This is one of those threads that I am not sure I should be posting because I am in agreement that NJ 7's official alignment based on the SLDs is shown in the HB correctly.
HB has the S end of NJ7Nut at Mill St; SLDs & shapefiles have the Second River bridge.
The oddity here is that regular NJ 7 shields (SB and NB) show the route as turning at Rutgers St (CR 506).
A well-made case for an implied multiplex via CR506.
NJ7Nut only has NJ 7 on street blades south of Rutgers St.
That was updated between
2007 &
2009.
The S "end" at Mill St is a bit more interesting; it went thru some further more recent changes:
2007 2009 2013 2018 2019Historically from CHM, street blades didn't count for signage. There's been some debate as to whether they should or not, tied in with the larger signed/unsigned routes discussion (as noted in the OP), that's never really been resolved.
If we take the more recent signage updates at Mill St as indicative of The New Way of Looking at Things, and regard the one at William St as something else that just didn't get updated at around the same time, vestigial signage that'd seem to point toward
Not-NJ7.
Back at Mill St, there's signage, but not for NJ7. Not sure what to make of it though; could be this arrow got
flipped around erroneously.
NJ 3: Currently has a NJ7 label that I would consider is and is not a secret designation... Of course NJ 7 is fully posted at NJ 3.
I think maybe you swapped the link addresses around? But anyway...I'd take "secret designation" to mean something that's designated internally by a DOT but not signed. Like ME I-495. This is something that's signed but not designated. A case of a missing TO.
PasAve is signed on the BGS in the link. Changed locally.
No change to the N end of NJ7Nut itself; Orange St is the proper endpoint.
...Or is it? I think I undertsand the "fully signed" link now. That intersection also went thru some rapid-fire changes:
2012 2013 2015That North plate in the last image is telling. Almost like NJDOT wants to make a fully connected, route-to-route highway system, like they want some "graph connections" of their own.
Grumble. Nothing is ever simple...
I guess if I maintained NJ that I would combine NJ 7 into one route that goes from US 1/9 TRUCK to NJ 3
TM's SOP WRT implied multiplexes would say to do this. The clear signage doesn't hurt either.
without a separate section for Washington St south of Mill St, but I know that it gets controversial anytime signed routing versus official routing is brought up.
Specifically here, we have and unsigned end section of an otherwise signed route. I'm not sure we've ever been consistent on how to handle those. My approach has usually been to leave them off the ends of routes. That approach would say to nix this segment. Having it as its own separate segment from a continuous NJ7 from US1/9Trk would be out, as this bit's unsigned.
So I agree, more or less, though it may take a little more convincing to sell me on the N end? Grubmle.
Kind of reminds me of the "almost but not quite" ends at AB 560 & 564, though the signage situation there from AB201 is different...
