Author Topic: WA: WA 519  (Read 1506 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Last Login:Today at 11:53:45 am
WA: WA 519
« on: March 12, 2017, 05:00:15 pm »
I drove this today as shown in TM data with only partial success (stayed on 1st NB when we have the route shown going under the viaduct somehow), but I did not see any WA 519 signs anywhere.  Does this still exist?

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
  • Last Login:Today at 12:39:13 pm
Re: WA: WA 519
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2017, 01:11:03 am »

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 206
  • Last Login:June 21, 2020, 12:53:16 pm
Re: WA: WA 519
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2017, 03:53:10 pm »
Here's the discussion about this on AARoads: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19805.0

I'm not sure what to do with this. It is technically a state route, but it's just not signed. I'm guessing in that case, we just omit those from the HB? I think part of the reason why it's not signed is because of all the construction going on down there with the Alaskan Way Tunnel and the seawall replacement.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Last Login:Today at 12:03:39 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: WA: WA 519
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2017, 04:56:28 pm »
Here's the discussion about this on AARoads: http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19805.0

I'm not sure what to do with this. It is technically a state route, but it's just not signed. I'm guessing in that case, we just omit those from the HB? I think part of the reason why it's not signed is because of all the construction going on down there with the Alaskan Way Tunnel and the seawall replacement.

If WA 519 will undergo major changes from what's in the HB once the construction is done, we could delete it from the HB for now, with an eye to adding it back (in its new form) later.

Offline dfilpus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 09:17:05 am
    • Filpus Roadgeek
Re: WA: WA 519
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2017, 11:52:34 am »
I'm not sure what to do with this. It is technically a state route, but it's just not signed. I'm guessing in that case, we just omit those from the HB? I think part of the reason why it's not signed is because of all the construction going on down there with the Alaskan Way Tunnel and the seawall replacement.
There is one surviving sign with a WA 519 shield on southbound Alaskan Way. So, technically, it is undersigned, not unsigned. The route has never been well signed.

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Last Login:Today at 11:53:45 am
Re: WA: WA 519
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2017, 01:41:26 pm »
I guess at the least, we should update it to reflect its current official, though barely-signed, routing.

Offline dfilpus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 09:17:05 am
    • Filpus Roadgeek
Re: WA: WA 519
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2017, 04:29:56 pm »
I guess at the least, we should update it to reflect its current official, though barely-signed, routing.
The official routing is not driveable, because ground level Alaskan Way has been removed from King Street to the tunnel mouth construction. Eventually, WA 99 will be rerouted into the tunnel, the Alaskan Way Viaduct will be torn down and a new ground level Alaskan Way will merge with WA 99 at the tunnel mouth. At that point, WA 519 should be routed along Alaskan Way, with southbound traffic exiting onto Atlantic (where the current sign is) and northbound traffic entering from Royal Brougham.

Following the official routing currently northbound puts you on Alaskan Way Viaduct, which has no exits to Alaskan Way ground level and the docks. One way to interpret the current routing is that the route has a vertical gap from the location on the viaduct where it crosses King Street to Alaskan Way ground level.

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 206
  • Last Login:June 21, 2020, 12:53:16 pm
Re: WA: WA 519
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2017, 07:11:02 pm »
So, I guess that for now, I should just route it such that it just runs east to west along Atlantic Street and doesn't continue north on Alaskan Way?

Offline dfilpus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 09:17:05 am
    • Filpus Roadgeek
Re: WA: WA 519
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2017, 09:24:25 am »
IMO, WA 519 should be left as is, until the reconstruction is complete. I wish that WSDOT had signed the temporary rerouting.

WA 99 currently needs some tweaks:
1. The 1stAve exit should be marked as removed. For some time, this exit was in my list as the southern end of my WA 99 routing.
2. The new interchange for Atlantic/Royal Brougham needs a waypoint. This waypoint would also be on WA 519, when rerouted.

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 206
  • Last Login:June 21, 2020, 12:53:16 pm
Re: WA: WA 519
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2017, 08:28:26 pm »
IMO, WA 519 should be left as is, until the reconstruction is complete. I wish that WSDOT had signed the temporary rerouting.

WA 99 currently needs some tweaks:
1. The 1stAve exit should be marked as removed. For some time, this exit was in my list as the southern end of my WA 99 routing.
2. The new interchange for Atlantic/Royal Brougham needs a waypoint. This waypoint would also be on WA 519, when rerouted.

Okay, I'll just move the 1stAve point to Atlantic Street and keep 1stAve as an alt label because they're pretty close to each other.

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 206
  • Last Login:June 21, 2020, 12:53:16 pm
Re: WA: WA 519
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2017, 03:05:23 pm »
Pull request submitted for issue with WA 99:

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1156