usafl: Florida State Highways

[yakra]

I-4's is because it's synced label wise with US-17 & US-92.

Ah, but that doesn't quite determine it. US202/ME9/ME137 have 2 "PondRd"s and one "PondRd_Alb". Having properly done point labeling in the context of the route being mapped wins out over syncing labels "verbatim" with other routes.

[rickmastfan67]

I-4's is because it's synced label wise with US-17 & US-92.

Ah, but that doesn't quite determine it. US202/ME9/ME137 have 2 "PondRd"s and one "PondRd_Alb". Having properly done point labeling in the context of the route being mapped wins out over syncing labels "verbatim" with other routes.

Well, I personally try to keep the labels synced as much as possible for states I have control of when dealing with multiplexes. lol.

[yakra]

Hm. Style guide sez don't use exit numbers when there's only one junction; that would overrule syncing labels between files. I'm with Jim here.

[rickmastfan67]

Hm. Style guide sez don't use exit numbers when there's only one junction; that would overrule syncing labels between files. I'm with Jim here.

But US-17 & US-92 do have a few junctions with I-4.  That's what I was trying to keep FL-50 synced with them and make it easier to just repair a block of data in the future if I needed to.

[rickmastfan67]

Just submitted FL-808 to FL-818.

[rickmastfan67]

Just submitted FL-820 to FL-838.

[rickmastfan67]

Just submitted FL-842 to FL-909.

~30 more routes to go!

[SSOWorld]

Is there any map left? (I didn't look for myself )

[ntallyn]

FL 243 has been extended to Pecan Park Rd. It heads due north from FL102 to Owens Road and then in a northeastern direction, meeting with Pecan Park Rd (the east-west portion) at its current intersection with Bainebridge Rd. The routing is visible on the satellite view in the HB.

[rickmastfan67]

FL 243 has been extended to Pecan Park Rd. It heads due north from FL102 to Owens Road and then in a northeastern direction, meeting with Pecan Park Rd (the east-west portion) at its current intersection with Bainebridge Rd. The routing is visible on the satellite view in the HB.

That's nuts.  I tried with the Satellite view on Google's main web page, and I didn't see the new highway, but do in the version we get served in the HB.

But is it really posted as FL-243? GIS data agrees that it is, but I'd like some proof first.

At least adding in the 'northern' most part of it into OSM (so I can get the coordinates) will be easy, as over half the route is shown on Bing Sat imagery.

[ntallyn]

It really is posted. I was on my bicycle in a group, so I couldn't stop for a photo, but I did see a marker northbound, as well as one on eastbound Pecan Park indicating that FL 243 headed south from the intersection. I'll be at the airport in a couple of weeks and I'll try to remember to get a few photos.

[rickmastfan67]

It really is posted. I was on my bicycle in a group, so I couldn't stop for a photo, but I did see a marker northbound, as well as one on eastbound Pecan Park indicating that FL 243 headed south from the intersection. I'll be at the airport in a couple of weeks and I'll try to remember to get a few photos.

Cool beans.  I've already added the new segment of FL-243 into OSM so I can get the coordinates for the file here.

Kinda surprised that FDOT didn't take over the segment of Pecan Park to I-95 so that they could have a continuously signed route.

[rickmastfan67]

Ok, here's an interesting case with a route that I just came up upon that I would like some opinions on.

==
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=25.847949&lon=-80.209162

FL-934 happens to have a segment that's 'divided' between two different streets.  Normally, we just center between the two and call it a day (because normally they are one-way pairs).  Well, this isn't the case here.  One street is 2-way (NW 79th St), and the other one is one-way WB (NW 81st St/NW 82nd St).  Well, normally, DOT's would only sign one of the two roads with WB shields.  However, FDOT is signing BOTH roads with WB shields at a few intersections (US-441 @  NW 81st St & US-441 @  NW 79th St), & along both roads themselves.

So, I have 2 ideas to deal with this.
1. Create a 'separate' file for NW 81st St/NW 82nd St and keep the mainline on NW 79th St.  Fixes would be required for the US-441 & US-1's files since it's 'centered' for both of them.  Keep the original label location 'hidden' and then add 2 new labels for each separate intersection (maybe w/ labels like FL934_79th/FL934_81st?).  Selecting a 'city' name for the 81st/82nd one might be tricky as well.
2. Have the route just 'centered' between the two roads and ignoring the separate 'WB' road.  A fix would be required for I-95, as it's already split with points for each road (7 & 7A).  Would 'merge' both points together at the center point and keep 7 shown, and hide 7A (if in use, deleted if not).

Option 2 would be the easiest to implement, as it would only affect one 'active' route, however, Option 1 would be the more accurate for the site since the route is posted WB on both roads (& the GIS shows both roads).

Opinions please.

[yakra]

God man, these cases are annoying.

I'd go with Option 2.
Signage at the WB split at the E end is suggestive of one of those one-way "truck routes" located on one half of its parent route (confused yet?). I left a theoretical NH4TrkDov out of the HB for these reasons.

[rickmastfan67]

God man, these cases are annoying.

I'd go with Option 2.
Signage at the WB split at the E end is suggestive of one of those one-way "truck routes" located on one half of its parent route (confused yet?). I left a theoretical NH4TrkDov out of the HB for these reasons.

Yeah, I know, right? lol.  Yeah, I've been thinking the last 24h that Option 2 would be the best we could do, as it does future proof us in case for some odd reason, they get rid of the WB lane on NW 79th St.

The '7' point on I-95 is in use, but 7A isn't.  So, just centering 7 between the two roads should work perfectly.