This may have been a misinterpretation of what I wrote in Post #44...I was saying there was no indication of field signage at the north endpoint.
It may have been that. I see the reply on #123 where it was noted the route would be deleted.
Having driven the route end to end, I can attest that there aren't many signs along the. The northernmost one (on the southbound side) appears to be a relatively recent addition, though the others have been in place a while.
I'm suggesting that going forward, GMSV can be a useful tool to confirm the existence of signage, although depending on how recent the images are, even that isn't perfect. Where I think caution is needed is using it to confirm that signage
doesn't exist as it can be easy to skip past signs especially on routes that are 'lightly' signed It's impractical to field check every route, but I feel additional care should exercised when relying
solely on GMSV when considering deleting a route due to lack of signs. It's easier to prove a positive (signs exist) than to disprove a negative (no signs anywhere along a route). Mistakenly deleting signed routes does not seem to happen often, but GA40SprStM is not the only time.
I suppose this is just part of the process of getting a state like GA activated. It looks close, and I'll be eager to see it move beyond the preview state. Thanks to all who have worked to get it this far.