ID: Minor updates

[the_spui_ninja]

So after a bit of OSM'ing, I found (thanks to corcohighways and the ID pavement GIS (https://iplan.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=22ee4896298949229947db5ff54c027e) that there are a couple problems with the data in ID. First, ID 78 does not extend to I-84, but ends at the business loop. Next, the Osburn business loop has been cut into two spurs, one along the BL routing to Osburn city limits, and the other just barely into Silverton (but I think that one's unsigned... it was hard to tell).

Hope this makes sense.

[the_spui_ninja]

Also there is apparently a 16 mile spur heading off ID 77 toward the City of Rocks... but I have no idea if that's signed.

[compdude787]

Okay, I've done commits to shorten the I-90 BL for Osburn. I didn't bother with the very-short spur in Silverton since I'm pretty sure that that's not signed, and it's super short. I also truncated ID 78 to the I-84 BL. Before I pull-request this, I have a question that I'd really like answered. Since I-90 BL Osburn is no longer a true business loop but rather just a spur, since it now only connects to I-90 at one end, do I need to change its name from Business Loop to Business Spur to reflect that?

Also there is apparently a 16 mile spur heading off ID 77 toward the City of Rocks... but I have no idea if that's signed.

Yeah, and GMSV shows it's not signed but the image dates from 2009, so it might have been signed since then. But we have no way of knowing this, so I'm not going to add it yet.

[oscar]

Okay, I've done commits to shorten the I-90 BL for Osburn. I didn't bother with the very-short spur in Silverton since I'm pretty sure that that's not signed, and it's super short. I also truncated ID 78 to the I-84 BL. Before I pull-request this, I have a question that I'd really like answered. Since I-90 BL Osburn is no longer a true business loop but rather just a spur, since it now only connects to I-90 at one end, do I need to change its name from Business Loop to Business Spur to reflect that?

Some states, like California, sign all of their Interstate business routes as loops, even when they're not. Unless we know otherwise for Idaho, I'd leave it as is.

I might be by there next month, and can do a field-check.

[the_spui_ninja]

Based on the online stuff I've seen and what I know about ID, it seems likely that they just left the old loop signage in place and didn't bother to update it to a spur.

[compdude787]

Based on the online stuff I've seen and what I know about ID, it seems likely that they just left the old loop signage in place and didn't bother to update it to a spur.

Okay, then I'll keep it how it is then. And I just put in a pull request: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1433

[oscar]

Okay, I've done commits to shorten the I-90 BL for Osburn. I didn't bother with the very-short spur in Silverton since I'm pretty sure that that's not signed, and it's super short. I also truncated ID 78 to the I-84 BL. Before I pull-request this, I have a question that I'd really like answered. Since I-90 BL Osburn is no longer a true business loop but rather just a spur, since it now only connects to I-90 at one end, do I need to change its name from Business Loop to Business Spur to reflect that?

I might be by there next month, and can do a field-check.

I did the field-check this morning. Signage in the field makes me wonder whether the BL has been cut in two.

Driving eastbound on the Osburn BL, I saw no signage indicating the BL ends before the original east end at I-90 exit 60. Driving back west on I-90 to exit 60, the Osburn BL is shown on the sign for that exit, as well as on a freestanding BL marker at the end of the westbound exit ramp. (No photos, construction in the exit 60 area meant no room for me to pull over to take pictures. But October 2016 GMSV imagery shows what I saw.)

I have a little trouble interpreting the GIS data linked upthread. But I would ask whether it really clearly enough indicates a gap in the route, well-signed at both ends, to justify a route split.

Thoughts?

[the_spui_ninja]

I have a little trouble interpreting the GIS data linked upthread. But I would ask whether it really clearly enough indicates a gap in the route, well-signed at both ends, to justify a route split.

Thoughts?

All the pavement GIS data means is that the section between Silverton and Osburn is no longer maintained by the state.

Now, there are several non-state maintained BLs in other parts of the country, so that's not necessarily a disqualifier.

[compdude787]

I have a little trouble interpreting the GIS data linked upthread. But I would ask whether it really clearly enough indicates a gap in the route, well-signed at both ends, to justify a route split.

Thoughts?

All the pavement GIS data means is that the section between Silverton and Osburn is no longer maintained by the state.

Now, there are several non-state maintained BLs in other parts of the country, so that's not necessarily a disqualifier.

True. I think I'll just change the waypoint file for the business loop back to how it was before.

[oscar]

I have a little trouble interpreting the GIS data linked upthread. But I would ask whether it really clearly enough indicates a gap in the route, well-signed at both ends, to justify a route split.

Thoughts?

All the pavement GIS data means is that the section between Silverton and Osburn is no longer maintained by the state.

Now, there are several non-state maintained BLs in other parts of the country, so that's not necessarily a disqualifier.

In California, almost every business loop (from an Interstate, US, or state route) is not state-maintained, on mileage removed from the state highway system after a freeway bypass was opened. The most notable exception is I-80BL Sacramento, which consists of part of US 50 and all of otherwise unsigned CA 51.

[compdude787]

Finally did a pull request to change the business loop back to how it was before, connecting to I-90 at its east end. Also tweaked the location of a couple waypoints.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1626

EDIT: Now live.