MD: Should MD 286 be extended to MD 213?

[Markkos1992]

The Cecil County HLR is definitely not in support of this due to the MD 537C designation.  However, it seems that bannerless MD 286 shields follow MD 537 south to MD 213.  I saw the same thing when I drove in this area last Saturday. 

Oddly enough MD 213's label here is already MD 286.  Any changes here would also affect MD 342.

Also I would change the MD 342 point at Hessey Lane (HesLn) into a regular shaping point.  At best it is a private driveway.

[Duke87]

I'm interpreting this as a case of a missing "TO" (note that there IS a "TO" posted in the other direction from MD 213). So no, I do not thing MD 286 should be extended.


As for the HesLn point on MD 342, it is worth noting that GMSV is clearly outdated here. In 2008 it is indeed a driveway for that one house and nothing more, but satellite imagery shows a second home built further back, and possibly some slight improvement (though still not pavement) to the area in front. Still, Mapillary imagery from 2017 shows there is still no street sign.
I'm going to go ahead and make this a shaping point.

[Markkos1992]

Oddly enough MD 213's label here is already MD 286.

Should this label be changed to George St (GeoSt) or even MD 342 since it is not being extended (at least for now)?

I think there are a lot of these missing "TOs" for MD 286 in this area from what I remember seeing there.

[compdude787]

Anything else that still needs to be changed here?

[Duke87]

I guess I should go ahead and change the MD286 label on MD213 since it looks like I never did that. New label is BasAve since Basil Avenue is the one road that intersects the ramps from both directions. MD286 preserved as alt label since it's in use.

Otherwise the change to MD342 was made (and new September 2019 GMSV shows still no street sign) and MD286 it was concluded to leave alone, so this is resolved.