PA 44 in NY

[froggie]

Mostly for Jim,

Given the precedent we have for other state routes signed in different states being included in TM (thinking specifically of VT 105 in NH and NH 153 in ME here), shouldn't we include the short distance of PA 44 located in New York?  It's signed as such from NY 417, as I noticed in person this morning.

[Jim]

Looks like it to me, but I'll leave it to the others who know the most similar situations and how we handle them.  I assume it's not like MA 103's sign on NY 22, which last time I was there, I think had a "To" banner.

[yakra]

Putting this on my "To Overthink" list.

[si404]

If it's signed without to banners, then I struggle to see why not.

[michih]

Add it. I have deub routes in AUT, BEL and CHE.

[Jim]

It doesn't look like it's mentioned on NY 417's entry in the Traffic Data Report (mine's old - 2009 version), so it's not a reference route.  But even so, I would not object at all to adding it.  Then again, I wanted to add a ny.ma103 to CHM and was soundly rejected.

[yakra]

I wanted to add a ny.ma103 to CHM and was soundly rejected.

Perhaps Tim had a bit of a "would it otherwise be a state route in the other state it enters?" bias...
Edit: Oops, I read your post too fast. I was replying as if this had been about PA NY44. The "TO" sign here is admittedly a bit of a different animal.

Going way back to the Maine state highway system thread...

NH ME 110:
You checked that it's a Maine designation and found that it was?

Well, in NH it's a state maintained road, with Maine style shields in the field. I decided to let that rule in favor of including it for system connectivity. Maybe include it in the NH set?

NH ME 110: OK, I'm convinced. Also, I wish PA 44 extended a few feet into NY to the logical border-ignoring end, but there it doesn't.

Re froggie's examples in the OP:
VT 105 in NH is also a state-maintained "N-road". In Roads_DOT shapefiles, LC_LEGEND = "State", and STREET = "Vt Hwy 105".
NH 153 in ME is important enough to NHDOT to be in the shapefiles, with a State Route Inventory number, and milepost info. LC_LEGEND = "Out of state"; OWNERSHIP = "MAINE".

Then, there's NH 113B in ME. There's a lower bar to cross here, with other examples of townways having a signed state route designation, EG all of ME203 and part of ME11ACha. When I visited it in the field, sometime 2007-2009ish, there was a NH113B marker, at the ME113 junction in Maine, erected by NHDOT.

I'm not familiar with the particulars of cases other than these (EG, tx.nm028).

It doesn't look like it's mentioned on NY 417's entry in the Traffic Data Report (mine's old - 2009 version), so it's not a reference route.  But even so, I would not object at all to adding it.

The MilepointRoute2015 shapefiles contain touring and reference Routes, and a limited selection of local Roads, probably the same ones included for traffic counts in the Traffic Data Viewer. PA44 is not included, FWIW.
That may be a strike against including it, if we're still playing by "would it otherwise be a state route" rules.
Which we don't necessarily have to do. AFAIK, CHM never specifically settled on a process for how to include state routes in another state. All that really kept PA44 out of NY was Tim's veto, and he's no longer maintaining PA.

That all said, I don't really have a strong opinion on whether to include it or not.

[Markkos1992]

I have no issue with it being included.  It helps that everyone that went on the Salamanca meet a couple months ago did clinch it.

[vdeane]

I can see either way, but if it were to be included, PA 434 at NY 97 and NY 55 should also be included, since the signage is similar.

[yakra]

Oh, fun. The shapefiles have that as part of NY55.
GMSV has it consistently signed as PA434, the most recent imagery being from 2008.

[cl94]

The 44/417 intersection is interesting. Basically, NYSDOT considers that section of "44" to be part of the intersection and maintains it as such. As far as NY is concerned, the stretch of road in NY is too short to matter for anything. If it WERE a reference route, it would be under 200 feet long and roughly about the same length as the shortest wyes that contain reference routes.(30/159 and 156/157). Region 6, unlike Region 1 in particular, doesn't give that silly stuff a reference route designation.

If it means anything, PA plows that short section of road, so for all intents and purposes, it's basically 150 feet of PennDOT maintenance inside NY. Pretty similar to the PA 244/449 loop connecting NY 19 to NY 248A, which is plowed by NY. I know both because I was stuck behind plows when clinching all of that in March 2017.

I assume it's not like MA 102's sign on NY 22, which last time I was there, I think had a "To" banner.

MA 102 definitely has a "TO" assembly. I can guarantee that. First normal assembly isn't until the state line.

Then, there's NH 113B in ME. There's a lower bar to cross here, with other examples of townways having a signed state route designation, EG all of ME203 and part of ME11ACha. When I visited it in the field, sometime 2007-2009ish, there was a NH113B marker, at the ME113 junction in Maine, erected by NHDOT.

Can confirm. There is one NH 113B shield along the townway as of July 5th. No signs for it along ME 113.

[rickmastfan67]

And I just recently added this 'small' segment of WV-46 in MD due to to it not having "TO" banners @ the intersection with MD-135.
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2574.0
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?u=null&r=md.wv046elk

[vdeane]

Oh, fun. The shapefiles have that as part of NY55.
GMSV has it consistently signed as PA434, the most recent imagery being from 2008.

I don't recall it being significantly different when I was there clinching things last October.

[Duke87]

I find this to be a bit of reduction to absurdity, personally.

There are a handful of well-documented cases of a state route briefly dipping into an adjacent state and then reexiting while maintaining continuity of signage and maintenance by the parent state (e.g. NY 17 in PA near Waverly/Sayre). These I do think it is appropriate to map them as such since they are clearly part of the route.

In a case like this, though, where there is a T-junction a very short distance past the state line, taking the lack of a "TO" banner to indicate that the route continues the 200 feet or whatever past the state line is, IMO, being entirely overanalytical of the situation. Missing "TO" banners are a not all that uncommon signage oversight (remember, the people that put road signs up for a living typically put a lot less thought into them than we do), and if a state line were not involved we would have no qualms concluding there were a missing "TO" banner in a situation where a shield points to a route that officially begins nearby but not at the location of the sign itself.

As for PA 44 specifically, GMSV from 2008/09 doesn't show any signs for PA 44 at the intersection itself, but it does show an "END PA 44" sign at the approximate location of the state line: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9986653,-78.2686178,3a,45.4y,5.86h,81.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk-ikHzbTfWcisvzLkeqU_w!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

[froggie]

^ I can confirm (because that's the direction I traveled), that it's signed as PA 44 from eastbound NY 417.