CO: I-70 BL Idaho Springs appears unsigned

[the_spui_ninja]

So I got back from a week-long trip up the spine of the Rockies recently, and on the way back I went through Idaho Springs (EB) to see the business loop. The only signage I saw was on one of the BGS's west of town, and the one closer to the exit had the BL shield greened over. There was no signage in the town, nor was there any indication CO 103 extended north of I-70. I plan to remove the BL and truncate CO 103 unless there are strong objections.

[jayhawkco]

I want to say it's signed WB from I-70.  And as I remember, there is a reassurance sign just past the McDonald's.  I haven't gone into town in a while.

Chris

[the_spui_ninja]

As of 2018, that appears to be gone. It also looks like any signage in town was removed between 2015 and 2018.

[jayhawkco]

As of 2018, that appears to be gone. It also looks like any signage in town was removed between 2015 and 2018.

Sure enough.  I think we can nix it.

Chris

[the_spui_ninja]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4921

[jayhawkco]

Just FYI, I'm not sure if we want to change it, but I was just through town yesterday and there is still:

EB on I-70
WB from E. Idaho Springs Road coming into town

The second was put up sometime between 2012 and 2018 from the looks of it.

I might lean towards re-inclusion, just since it's signed from two different directions.

[jayhawkco]

Just bumping for visibility.

[the_spui_ninja]

Saw this then forgot to reply, whoops!

The EB one to me looks like holdover signage (considering it's peeling) and it was there when we determined to take this out last year. Additionally, the next EB sign has had the BL signage greened out (here). I'm not inclined to bring it back since the signage situation hasn't really changed since removal and the one newer sign to have the BL on it is from a frontage road that is unlikely to be used, but that's just me. I'd say I'm 60-40 against bringing it back, so if more people think it should come back I'll put it in.

[jayhawkco]

I'll have my vote where I'm 60/40 for putting it back in.  See what anyone else thinks.

[neroute2]

The Highway Data Explorer shows two short segments state maintained (070K at the west end and 070R at the east end). Signs on I-70 were covered between 2015 and 2016, but in the same timeframe two new signs were posted on the east end (1 2), and both are still present today. At least the short east stub should probably be added, since it's both signed and maintained.

[rickmastfan67]

(added missing ']' to fix the links)

[the_spui_ninja]

Merged the old topic on this with the new reports.

2 years ago I was 60-40 against bringing it back, but I can be convinced otherwise. There's business routes in the HB for SD that have less or similar signage (*cough* Brookings *cough*).
State maintenance on the east end only goes to the end of the concrete: here

[Duke87]

Yeah I don't think there's anything more to this than, say, CDOT posting signs asserting US 6 "ends" in Mack. In both cases they're just interpreting their internal designations a little too literally.

The business loop was deleted because Idaho Springs wanted to take over maintenance of the road and rebuild it to be more pedestrian friendly. This was discussed at the 2015 Denver meet.

If the business loop were signed more consistently I'd tend to say yeah it needs to be added back but it's only a couple stray signs, neither of them on I-70.

[the_spui_ninja]

Yeah, if they had kept the signage on I-70 I would be more supportive of re-adding it.