline, or at the northern edge of the I-10 interchange right-of-way. This technically puts it just south of the entrance to TA. Between it officially being within the interchange footprint, plus signage showing AL 188 south and CR 11 north, I've opted to keep it simple and leave the waypoint at I-10. Similar definitions exist for AL 193 and a handful of state routes that end along I-85.
- On AL 195, leaving CR23 as-is as that's what it's signed as from AL 195 and is also labeled as such on the Winston County map.
- Per ALDOT's Dale County Milepost Map, when AL 27 was relocated off of Enterprise Rd, AL 249 was truncated to US 231. My guess is the signage just hasn't been "collected" yet.
- The north end of AL 271 is the way it is because it's not actually at the University Court intersection. It's defined as 0.5mi N of the I-85 centerline, which puts it where signage and the pavement change show...just south of University Court.
- On AL 283, CR22_Cen is labeled as-is to match the US 411 list...there are multiple CR22 points on US 411.
- AL 287's northern end is another of those cases where, when a state route ends at an interstate, the route technically ends at the far edge of the Interstate right-of-way. I've generally used the "1PPI" principle in these cases.
- Mentioned upthread and in another thread, but given the inconsistent signage of TRUCK US 411 vs. vanilla US 411 in Centre, and in an effort to avoid having to break lists as much as I can, I'm leaving things in Centre as-is. ALDOT's Milepost maps, while updated regularly, are generally useless when it comes to US routes because they use the underlying state route. ALDOT's Cherokee County map clearly shows BUS US 411 and vanilla US 411, but hasn't been updated in 15 years. When/if ALDOT submits a request to AASHTO to realign US 411 through Centre versus around it, I'll re-review things.
-
Just wanna mention these here too, but there's a few datacheck errors on the US highways in AL still that need to be addressed on the currently active data:
al.us029 CR25_Rome LONG_UNDERSCORE This is always a true error and cannot be marked false positive.
al.us031 CarBlvd VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC al.us280@+CarrBlvd al.us031;CarBlvd;;;VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC;al.us280@+CarrBlvd
al.us084 CR13_Avon LONG_UNDERSCORE This is always a true error and cannot be marked false positive.
al.us084 CR31_Dale LONG_UNDERSCORE This is always a true error and cannot be marked false positive.
al.us280 5th/6thAve VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC al.us031@+5th/6thAve al.us280;5th/6thAve;;;VISIBLE_HIDDEN_COLOC;al.us031@+5th/6thAve
And here's the ones in the usaal system:
al.al025 CR16_Bibb LONG_UNDERSCORE This is always a true error and cannot be marked false positive.
al.al025 CR16_Hale LONG_UNDERSCORE This is always a true error and cannot be marked false positive.
al.al025 CR49_Hale LONG_UNDERSCORE This is always a true error and cannot be marked false positive.
al.al050 Old280Rd LACKS_GENERIC al.al050;Old280Rd;;;LACKS_GENERIC;
al.al069 +x19 HIDDEN_JUNCTION 3 al.al069;+x19;;;HIDDEN_JUNCTION;3
al.al069 CR222 DUPLICATE_LABEL This is always a true error and cannot be marked false positive.
al.al106 CR1/106 LABEL_SELFREF NO_COLOC al.al106;CR1/106;;;LABEL_SELFREF;NO_COLOC
al.al110 CR2,CR7_N VISIBLE_DISTANCE 10.65 al.al110;CR2;CR7_N;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.65
al.al126 AL126 LABEL_SELFREF NO_SUFFIX al.al126;AL126;;;LABEL_SELFREF;NO_SUFFIX
al.al126 AL126,AL126_E DUPLICATE_COORDS (32.369817,-86.13948) al.al126;AL126;AL126_E;;DUPLICATE_COORDS;(32.369817,-86.13948)
al.al210 US431_S,US231_S DUPLICATE_COORDS (31.190575,-85.401567) al.al210;US431_S;US231_S;;DUPLICATE_COORDS;(31.190575,-85.401567)
The only one in the usaal system that doesn't need to be addressed, is the one on AL-110, as that one automatically disappears when a system is activated.
-
^ Several of those are False Positives:
- US 31 and US 280 are false positives due to the way ramps are situated along Red Mountain Expressway, as discusssed in a long ago thread. (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4238.0)
- AL 50 is a false positve, as I noted upthread a few days ago.
- I'm not sure why it's giving a "hidden junction" error on a shaping point on AL 69. It's just a shaping point. Though in trying to figure that out, I did find and fix a broken concurrency with US 43.
- AL 126 items are false positives due to the nature of how the route exists (which IMO shouldn't have been done that way but ALDOT's gonna ALDOT).
- AL 210 is a false positive due to being a full loop.
I have fixed the remainder and submitted a pull request.
-
Thanks - I'm running a site update now with these changes merged in.
