Montana Secondary State Highways

[si404]

This system is ready for review

[mapcat]

I'm still willing to do this set once I'm done with BC. Are you and Oscar finished editing the rest of the BC routes I hadn't checked yet, including removing the excessive named waypoints? I saw that you or he had trimmed some of the unneeded shaping points and he had added some points to take care of some V_D errors, but I hadn't noticed whether some of the points at unnecessary intersections had been culled.

[Duke87]

Some comments to start with. One general note, I do know that some of Montana's SR's are unsigned. Need to make sure these are not included in the finished product.

SR 201: point "CanSt should be "DawAve" (street name is Dawson Avenue)
SR 202: looks OK
SR 203: point "RaiLn" should be "RatLn" (street name is Rathbun Lane), point "LonRd" should be "LogRd" (street name is Logan Road)
SR 204: looks OK
SR 205: looks OK
SR 206: point "TavLn" should be "TabLn" (street name is Taber Lane)
SR 291: looks OK
SR 363: looks OK

[mapcat]

These all appear to be unsigned (nothing showing up at logical places in GMSV, StreetSide, and CorcoHighways imagery), and IMO can be safely deleted:

217
222
225
231
292
334
342
353
356
364
396
398
413
420
471
472
564

A few others may be unsigned, but imagery was poor or absent, so I can't be sure:

283 (Corco says it's unsigned)
478
572

[Duke87]

SR 207: looks OK
SR 208: looks OK
SR 209: looks OK
SR 210: consider making point "TurRd" simply "Tur" (for Turah). The street it is at does not appear to have a signed name. Also consider adding a couple shaping points towards the east end to keep it on the correct side of I-90.
SR 211: rename point "SR353" to "MoiValRd" since SR 353 has been removed from system.
SR 212: rename point "SR353" to "MoiValRd" since SR 353 has been removed from system.
SR 213: point "CenAve" could stand to be relocated slightly to the southwest (Mapnik does not show the correct geometry of this intersection). Point "GleCutRd" is not located at an intersection, maybe convert this to a shaping point? Point "RadBaseLn" should be "RadBaseRd".
SR 214: looks OK
SR 215: point "NapRd" should be "NepRd" (street name is Nepstad Rd).
SR 218: point "ChiSchRd" should be named "ChrSchRd" and should be located at the intersection 2 miles to the west (your point is at an intersection with an unnamed dirt road that Mapnik is spuriously also calling "Christenson School Road"). Rename point "SR225" to "BooTrl" since SR 225 has been removed from system.
SR 219: looks OK
SR 220: looks OK
SR 221: looks OK

[Duke87]

General question here: I'm noting a lot of cases where words associated with geographic features are using a standard abbreviation for that feature rather than the first three letters of the word - e.g. Vly for "Valley", Crk for "Creek", and "Mtn" for "Mountain". Should I be flagging these as errors to correct or are they fine as is? They are flagged in several of the following.

SR 223: rename point "SR564" to "BraRd" since SR 564 has been removed from system. Point "S100" is located at an unnamed dirt road. Maybe make this a shaping point?
SR 224: Truncate to point 1200S. This is the intersection that matches the official road log length of 18.95 mi from US 2.
SR 226: point "SR459" needs to be renamed "55thAve" since there is no SR 459 in the system (nor should there be). Point "FisRd" needs to be relocated about 400 ft north, the geometry of this intersection in Mapnik is incorrect. Point "RedButRd" should be "RedButLn". South end of route should be about 350 ft further down road (where pavement ends).
SR 227: looks OK
SR 228: point "HarAve" should be "CliSt" (Cligan St).
SR 229: looks OK
SR 232: matter of nomenclature - should all the points of the form "20N" etc. be "Rd20N"? "Road" does appear to be part of the proper name.
SR 233: Same issue as SR 232. Also, point "WilCreRd" should be "475N" (or "Rd475N")
SR 234: point "SucCrkRd" should be "SucCreRd". Point "13St" should be "13thSt".
SR 235: point "EVlyCenSpr" should be "EValCenSpr".
SR 236: point "SaltCrkRd" should be "SaltCreRd". Point "MtnViewRd" should be "MouViewRd"
SR 237: point "WolCrkRd" should be "WolCreRd"
SR 238: point "JesRd" needs to be relocated about 600 ft SE. The road appears to have been straightened in this area, Mapnik is outdated and shows the old curvier path. Point "McDonCrkRd" should be "McdCreRd".

