https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/38811: ToLA8 -> LA8Spr (it's signed as LA 8 and inventoried as LA 8 Spur per GIS)
Other spurs are signed as spurs. This is not, so it either should be ignored, or go in as another LA 8. Thoughts?
Your readme lists a bunch of spurs that are not signed as spurs: 631, 655, 758, 1077, 1194, 3000, 3100.
Those all have signs on the routes themselves. LA 8 is only signed along LA 1, which according to the GIS, is not LA 8. Based on the sign northbound at the junction with LA 1 directing LA 8 onto the spur, I suppose I can add it.
2: US79Trk_S -> US79Byp_S: it's signed as TRUCK BY-PASS 79 and inventoried as 79 Bypass in GIS and RTP
Since it's specifically a truck bypass, I'm not convinced it's worth changing.
Why do you think it's specifically a truck bypass? It seems more likely that it was originally signed (or planned to be signed) as a plain bypass, but truck plates were added to direct trucks that way. If they wanted it to be a truck route they'd sign it as a truck route (e.g. the one in Minden). Note the difference in styles for US 79 and 9: it's NORTH TRUCK BY-PASS 79 but TRUCK NORTH 9.
There are different styles, yes, but following your logic it should be the truck route of "Bypass 79".
10: I doubt LaioRd is the correct name. Google shows it as the name for not just that short dead end but also for LA 10, and it has the looks of a TIGER error (LA10 somehow became LAIO).
Okay, maybe, but what other name would you give it? The GIS calls it Laio too.
https://atlas.geoportalmaps.com/ptcoupee calls it Balley-Hack Road.
The point isn't necessary for anything but shaping, so I replaced it with a hidden point.
10vil: UniPkwy -> LA467 per GIS and signage
467 does not show up on the "right size" map from 2017, which is newer than GMSV there.
That GSV link is June 2019. This is probably the 467-1 you mention in your readme.
The imagery was still 2016 when I edited the file. Added the point as LA467 and created a new Fort Polk segment of 467.
47/I-510: there seems to be no signage (other than a mile marker) taking I-510 south of exit 2C. And according to GIS, I-510 begins at the exit 2C gore, not the end of the bridge. Delete I-510_S from 47 and LA47_S from I-510?
I believe that the south end of I-510 is included under the "unsigned interstate" rule (and even if it shouldn't be, there's that mile marker, and no "End" sign), so I'm leaving the end there. GIS calls it I-510 all the way to where we end it. As far as I can tell, the end of the bridge is at the exit 2C gore (northbound).
The one point per interchange rule applies here.
Except the endpoint isn't part of an interchange.
107: HwyCutOff -> 115CutRd?
Changed to 107-115Cut which was closest to what was on the signs (Hwy 107-115 Cutoff Rd).
111: BonRd -> YvoBonRd?
GIS says it's just Bonner. Nothing in GMSV.
112: StrCroRd -> StrCro?
GIS calls it unnamed, so going with ESRI again.
113: McNCutOff -> McNCutRd
The sign has a space in Cut Off.
116: RanRd -> EslAF?
Using GIS name (Range Rd) since there is more than one entrance to the airport.
118: KisMoraRd -> End? I don't see any intersecting road
It's the name of the road that continues east of 118's end.
125spr is missing a file.
It's unsigned.
129: PoolRd -> PooRd? It looks like it's Poole Road, which makes sense since it serves Poole's Processing.
The GIS says Pool Rd.
129: LA565_E -> LA565_S, LA565_W -> LA565_N? I don't see any directional plates but it's diagonal and odd numbers generally seem to go north-south in Louisiana
This seems to indicate it's signed South-North, so agreed.
131: needs another point for shaping; RTP shows a proposed state highway at what both OSM and Google call DA Biglane Road, but this is currently a minor dirt road
Actually it's paved, and it goes to an airport, so it works.
151: LA545_W -> LA545_S? it's signed north-south at LA146 (but east-west at LA545_E)
151: LA837_W -> LA837_N, LA837_E -> LA837_S? it's signed north-south at I-20(101)
LA 151 is signed northbound heading toward the north away from both I-20 junctions, which means you can't apply normal N-S route rules to it. For the points in between, I'm treating it like an E-W route.
153 is missing LA1265 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.017892&lon=-93.079112 (which needs field checking of signage, though Esri WorldImagery shows it has been rebuilt)
I added a point there (FiveForRd) but will hold off on creating a file for 1265 until signage is confirmed.
163: GorRd -> PRsomething?
My vision evidently is no better than yours, so since the GIS and the street blade say it's Gorton Rd, that's at least not wrong. I changed it to GorRd_S since there are two intersections with it.
175: per GIS and RTP, LA5_W -> LA5, LA5_E -> OldSR5, but this needs field checking
I agree it can wait.
182: LA178_W -> LA178_N, LA178_E -> LA178_S
182 is signed E-W, so I'm leaving these alone.
182: MLKingBlvd -> DrMLKJrBlvd
Yes, but that name is too long.
182: US90BusMor_E -> US90Bus/662 or just LA662_W (signs here give US90Bus a hanging end)
No, its E end is
signed at US90.
182: GIS and RTP show that 653 has been extended back west to meet 182 east of LA3087; this needs field checking
November 2019 GMSV shows that the purported extension is still a private drive. The reference in the GIS dates to 2017.
182-2: StPorSt -> StDePSt
The manual suggests dropping propositions such as "de" in street names.
182-2: move the east end northwest to StEtiRd?
The interchange with US90 and LA 182 is under construction in the most recent imagery (March 2019), so it's not clear to me where 182 exits 90, which would determine where 182-2 ends at 182. I left this alone for now but the whole construction area deserves another look once GMSV is updated.
