IA: some changes in eastern Iowa

[neroute2]

US 52: reverse since it's signed north-south
US 52: unhide +HitPostRd
US 52: CRA34 -> CRW20
US 52: add TownLineRd to stay within tolerance
US 52: move CRW42_S east one block
US 52: +X05 -> 130thAve
US 18/US 52: OldUS18 -> 115thSt
US 18/US 52: add CRW70
US 18/US 52: CRB45 -> PleRidRd
US 18/US 52: add CRB56
US 18/US 52: add CRX32
US 52: add CRB60
US 52: add CRB65
US 52: add CRX50
US 52: CRX56 -> HaySt and move south a block
US 52: DekSt -> DeKSt?
US 52: add CRC53
US 52: IA136 -> IA3/136
US 52/3: CRX71 -> CleCreRd? I can't find any shields, but GSV is old and low quality
US 52/3: +BanParkRd -> MidRd or move west to the actual BanParkRd (and unhide)
US 52/3: CRY21 -> ParkHolRd? I can't find any shields, but GSV is old and low quality
US 52/3: +X13 -> ClayHillRd and move west
US 52: CRC9Y_Sag -> CRC9Y_S, CRC9Y_Mil -> CRC9Y_N
3: CRC9Y_Sag -> CRC9Y
US 52/3: 10thSt -> 9thSt_W and move one block south, since both directions use 9th Street
US 52: +CryLakeCave -> CryLakeRd
US 52: CRD41 -> SchHeiRd
US 52: unhide +StCatRd, +370thSt
US 52: +X15 -> 395thAve
US 52: add a shaping point at Twin Springs to keep within tolerance
US 52/64: BroSt -> BroSt_S

US 61/218: CRJ82 -> 340thSt
US 61: CRJ72_E -> CRJ72 and shift southwest
US 61: +X01 -> 280thSt
US 61: add CRX23
US 61: GSJ at 233rdSt
US 61: delete *CRX53 since it's not in use and I can't find evidence of any CR X53 there (was it a typo for X23?)
US 61: US61Bus/2 -> 18, CRJ40 -> 22, CRX32 -> 24, US61BusFtM_N -> 27
US 61: move CRX62 southwest
US 61: OldUS34 -> MtPleSt
US 61: CRH16 -> 40thSt
US 61: add CRG56
US 61: OldUS61_Gra -> 145thSt and move north
US 61: IA92_W -> 74, 170thSt -> 76
US 61: CRG40 -> Hwy305
US 61: FruRd -> CRG38
US 61: CRG14 -> 180thSt
US 61: OldUS61 -> YorkAve
US 61: add CRY36
US 61: OakLn -> 107, MaySt -> 109
US 61: I-80(295) -> 123? (but US 61 uses exit 123B)
US 61: CRF55 -> 124, CRF51 -> 125, CRF45 -> 127, CRF41 -> 129, US30_E -> 137, US30_W -> 139
US 61: move CRY68 northwest
US 61: IA136 -> 153, US61BusMaq_S -> 156, IA64 -> 158
Does US 61busmaq still exist? I can't find any signs. If not, delete it and on 64: US61Bus -> MainSt
US 61/US 151: GSJ at SWArt
US 52/US 61/US 151: IA946_S -> LocSt, move northeast to the underpass
US 52/US 61/US 151: IA946_N -> toLocSt?
US 52/US 61/US 151: 4thSt -> WhiSt, move north to the underpass
US 61/US 151: move KerBlvd northeast to the underpass
US 61/US 151: move 16thSt west to the underpass

US 61busdav: +X07 -> ConSt
US 61busdav: SDivSt -> DivSt
US 61busftm: 270thAve -> CRX23
US 61busftm: OldIA2_E -> ToIL9/96
US 61busmus: HerAve -> HerAve_W?