[oscar]

General question here: I'm noting a lot of cases where words associated with geographic features are using a standard abbreviation for that feature rather than the first three letters of the word - e.g. Vly for "Valley", Crk for "Creek", and "Mtn" for "Mountain". Should I be flagging these as errors to correct or are they fine as is?

I use Crk and Mtn a lot, in the jurisdictions I manage, and the CHM "rulebook" explicitly allows them. (Crk comes in handy sometimes to distinguish Creek from Crescent.) I'm not sure about Vly, which I don't use, or Cyn (for Canyon, and where I grew up there's lots of canyons and road signs using the Cyn abbreviation) which I like but seems disfavored.

Especially with Crk and Mtn, so long as they used consistently in a jurisdiction instead of Cre and Mou, it's up to the responsible team member.

[compdude787]

Crk, Mtn, Vly, and Cyn are pretty common abbreviations, so I don't see any issue with them being used.

[si404]

Points like 1200S are consistent with the labels I inherited in the state, and also consistent with neighbouring states. I haven't changed them (nor Cyn and Vly), though am willing to be convinced to do so.

I've made the other changes.

[Duke87]

If there's precedent for the use of "Mtn", "Crk", etc. and some general consensus that this is acceptable then I'm fine with it. I won't flag any more instances of these.

SR 239: Extend 0.202 mi S of SR 541 JCT (road log and signage confirms this). "6St_E" → "6thSt_E".
SR 240: OK
SR 241: relocate "VioRd" ~450' NE
SR 243: "CouPittRd" → "CouPitRd"
SR 244: "MainSt_W" → "MainSt_E"
SR 245: OK
SR 246: OK
SR 247: OK
SR 248: OK
SR 249: OK
SR 250: "BerRd" → "Rd2048"
SR 251: OK
SR 252: OK
SR 253: OK
SR 254: OK
SR 255: Coord mismatch at intersection with US 2
SR 257: OK
SR 258: OK
SR 259: OK

[Duke87]

SR 260: truncate to BobRd (per road log)
SR 261: truncate to I-94 (per road log). MT 7 will also have to be adjusted ("SR261" → "2ndAve").
SR 263: truncate to US 93 (per road log). I-90BLMis and US93BusMis will also have to be adjusted ("SR263" → "MulRd")
SR 269: "BlaRd" → "BlaLn", "PosLn" → "PopLn"
SR 271: OK
SR 273: OK
SR 276: OK
SR 277: OK
SR 278: OK
SR 279: "SR231" → "GreMeaDr", "BriRd" → "BirRd", "PonDr" → hidden shaping point (no intersection here)
SR 280: OK
SR 282: OK
SR 284: OK
SR 285: OK
SR 286: OK
SR 287: OK
SR 288: OK
SR 290: OK

[the_spui_ninja]

SR 261: truncate to I-94 (per road log). MT 7 will also have to be adjusted ("SR261" → "2ndAve").

I remember some time back (here) the nonexistent business loop in Wibaux was removed; is that section not part of 7 just not a state highway then?

[yakra]

Never used "Vly" or "Cyn" personally, but these are USPS standard abbreviations, as are "Crk" and "Mtn". ISTR there being some discussion in the CHM days about this, with Crk and Mtn being OKed on these grounds.

[Duke87]

SR 261: truncate to I-94 (per road log). MT 7 will also have to be adjusted ("SR261" → "2ndAve").

I remember some time back (here) the nonexistent business loop in Wibaux was removed; is that section not part of 7 just not a state highway then?

It is a state highway, MDT's road log has it as route P-97 (P is for primary). It does not, however, have a signed route number, so there is nothing for us to map it as.

Also note that the internal numbers in the road log do not necessarily align with signed numbers - for example, MT 7 is in the log as route P-27.

[the_spui_ninja]

SR 261: truncate to I-94 (per road log). MT 7 will also have to be adjusted ("SR261" → "2ndAve").

I remember some time back (here) the nonexistent business loop in Wibaux was removed; is that section not part of 7 just not a state highway then?

It is a state highway, MDT's road log has it as route P-97 (P is for primary). It does not, however, have a signed route number, so there is nothing for us to map it as.

Also note that the internal numbers in the road log do not necessarily align with signed numbers - for example, MT 7 is in the log as route P-27.

Gotcha.