Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: Markkos1992 on May 16, 2021, 07:34:59 pm
-
Personally, I am having a hard time justifying myself that this route should be shown in the HB north of US 30.
While the SLDs and other sources agree with this, it still feels like that endpoint is still practically within the intersection. (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.6978069,-74.8444537,3a,75y,75.29h,95.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smS7rtXHd9yHJBkDRhL_J7Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (making this like MD 175 (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&u=markkos1992&r=md.md175) to me) (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3412.0)
The difference with PA 184's dangling end (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4158.0) is this segment marker exists (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4579475,-77.1293191,3a,15y,350.22h,86.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slMiX3zU1Cn7Exr-gKi5ckw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
I guess this is what happens when I go clinch a route I did not notice while planning my clinch of US 30 in NJ yesterday.
-
I'll second that the route probably should end @ US-30.
No field evidence that it goes beyond US-30. Streetblade on US-30 shows CR-716 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/mAhUHUWvAWAmfBxWA).
-
Agreed; it's similar to MD175.
Also reminds me of several Nebraska Links/Spurs that technically extend a bit beyond the intersections, a bit of a wide spot in the road / end of pavement kinda deal. Those stayed no-build, ending at the relevant interchange / intersection.
Looks like the designation includes the bits that were newly (https://historicaerials.com/location/39.697696/-74.844674/1951/17) constructed (https://historicaerials.com/location/39.697696/-74.844674/1957/17) back in the day, and has stayed the same ever since, NJDOT never bothering to relinquish / download / $terminoligy that last little bit.
Looks like an oddity of One Point Per Intersection, and I can get behind changing this.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7990
Forgoing an updates entry here, as it's more or less a different representation of the same junction.
I'll use that as justification as writing the update text would be an awkward PitA otherwise. ;)
If there are strong objections, I'm open to suggestion.
I'm not sold on the LWS justifying a counterexample for PA184, but that's outside the scope of this thread, and not my call to make. :)