usasc: South Carolina State highways

[mapmikey]

Returning from my trip to Texas, I am trying to figure out if I need to do anything with any SC .wpt files to have the system put into official development and peer review.

Based on this aaforums thread - http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17029.0 it seems like it was decided that the small number on non-conforming labels weren't worth fixing...

Mike

[mapcat]

Regardless of whether they're worth fixing, I think we should move this system up to preview. The label issue could still be debated while the peer review is proceeding.

[Jim]

Having heard no objections to the move, I am promoting usasc to preview status.  I hope to run a site update shortly that will include it.

[si404]

Having skimmed a few routes and getting frustrated by the 'show markers' function not working (hence why this isn't a more thorough review), they seem mostly fine.

One issue, however, is where (say State St on SC2) the road turns off a road onto another and you've labelled it with the road name that the highway was on, but turns off. Directional suffixes (ie StaSt_S) are surely needed as the state highway runs concurrent with the road of that name.

[Ib3kii]

I agree with si404.

Thanks,

[mapmikey]

A couple thoughts on this...

State St is the street SC 2 turns onto from Frink in the regular convention of directions.  Also, the amount of State St south of this intersection is 150 ft before the road is closed (i.e. it is not a real road).

There are, however, probably a few other examples like this in the SC set.  If what you are describing is what the policy is (best I can tell this is not covered in the CHM rules) then I will fix any that are pointed out to me...

[mapmikey]

The SC 5 CONNECTOR created by SC 5's reroute in Rock Hill a few years back is shown in GMSV to be fully posted at both SC 5/901 and SC 322.

A file was created for this and sent in for update...

[Jim]

The SC 5 CONNECTOR created by SC 5's reroute in Rock Hill a few years back is shown in GMSV to be fully posted at both SC 5/901 and SC 322.

A file was created for this and sent in for update...

Changes are now in.

[oscar]

For SC 19, SC118 => US1Trk/78Trk ?

SC118 would be OK if it weren't concurrent with the two US truck routes, which I think "outrank" the state route for waypoint labeling purposes. Also, when I edited my list file to add an SC 19 entry for my travels earlier today, I was initially thrown off by the current label.

[froggie]

Given that, by and large, TRUCK US routes are not recognized by AASHTO, I feel that the state route would "outrank" the truck routes.

[mapmikey]

If I were to change it to a truck route it would be SC 19 TRUCK...

Note that none of the 3 truck routes that follow SC 118 are posted from SC 19 NB...only SC 118.

[theFXexpert]

Other than copying over what's in usansf, Anything else needed to activate this?

[mapmikey]

Other than copying over what's in usansf, Anything else needed to activate this?

I don't know if anyone has done a complete review behind me...only a couple issues have been raised in this thread.

I was going to offer to review the Georgia set in exchange for a SC review, if nobody has committed to reviewing the Georgia routes...

[theFXexpert]

I don't know if anyone has done a complete review behind me...only a couple issues have been raised in this thread.

I was going to offer to review the Georgia set in exchange for a SC review, if nobody has committed to reviewing the Georgia routes...

Nobody has yet. I can take a more thorough look at SC once I'm done getting the remaining GA routes uploaded unless someone wants to beat me to it. I assume review consists of making sure waypoint labels and locations are correct. Right?

[mapmikey]

Also checks for convention violations; doesn't need shaping points, etc.

When you complete the Georgia set I can look through it...