Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
2
Updates to Highway Data / Re: OH: OH 28 Point Concern
« Last post by osu-lsu on Today at 08:14:54 pm »
I understood that part.  I was thinking in my head there wanting to tell Ohio DOT, "Just make this truly be a OH 28 BUS already".  I doubt that ODOT considers it officially as OH 28 BUS.

It’s not really needed; my guess is the road got that name after the bypass was built because the local authorities couldn’t come up with anything more creative. ODOT and individual jurisdictions have put forth very little effort into signing business routes, and even less into signing them consistently.

I'll go further and say ODOT, at some point, over the last 10-15 years, actively got state business routes unsigned.
Though interstate & US business routes are a whole other story (with their signage still floating around).
3
Updates to Highway Data / Re: LA: LakePonCswy
« Last post by Markkos1992 on Today at 06:10:12 pm »
That makes sense to me.  In regard to usasf, it is definitely not a freeway south of the lake.

Causeway Blvd would be a road that I would like to be in TM in some form, but that goes in the same category as my thoughts about major VA secondary routes for now.
4
Updates to Highway Data / Re: GA: GA540, GA88, and GA243
« Last post by ntallyn on Today at 05:51:47 pm »
Changes made locally.
5
Changes made locally.
6
Updates to Highway Data / Re: GA: GA 141 and 371 mileage swap
« Last post by ntallyn on Today at 05:43:43 pm »
Changes made locally.
7
Updates to Highway Data / Re: LA: LakePonCswy
« Last post by mapcat on Today at 05:06:39 pm »
To my surprise, I received a response from the parish almost immediately. Between LA 3046 and the actual causeway, it’s a parish road. So I’m inclined to truncate it to the first intersection south of the lake, and to US 190_E on the north end, since north of there it’s not really a causeway anymore (and signed as 190 anyway).

Thoughts?
8
Updates to Highway Data / Re: OH: OH 28 Point Concern
« Last post by mapcat on Today at 05:00:58 pm »
I understood that part.  I was thinking in my head there wanting to tell Ohio DOT, "Just make this truly be a OH 28 BUS already".  I doubt that ODOT considers it officially as OH 28 BUS.

It’s not really needed; my guess is the road got that name after the bypass was built because the local authorities couldn’t come up with anything more creative. ODOT and individual jurisdictions have put forth very little effort into signing business routes, and even less into signing them consistently.
9
Updates to Highway Data / Re: OH: OH 28 Point Concern
« Last post by Markkos1992 on Today at 03:34:30 pm »
As to why there's no corresponding OH 28 Bus file, it's not signed.

I understood that part.  I was thinking in my head there wanting to tell Ohio DOT, "Just make this truly be a OH 28 BUS already".  I doubt that ODOT considers it officially as OH 28 BUS.
10
Updates to Highway Data / Re: OH: OH 28 Point Concern
« Last post by mapcat on Today at 03:05:16 pm »
Sure, that makes sense. Bus28_E added and OldOH28 changed to Bus28_W. Changed in my local copy.

As to why there's no corresponding OH 28 Bus file, it's not signed.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10