Recent Posts

11

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes

« Last post by osu-lsu on Yesterday at 08:30:51 am »

Haven't we had this conversation before?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/VDaLwFkyVSP2driM8

That one belongs in usaohh, not usaush. Or is it usaoho?

How about usaosu? (tongue firmly in cheek)

12

Updates to Highway Data / Re: CT: CT 234 point request

« Last post by IMGoph on Yesterday at 08:14:20 am »

Big thank you to Jim for the help and support!

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8648

13

Updates to Highway Data / Re: ESP-CM: TO-23 missing in HB

« Last post by michih on Yesterday at 08:12:52 am »

Strange but not uncommon. That also happens in Germany.
Thanks for extending.

14

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes

« Last post by Markkos1992 on Yesterday at 06:17:29 am »

Haven't we had this conversation before?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/VDaLwFkyVSP2driM8

That one belongs in usaohh, not usaush. Or is it usaoho?

MD 450 Old is in usamd.

15

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes

« Last post by mapcat on Yesterday at 12:24:42 am »

Haven't we had this conversation before?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/VDaLwFkyVSP2driM8

That one belongs in usaohh, not usaush. Or is it usaoho?

16

Updates to Highway Data / Re: TX: Spur 83 (between US 83 (West end I-2) and Bus 83 La Joya

« Last post by TBKS1 on October 07, 2025, 10:56:50 pm »

https://publicdocs.txdot.gov/minord/MinuteOrderDocLib/114383.pdf
This was designated as US 83 Spur back in 2015.

There was some AASHTO funny business back in spring 2016; if I wanna look that up again and remind myself of the full story, where's the best place to go for AASHTO info these days?
Regardless, AASHTO isn't the be-all-end-all for TM purposes. The state calls it US83Spr, so that's what it is.

(clipped)

Even though they're 2 separate systems on TM, from TXDOT's perspective Loops & Spurs are the same system, and numbers aren't duplicated between the two, with one exception where there's a "State Highway Loop and Spur" XXX (I forget the number) with the spur spurring off the loop. Obviously related. There is a TXLp83 in Caldwell, so this is surely not TXSpr83, but US83Spr, and we may be a dealing with a sign-o.

Can you fill me in more in what signage you saw where, how much, what style?

I didn't realize that a thread already existed for this, but as you mentioned with TXLp19 (Montague County) and TXLp108 (Port Bolivar, Galveston County) which both have spur routes, they're in the system as spur routes but are basically loop spurs (if that makes any sense). Similar to FM and RM spur routes which just use the same shield as the rest of the spur routes in Texas (for example, TXSpr3 in Corpus Christi and TXFMSpr3 in Normangee / Leon County). There's two spur routes that directly tie to US Routes in Texas (US 277 Spur in Del Rio and US 281 Spur in Hidalgo), both of which are designated with a SPUR shield (rather than a SPUR banner followed by a US Route shield below it). TXSpr277 already exists in Coupland (Williamson County).

Admittedly I didn't know that TXDOT designated US spur routes that way, even though I knew they designated FM/RM spur routes that way. If it were me, I'd call it US83Spr. I made my initial post (before it was merged with this thread) not knowing that TXDOT did it that way.

17

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes

« Last post by osu-lsu on October 07, 2025, 10:54:22 pm »

"Old" is just another way of saying "Historic", right?

Haven't we had this conversation before?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/VDaLwFkyVSP2driM8

18

Updates to Highway Data / Re: TX: Spur 83 (between US 83 (West end I-2) and Bus 83 La Joya

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on October 07, 2025, 10:20:31 pm »

Route has a single trailblazer going each direction.
WB
EB

19

Updates to Highway Data / Re: NM: I-40 issues

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on October 07, 2025, 10:13:54 pm »

167 -> split into 167/167A.  This will allow NM-556 to have a proper location for this interchange. Update the point in NM-556 too.

Rather than splitting the point, into two points only 0.2 mile apart, I would just move I-40(167) to the NM 556 underpass, and rely on 1PPI to have the relocated point cover the entire interchange. This also leaves NM 333 and NM US66HisAlb (per your note on NM 333) unchanged.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8649
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8650

Other changes to I-40 later, to avoid confusion from my trying to follow two baseball playoff games at once.

I can sorta live with a 1PPI here on I-40, but I still think these still work as separate interchanges.  With the one that connects to NM-556, you have 2 directions (originally was only an EB off-ramp, but WB on-ramp added in 1982), but with NM-333 there, you have 3 of the 4 movements.

For NM-333, I responded in the other thread.

20

Updates to Highway Data / Re: NM: NM-333 issues

« Last post by rickmastfan67 on October 07, 2025, 10:13:45 pm »

missing -> should have a point for the intersection of the I-40(167) interchange ramps just to the east of NM-556.  Would also need to be added to 'NM US66HisAlb'.

See my reply on I-40 issues, which I think covers this topic.

I still think NM-333 deserves a separate point for the other part of the interchange do to that being a trumpet style interchange (and having 3 of the 4 ramp movements to access I-40).  Plus, if you give NM-556 a point that's less than 0.2 between points for I-40 & NM-333 (of course, it was needed for graph connection reasons), NM-333 deserves the same between NM-556 & I-40.  When they built this interchange (looking @ the Historical Aerials of this area), all movements from the trumpet part of the interchange connected to the current day NM-556/333 intersection, and it remained that way till sometime between 1991 & 1996, when they reconfigured it into the current configuration.

If this project had existed back then, we'd would have mapped out that change for sure.