US 67: add CRZ36_S; CRZ36 -> CRZ36_N and move south
US 67: CRF21 -> 9thSt
US 30/US 67: S14thSt -> 14thSt
US 67: CRF12 -> 13thAve
US 67/136: unhide +MainAve_E
US 67: CRE62 -> 180thSt
US 67: +X08 -> 460thAve
US 67: +X10 -> 110thSt

22: add 190thAve_S or 150thSt_W south of Keswick to stay within tolerance
22: add a shaping point east of CRV67 to stay within tolerance
22: add a shaping point east of CRW15 to stay within tolerance
22: add a shaping point west of IA1 to stay within tolerance
22: add CRW64
22: add CRX34
22: HiPraRd -> HighPraRd
22: IA38_S -> US61Bus_S? US 61Bus/38?
22: WilDenSP -> WilDenRd?
22: add CRY48
22: move US61Bus west, maybe rename US61BusDav?

76: US18_W -> US18_S, US18_E -> US18_N
76: delete +X02, +X03, and +X04
76: EffNatMon -> EffMouNM
76: add CRX36
76: delete +X05
76: add CRX32_S, CRX32 -> CRX32_N
76: delete +X06
76: CRX12 -> CRA52/X12
76: add CRA50

[Markkos1992]

neroute2, please see the linked post below in regard to why US 52 is put in the way it is.

http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3347.msg16533#msg16533

[Highway63]

I have taken your suggestions and resubmitted files, with the following comments.

US 61/218: CRJ82 -> 340thSt
As marked on the Lee County map.

US 61: delete *CRX53 since it's not in use and I can't find evidence of any CR X53 there (was it a typo for X23?)
This is the former north junction with X23 (yes it was a typo) from before the Fort Madison bypass was built. It's needed as a shaping point anyway. The kind-of replacement is the 233rd Street point to add.

US 61: US61Bus/2 -> 18, CRJ40 -> 22, CRX32 -> 24, US61BusFtM_N -> 27
US 61: IA92_W -> 74, 170thSt -> 76
US 61: OakLn -> 107, MaySt -> 109
US 61: CRF55 -> 124, CRF51 -> 125, CRF45 -> 127, CRF41 -> 129, US30_E -> 137, US30_W -> 139
US 61: IA136 -> 153, US61BusMaq_S -> 156, IA64 -> 158
I do not intend to switch to exit numbers on a route that is not all (or almost all) freeway. It creates inconsistency and potential confusion, not to mention that the labels have been the way they are for more than a decade.

US 61: CRH16 -> 40thSt
As marked on the Louisa County map and Google.

US 61: OldUS61_Gra -> 145thSt and move north
In its position as the south end of the bypassed segment (2017). It needs to be marked as a closed point.

US 61: CRG14 -> 180thSt
As marked on the Muscatine County map and Google.

US 61: OldUS61 -> YorkAve
This was designed for the Blue Grass bypass but I can see renaming it.

Does US 61busmaq still exist? I can't find any signs. If not, delete it and on 64: US61Bus -> MainSt
Officially yes, signed no (except for one ancient marker). It is so old, however, that deleting it would not cause harm.

US 61/US 151: GSJ at SWArt
I'm not touching anything Southwest Arterial-related (including US 52 relocation) until the new route opens this year.

US 52/US 61/US 151: IA946_S -> LocSt, move northeast to the underpass
This point is at the location the northbound exit and southbound entrance ramps touch the freeway, since it is only a partial interchange. The name is the Iowa DOT designation for Locust.

US 52/US 61/US 151: 4thSt -> WhiSt, move north to the underpass
This point is at the location the northbound exit and southbound entrance ramps touch the freeway, since it is only a partial interchange. I used 4th instead of White because southbound is Central, and I thought this would accommodate both directions, although the BGS does say White. As this part includes US 52, I can re-evaluate after 52 is rerouted.

US 61/US 151: move KerBlvd northeast to the underpass
This point is at the location the northbound exit and southbound entrance ramps touch the freeway, since it is only a partial interchange.

US 61/US 151: move 16thSt west to the underpass
This point is at the location the southbound exit and northbound entrance ramps touch the freeway, since it is only a partial interchange.