-
^ Several of those are False Positives:
Then make sure to add the FPs here in the place where 'al' would go alphabetically. :)
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/datacheckfps.csv
-
^ Several of those are False Positives:
Then make sure to add the FPs here in the place where 'al' would go alphabetically. :)
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/datacheckfps.csv
I’m not familiar with the particulars of updating that plus I’m now at work so if someone else could take care of that it eould be appreciated.
-
I got them. (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7718)
-
There are still NMPs: https://courses.teresco.org/metal/hdx/?load=al.nmp
One seems to be a FP, the other one needs to fixed.
-
- I'm a little confused about AL 304. Project information I've found suggests it's supposed to run between US 31 and I-65, but the reassurance shield photo F-1 posted upthread is east of I-65. How far east is it supposed to go?
I'm guessing 304 extends to Lindsey Lane, picking up the traffic exiting Buc-ee's. Since there's a single Limestone County Road 24 shield east of this intersection, I'm guessing it ends there, and not at I-65, since the ramps show east/west signage. Odd for ALDOT to have reassurance signage and then another shield with an End banner just 100 yards away from it. But they are pretty good about marking route ends, though not always exactly at its intersection.
There wasn't a sign for 304 at US 31 as of a few months ago, but it's still under construction.
Unfortunately, ALDOT milepost maps and the state highway map do not yet show 304, so I'd leave it off until there's something more official than a contract from a few years prior.
-
- I'm a little confused about AL 304. Project information I've found suggests it's supposed to run between US 31 and I-65, but the reassurance shield photo F-1 posted upthread is east of I-65. How far east is it supposed to go?
I'm guessing 304 extends to Lindsey Lane, picking up the traffic exiting Buc-ee's. Since there's a single Limestone County Road 24 shield east of this intersection, I'm guessing it ends there, and not at I-65, since the ramps show east/west signage. Odd for ALDOT to have reassurance signage and then another shield with an End banner just 100 yards away from it. But they are pretty good about marking route ends, though not always exactly at its intersection.
There wasn't a sign for 304 at US 31 as of a few months ago, but it's still under construction.
Unfortunately, ALDOT milepost maps and the state highway map do not yet show 304, so I'd leave it off until there's something more official than a contract from a few years prior.
So, GSV was there in May/June '24.
Signage says CR only goes to the east of the intersection with Lindsay Ln. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/dUaNWscNKP9YSJXt6)
And here's the infamous 'END' shield. (https://maps.app.goo.gl/61wBpwPLzhqeVFqh7)
Interesting enough, it was only signed from the NB off-ramp. SB off-ramp had no AL-304 signage.
Oh, and I did also find this: https://whnt.com/news/huntsville/expect-delays-this-week-on-alabama-highway-304/
-
The connections between US 29, US 80, and AL 81 is a little uneven at the town square in Tuskegee. Usually, those just get straightened out, right?
There's points AL 81_N and AL 81_S on US80, but AL 81 just pierces the town square without the additional points. (US 29 only has the AL81_N point because of its concurrency with US 80.)
-
There are still NMPs: https://courses.teresco.org/metal/hdx/?load=al.nmp
One seems to be a FP, the other one needs to fixed.
US 278/AL 241 is a FP. I'll get to the other one when I get an opportunity...I'm on a plane lunchtime Wednesday so that's the focus of my time.
The connections between US 29, US 80, and AL 81 is a little uneven at the town square in Tuskegee. Usually, those just get straightened out, right?
There's points AL 81_N and AL 81_S on US80, but AL 81 just pierces the town square without the additional points. (US 29 only has the AL81_N point because of its concurrency with US 80.)
It is explained upthread (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2601.msg27197#msg27197) why I did things the way I did and why I do not intend to change it.
-
Whoops, missed that one.
There's also another AL 304 "To US 31" guide sign (facing westbound) at I-65, as of yesterday.
-
Good to activate now? Looks like it's been a few months since anyone has reported any further issues that should be addressed.
-
Froggie said he took care of everything. No remaining datacheck errors.
-
Still open:
There are still NMPs: https://courses.teresco.org/metal/hdx/?load=al.nmp
One seems to be a FP, the other one needs to be fixed.
-
Is all of Alabama now "active?" The mileage table says it is, but the "Highway System Status Changes" table, over on the 'Update page,' doesn't have a listing for 'Bama yet.
-
It is active. However, Jim made a copy-paste-error:
2018-12-05;(USA) Alabama;usaal;Alabama State Highways;active
Will be 2024 - and thus on the update tabel - after the next site update: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7974
-
Still open:
There are still NMPs: https://courses.teresco.org/metal/hdx/?load=al.nmp
One seems to be a FP, the other one needs to be fixed.
FP done: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7975
Sync open: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=6613
-
@michih thanks for the date fix.
I believe that should be it for this thread. Discussion going forward about usaal should be in separate threads by issue in the "Updates to Highway Data" section.
Thanks to everyone who helped draft and review this system, especially to @froggie for taking the lead and seeing it through.
And then there was one.
-
Shouldn't the AL usansf routes have been moved to usaal?