usams: Mississippi State Highways

[froggie]

I've gone through and made updates from the past two years (including extending MS 76) and started on michih's review, though I should add two caveats here:  one, the MS 43 labels on MS 13 correspond to the county or town (Mendenhall) those points are located in so those will not be changed.  Also, since it is not a requirement to have 2 intersecting routes on a label (note discussion upthread), I am not inclined to add some of those, especially 7xx/8xx/9xx routes at a major junction.  That said, I've added a handful so far where they would make sense (like at 7/8/35).

[michih]

the MS 43 labels on MS 13 correspond to the county or town (Mendenhall) those points are located in so those will not be changed.

Fine for me. I was just surprised that the label names do not meet the label name. I thought that the route names might have been changed later....

Also, since it is not a requirement to have 2 intersecting routes on a label (note discussion upthread), I am not inclined to add some of those, especially 7xx/8xx/9xx routes at a major junction.  That said, I've added a handful so far where they would make sense (like at 7/8/35).

Absolutely fine for me. To be honest, I'd scrap the 2nd numbers from all wp labels. I've just realized that most labels have a 2nd route and thus just reported the inconsistency. I'll continue that way, so that you can decide what's intended and what's missing by accident.

[michih]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8261

Remove the update entries for MS76 + MS537 as mentioned here. It's still a preview system!

MS444:
US61 -> US61/278


MS446:
US61 -> US61/278


MS448:
US61 -> US61/278


MS450:
US61 -> US61/278


MS454:
US82 -> US82/278


MS463:
Add a wp for Grand View Boulevard just east of I-55 since it's heading to the neighboring interstate exists


MS467:
MtMorRd -> MtMorRd_S


MS468:
MS475 -> MS475_N or MS475_Flo like MS475's wp ?
US80 -> US80_Bra ?


MS469:
MS469 -> MS468


MS475:
MS468 -> MS468_S like MS468's wp ?


MS491Bog:
BIA0231 -> BIARd0231 ?


MS569:
MS48_E -> MS24/48


MS607Nic:
I-59/11 -> I59 ? since you usually don't have US routes as 2nd route when the 1st route is an interstate


MS724:
US51 -> US51/32 ?


MS731:
MS19/35_N -> MS12/19 ?


MS735:
MS12_W -> MS12/43


MS835:
US49E -> US49E/12 ?

[cenlaroads]

I'm willing to help with this system if I can.  I'm not familiar with the entirety of the developer manual yet, but I can review waypoints, signage and routing in GSV, etc.  Is there a group of routes I can look at that haven't been reviewed?

[michih]

I checked all routes "quickly". I checked the labels of waypoints that intersect with other TM routes. I also looked into oddities I spot - almost everything was fine though. I agree with Jim, that a system with more than 100 travelers has undergone a community peer review anyway. For instance, one traveler has traveled 96 per cent of the mileage.

I did not systematically check wp labels without numerals. I only expect minor typos or missing cardinal suffixes where concurrencies end. Those are less important issues IMO*. I would activate the system anyway so that users benefit from update entries from future route changes.

Of course, you can go through all routes to check the non-numeral wp labels. Before system activation, or afterwards by reporting issues in the forum board for active systems.
However, I'd prefer if you'd volunteer to review one out of the dozens hundreds preview systems beyond usams

*If numerous hwy data managers disagree, I would help shortly to check those wp labels to enable a quick activation.

[formulanone]

MS301:
MS304Sce -> M304 ? since there is no second wp intersecting another MS304

That's correct as-is.  That's a bannered MS-304 there.

Mainline MS-304 is up along I-69 there.

Which makes me find another discovery.....

MS304SceHer:
Seems the route has been possibly decommissioned.

@ MS-301:
March '23 (signed)
Sept '23 (signage removed)

@ I-55(280):
Aug '23 (still signed, but a month before the MS-301 signage change above)

@ PraRd point:
Sept '23 (signage still remains here, but could have been right before or in the middle of the signage change @ MS-301??)

Mississippi 304 Scenic in Hernando has a "Begin County Maintenance" sign at Horn Lake Road; vaguely halfway between I-55 and MS 301. So perhaps it has been partially truncated.

Which is odd, since usually Mississippi uses "Begin (or End) State Maintenance" signage.

I'll have to dig though my photos from last year (June?), but there were some Scenic 304 signs along the route, such as this one in Hernando's town square:

[cenlaroads]

MS3Yaz is missing a concurrency with US49W.  It's signed on the exits from US 49 E and US 49, and on US 49W after you exit.

[cenlaroads]

I checked all routes "quickly". I checked the labels of waypoints that intersect with other TM routes. I also looked into oddities I spot - almost everything was fine though. I agree with Jim, that a system with more than 100 travelers has undergone a community peer review anyway. For instance, one traveler has traveled 96 per cent of the mileage.

I did not systematically check wp labels without numerals. I only expect minor typos or missing cardinal suffixes where concurrencies end. Those are less important issues IMO*. I would activate the system anyway so that users benefit from update entries from future route changes.

Of course, you can go through all routes to check the non-numeral wp labels. Before system activation, or afterwards by reporting issues in the forum board for active systems.
However, I'd prefer if you'd volunteer to review one out of the dozens hundreds preview systems beyond usams

*If numerous hwy data managers disagree, I would help shortly to check those wp labels to enable a quick activation.

That makes sense, I won't spend too much time then.  I'll report anything if I do run across it.  I'll look at the other preview systems to see if there are any I can help with.