US 61busdav: SDivSt -> DivSt
US 61busmus: HerAve -> HerAve_W?
22: HiPraRd -> HighPraRd
US 30/US 67: S14thSt -> 14thSt
The names are accurate as is.

US 61busftm: OldIA2_E -> ToIL9/96
The existing name is correct, and both this label and its previous of IA2_E are in use.

US 67: add CRZ36_S; CRZ36 -> CRZ36_N and move south
Where would a Z36_S be? Also, the location is to square off the intersection.

US 67: CRF21 -> 9thSt
US 67: CRF12 -> 13thAve
US 67: CRE62 -> 180thSt
As marked on the both the Clinton County map and Google (although the last is a gravel road that arguably shouldn't be marked).

US 67/136: unhide +MainAve_E
It shouldn't be marked as hidden (or if it is, I only unhid it on one of them).

US 67: +X08 -> 460thAve
If this needs to be an active point it should be CRE44.

US 67: +X10 -> 110thSt
Just because a gravel road makes a good shaping point does not mean it needs to be active.

22: WilDenSP -> WilDenRd?
Wildcat Den State Park

22: move US61Bus west,
This is centered at the overpass. I do not understand this.

76: US18_W -> US18_S, US18_E -> US18_N
The names double up with the US 18 Business route.

76: delete +X02, +X03, +X04, +X05, +X06
There is nothing wrong with them.

76: add CRX36
Gravel

[neroute2]

You seem to be preferring maps (official and unofficial) over actual signs that have been posted or not posted. Why is this?

[SSOWorld]

Not everyone is able to drive out to those points to verify.

[neroute2]

Not everyone is able to drive out to those points to verify.

That's why I showed my work with GSV links.

[Highway63]

You seem to be preferring maps (official and unofficial) over actual signs that have been posted or not posted. Why is this?

I am trying to think of the best interests of the user. The user is, for the most part, going to be entering their points after consulting a map. The user may have consulted the maps before or after the trip. My method is based on the idea that the user will see the name on the map, or compare it to a GPS track, and know "this is the point I'm looking for."

GPS's, for the most part, often default to using street names in urban areas, e.g. "turn left on Euclid Avenue" rather than "turn left on US 6". That doesn't mean I should rename the US6 point EucAve. This is not a perfect analogy because US routes are well-signed and county roads typically are not, but I am trying to convey that the name remains valid.

[michih]

You seem to be preferring maps (official and unofficial) over actual signs that have been posted or not posted. Why is this?

I am trying to think of the best interests of the user. The user is, for the most part, going to be entering their points after consulting a map. The user may have consulted the maps before or after the trip. My method is based on the idea that the user will see the name on the map, or compare it to a GPS track, and know "this is the point I'm looking for."

GPS's, for the most part, often default to using street names in urban areas, e.g. "turn left on Euclid Avenue" rather than "turn left on US 6". That doesn't mean I should rename the US6 point EucAve. This is not a perfect analogy because US routes are well-signed and county roads typically are not, but I am trying to convey that the name remains valid.

seconded!

[bejacob]

You seem to be preferring maps (official and unofficial) over actual signs that have been posted or not posted. Why is this?

I am trying to think of the best interests of the user. The user is, for the most part, going to be entering their points after consulting a map. The user may have consulted the maps before or after the trip. My method is based on the idea that the user will see the name on the map, or compare it to a GPS track, and know "this is the point I'm looking for."

GPS's, for the most part, often default to using street names in urban areas, e.g. "turn left on Euclid Avenue" rather than "turn left on US 6". That doesn't mean I should rename the US6 point EucAve. This is not a perfect analogy because US routes are well-signed and county roads typically are not, but I am trying to convey that the name remains valid.

seconded!

These are the times when I wish there were a way to "like" comments.

