PA: NJ 90 in PA

[Markkos1992]

Based partly on PA 44 and PA 434 having their NY sections in PA, should we add the short portion of NJ 90 in PA?

I'd say "yes" noting that the current signs that just state NJ 90 are being replaced by newer signs stating "TO NJ 90". 

Normally I'd say that the "TO" would disqualify it, but this is a freeway with the PA portion of it not currently in the HB.

[Duke87]

So, the other examples of this in the HB are:
TN KY1076
NY PA44
NY PA434
WV OH833
NH VT105
NH ME110

In all of these instances, the route in question is 100% consistently signed as ending at the intersection past the state line, with zero "TO" banners.

For PA NJ90, there is a "TO" banner on some signs, but not others, so this if allowed would represent a lowering of the bar and would open up a lot more cases where this sort of thing would be allowed (NY NJ23 is one example that immediately comes to mind of having "TO" on some signs but not others).

It is worth noting as well that the number of these cases where the route from one state officially exists within the other is exactly zero. TN KY1076 is considered internally by TDOT to just be part of the intersection. NY PA44 is considered likewise by NYSDOT. NY PA434 is officially part of Sullivan CR11. WV OH833 is inventoried by WVDOH as WV62 Spur. And both NH examples are officially unnumbered roads within NH.

Since signage in the field is the only source backing the inclusion of these route segments, I am opposed to doing so in any case where said signage is not consistent.

[Markkos1992]

For PA NJ90, there is a "TO" banner on some signs, but not others, so this if allowed would represent a lowering of the bar and would open up a lot more cases where this sort of thing would be allowed (NY NJ23 is one example that immediately comes to mind of having "TO" on some signs but not others).

This is the reason that I noted that I would not have even posted this as a consideration if it was not a freeway.  I do believe that eventually all of the signs will say "TO NJ 90".  If that in and of itself disqualifies it, then so be it.

[rickmastfan67]

So, the other examples of this in the HB are:
TN KY1076
NY PA44
NY PA434
WV OH833
NH VT105
NH ME110
MD WV46elk

[yakra]

So, the other examples of this in the HB are:
TN KY1076
NY PA44
NY PA434
WV OH833
NH VT105
NH ME110
MD WV46elk

There's also ME NH113A, officially an unnumbered townway. Don't know if it was simply forgotten about, or if it was given a pass because it has to go meet its parent route, ME113.

In all of these instances, the route in question is 100% consistently signed as ending at the intersection past the state line, with zero "TO" banners.

NH ME110 has this, as well as signage from both directions of NH153. ME ME110, OTOH, has an END sign at the state line.
Yes though, zero "TO" banners.

It is worth noting as well that the number of these cases where the route from one state officially exists within the other is exactly zero. TN KY1076 is considered internally by TDOT to just be part of the intersection. NY PA44 is considered likewise by NYSDOT. NY PA434 is officially part of Sullivan CR11. WV OH833 is inventoried by WVDOH as WV62 Spur. And both NH examples are officially unnumbered roads within NH.

For situations like this, I would look at how both DOTs involved define things: both the one corresponding the Region the route is in, and the one defining the route's System. IE, what to KY, PA, OC, etc. DOTs have to say?
For example, ME NH153 is considered enough of a state route by NHDOT to show up in the shapefiles. (To be clear though, I don't consider this one of "these cases", as it connects two NH segments of NH153 rather then end in a "foreign" state.)

For PA NJ90, there is a "TO" banner on some signs, but not others, so this if allowed would represent a lowering of the bar and would open up a lot more cases where this sort of thing would be allowed (NY NJ23 is one example that immediately comes to mind of having "TO" on some signs but not others).

Since signage in the field is the only source backing the inclusion of these route segments, I am opposed to doing so in any case where said signage is not consistent.

I do believe that eventually all of the signs will say "TO NJ 90".  If that in and of itself disqualifies it, then so be it.

I also think the TO signs would disqualify including PA NJ90.

This is the reason that I noted that I would not have even posted this as a consideration if it was not a freeway.

As far as its status as a freeway goes, I don't really have a problem with including BetRossBri in usasf. What the heck, we've got WA WSeaBri, right?

[froggie]

^ Are the "TO" signs (or lack thereof) why you included NH VT105 but not NH VT114?  I'd think those would be examples more akin to the PA NJ90 discussion.

[Markkos1992]

This is the reason that I noted that I would not have even posted this as a consideration if it was not a freeway.

As far as its status as a freeway goes, I don't really have a problem with including BetRossBri in usasf. What the heck, we've got WA WSeaBri, right?

I'm fine adding it to usasf.  I'll probably do it tomorrow if there are not any objections. 

To note, even though the Betsy Ross Bridge will connect to Aramingo Ave directly in the future, I am planning to not include any points past I-95.

[yakra]

^ Are the "TO" signs (or lack thereof) why you included NH VT105 but not NH VT114?  I'd think those would be examples more akin to the PA NJ90 discussion.

A few years down the line, my memory's getting a bit cloudy, but that does sound about right.
GMSV at 114 had a TO, with no newer imagery available.
Meanwhile, down at 105: 2014, 2015 
Then, just to add to the screwiness, here's what we see in GIS. Came across this recently; can't remember if I posted about it in another thread yet. Or whether I even noticed it back in the day.

[Markkos1992]

This is the reason that I noted that I would not have even posted this as a consideration if it was not a freeway.

As far as its status as a freeway goes, I don't really have a problem with including BetRossBri in usasf. What the heck, we've got WA WSeaBri, right?

I'm fine adding it to usasf.  I'll probably do it tomorrow if there are not any objections. 

To note, even though the Betsy Ross Bridge will connect to Aramingo Ave directly in the future, I am planning to not include any points past I-95.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2254

Marking solved for my question anyway

[neroute2]

Meanwhile, down at 105: 2014, 2015 
Then, just to add to the screwiness, here's what we see in GIS. Came across this recently; can't remember if I posted about it in another thread yet. Or whether I even noticed it back in the day.

If we went by street names we'd have random pieces of US 66 existing.

[yakra]

A fair point, though I introduce that info as just a piece of the larger puzzle, certainly nothing definitive on its own.
These local road & "Route 66" examples sound like the very bottom of "State Route 129", not to be confused with ME129, which does not include it.
Such roads probably got named back when the name was accurate, and stayed named after the accuracy wore off.
So, at least st some point in time, in some regard, Vt Hwy 105 was considered Vt Hwy 105.
FWIW. Which may or may not be much.

As for that field signage, that's maddeningly inconsistent though innit.