WV 46 truck route in Keyser

[mapcat]

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.440895,-78.9785861,3a,49.2y,89.71h,93.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shpy8HWEx8fow53UoZBhHYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This route isn't in the HB yet. It's signed eastbound between the intersection of Piedmont St/Orchard St and Main St/Armstrong St. There's no westbound routing (no need), and the banner-less WV46 eastbound is still signed along Piedmont and Main.

I asked James if we should add it, and he recommended bringing it up here to get some more opinions. I had forgotten that I'd seen this a few years ago, and brought it up in the CHM forum:


http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/clinched-ptopic1958.html


His opinion then was that it wasn't needed, based on it being signed along WV46, but it's actually not. As stated above, it only exists eastbound, since there's no need for a truck route for westbound traffic (westbound and eastbound follow different streets).

[rickmastfan67]

His opinion then was that it wasn't needed, based on it being signed along WV46, but it's actually not. As stated above, it only exists eastbound, since there's no need for a truck route for westbound traffic (westbound and eastbound follow different streets).

My opinion was that is was signed along the WB route (not EB), and thus not needed.  It just duplicates the route & what we have in the HB.

[mapmikey]

WV 46 Truck did technically have a non-concurrent stretch with any primary route prior to the revamp of US 220's bridge over the Potomac.  Armstrong between Piedmont and what is now a ramp from 220 SB curling around to Armstrong (this used to be a 2-way connector road and per WV county maps was the route of WV 46 WB.

Today there are 2 posted WV 46 Truck EB routes - the one wholly concurrent with WV 46 WB as it now runs and also one that you encounter if you are on 220 NB wanting to go to WV 46 EB (incidentally it is also posted from 46 EB too).  This one is wholly concurrent with US 220 and could in theory be added to the HB.

[mapcat]

WV 46 Truck did technically have a non-concurrent stretch with any primary route prior to the revamp of US 220's bridge over the Potomac.  Armstrong between Piedmont and what is now a ramp from 220 SB curling around to Armstrong (this used to be a 2-way connector road and per WV county maps was the route of WV 46 WB.

Today there are 2 posted WV 46 Truck EB routes - the one wholly concurrent with WV 46 WB as it now runs and also one that you encounter if you are on 220 NB wanting to go to WV 46 EB (incidentally it is also posted from 46 EB too).  This one is wholly concurrent with US 220 and could in theory be added to the HB.

The second one was the one I was referring to. I accidentally included the wrong GMSV link in the original post. Here's the signage on 220:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4399178,-78.9778803,3a,41.1y,58.93h,90.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb0uyHyZ2q_dA6tZHz9NaEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

and further on where the truck route splits off:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4407977,-78.9764202,3a,75y,58.93h,90.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srlh2TZ80eDBN48QqEZ3erQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[rickmastfan67]

Anybody else have a comment on this?

[yakra]

As mapmikey noted, it is in fact posted from 46 EB.
Ugh, yecch. 

[rickmastfan67]

As mapmikey noted, it is in fact posted from 46 EB.
Ugh, yecch. 

Still, wouldn't this be in your opinion be considered inside the intersection with the way we 'center' roads that are split onto different roads?

Also, IMO, with the way the 'truck' signage is on US-220, could it not be considered to be like 'TO' signage for the ramp?  I mean, the ramp is practically right at the traffic light.

[mapmikey]

I agree with the first point and that is a reason not to have the 46 TRUCK on US 220 in the HB.  I had not checked how US 220 and WV 46 are actually laid out in the HB.

However, because the other 46 Truck is only on 46 WB, it CAN be routed without being concurrent with the WV 46 routing as done in the HB.  It would answer the quandary of one getting automatic (though unstated) credit for 46 Truck if WV 46 was only driven EB.

[yakra]

Still, wouldn't this be in your opinion be considered inside the intersection with the way we 'center' roads that are split onto different roads?

It would be. Hence the ugh-yecch.

Also, IMO, with the way the 'truck' signage is on US-220, could it not be considered to be like 'TO' signage for the ramp?  I mean, the ramp is practically right at the traffic light.

I thought about that, the "missing 'TO' signage" aspect. It's wibbly-wobbly, though, and in my mind, the signage from 46 proper was enough for it to pass Tim's "If you can replace TRUCK with BYPASS or ALTERNATE and it makes sense, then include it" test.

I'm going to avoid weighing in with a specific Yes or No opinion on this one.
Meh, wait, lemme backpedal on that. For some precedent, zoom way in on the western terminus of NH4. You should see a "NH 4 Truck" on Mapnik and DE views. With the way the system of one-way roads in the area and point placement on NH9/108 worked out, I opted to leave out "NH4TrkDov". Mapping/graphing-wise, it pretty much would have been overlaid over the end of NH4. Take from that what you will...
(Though now, I see there are other ways of arranging things where I could conceivably work NH4TrkDov in, so...  )