I frequently refer to the HB before a trip, sometimes printing out maps to help me know where there are route segments I might want to drive. I don't care so much how the point is labeled as long as I can figure out at which corner I should turn. The method Highway63 mentioned works exactly as he intends (at least in my case).

[neroute2]

Welcome to bizarro TM. Sorry I tried to help.

[cl94]

I do see neroute2's point, though. Everywhere else on Travel Mapping, signs trump everything else. Why is that not the case here?

Do note that I am a firm believer that what the DOT and maps say should trump signs, but that is not the law of Travel Mappin.

[oscar]

I do see neroute2's point, though. Everywhere else on Travel Mapping, signs trump everything else. Why is that not the case here?

Do note that I am a firm believer that what the DOT and maps say should trump signs, but that is not the law of Travel Mappin.

This might overstate the role of signage a bit. especially in the jurisdictions I manage, which include some where the signage is often weak/non-existent, outdated. and/or a joke (looking at you, New Mexico). For route definitions (where routes begin and end, for example), I stick closely to what official sources say. For waypoint labeling (which what we're talking about here), I tend to default to maps/official sources, but I'm open to comments on conforming labels to signage in the field (if any -- often there is none, especially in my Arctic jurisdictions).

But I'm not convinced that mislabeled waypoints really confuse users, trying to retrace their travels. I've not had much trouble using the maps in the Highway Browser (which we tell users to consult when composing their list files) to figure out more or less where I went, and which waypoints I should put in my list file, even if it doesn't quite match up with any signage I remember seeing.

[US 89]

As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.

I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.

[Duke87]

As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.

I have to second this philosophically. When it comes to the names of side roads that are not routes included in the project, it is interesting from a data integrity perspective if what the street sign blade says and what the official county map says don't match... but for our purposes as to which should govern in the waypoint label, my attitude is - what difference does it make really?

The HB tells the user what label to use. Whether it matches the name on paper or the name as signed doesn't materially impact its usability. I say let it be so long as the point is in the correct location and isn't named something totally out of whack.

[Markkos1992]

As a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.

I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.

I did not realize Highway63 had this intention when I started looking at exit numbers for WI.  Having stated that, considering that we are going this direction in other states (most specifically NC with routes such as US 17 and US 70), we should be doing it here as well.

US 61: US61Bus/2 -> 18, CRJ40 -> 22, CRX32 -> 24, US61BusFtM_N -> 27
US 61: IA92_W -> 74, 170thSt -> 76
US 61: OakLn -> 107, MaySt -> 109
US 61: CRF55 -> 124, CRF51 -> 125, CRF45 -> 127, CRF41 -> 129, US30_E -> 137, US30_W -> 139
US 61: IA136 -> 153, US61BusMaq_S -> 156, IA64 -> 158

The ones north of I-80 for instance (from CRF55 to US30_W) are a enough of a cluster for me to think that they should be done for sure.

I think the manual supports adding exit numbers for US Routes and state routes wherever possible.  I know there are exceptions where I do not support exit numbers (see US 460 in VA along Corridor Q), but that oddity is few and far between.

🔗 Desired waypoints.
🔗 Border points: These points often begin and end files. If a required intersection coincides with a border point, use a border point and skip the intersection point. The only border points in use are international boundaries (all countries) and subdivisional boundaries (for only countries we subdivide in this project).
🔗 Exit numbers: If the highway has interchanges with exit numbers for itself.
🔗 Visibly numbered cross road designation: US 42, A17, I-40 Business Loop, etc.
🔗 Truncated, visible cross road name: Magothy Bridge Road, etc.

US 61busdav: SDivSt -> DivSt
US 61busmus: HerAve -> HerAve_W?
22: HiPraRd -> HighPraRd
US 30/US 67: S14thSt -> 14thSt

While the HerAve->HerAve_W points can go either way (I prefer this route), and there can be leeway if High, Church, etc. is spelled out or not, the prefixes should definitely go.

From the manual:  https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#dropdirection 

Of course, if there are intersections with NDivSt and SDivSt, the labels would be fine.