Author Topic: NJ: NJ 73 Potential Point Errors  (Read 5568 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
  • Last Login:Today at 11:27:34 am
NJ: NJ 73 Potential Point Errors
« on: February 16, 2020, 10:35:20 am »
1.  FlePike should be FlePk. (may have been previously grepped)
2.  CR561Alt looks like it should be for CR 536.  Considering that CR 536 is already is a legitimate label nearby, I am confused by what is going on here.
3.  MilRd should probably be Walker Ave (WalAve) or Cross Keys Rd (CroKeyRd).
4.  ChuRd seems to technically be two intersections, but this looks like a one-point-per-interchange scenario even though it really is not.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
  • Last Login:November 11, 2024, 12:50:03 pm
  • I like C++
Re: NJ: NJ 73 Potential Point Errors
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2020, 08:43:13 pm »
1. Pike is 4 letters, thus we use the whole word. USPS says Pike -> Pike, not Pk. I don't see anything justifying that abbreviation, Tim's widespread usage in PA notwithstanding.
2. Looks to be a case of a missing TO. Changed to CedRd.
3. Changed to WalAve.
4. U-turn movements are signed at one end. It's sort of a Michigan-lefty-squareabout-thingamabob, like a 1PPI-undergoing-mitosis scenario. Borderline enough for me to go no-build.

Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Online Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
  • Last Login:Today at 11:27:34 am
Re: NJ: NJ 73 Potential Point Errors
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2020, 06:38:54 am »
Quote
1. Pike is 4 letters, thus we use the whole word. USPS says Pike -> Pike, not Pk. I don't see anything justifying that abbreviation, Tim's widespread usage in PA notwithstanding.

This may be a presumption on my part with Turnpike being Tpk.   If we want to go this route, you can add it to the PA/DE grap list.  Offhand, I know I have PotPk (Pottstown Pike).

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
  • Last Login:November 11, 2024, 12:50:03 pm
  • I like C++
Re: NJ: NJ 73 Potential Point Errors
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2020, 03:03:42 pm »
Sure I can do that, if it's really something you want to spend the time fixing. 69 examples in PA, and there'd still be 128 examples in other regions.
IMO it's sorta like Mtn vs Mou, Crk vs Cre, etc.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Online Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
  • Last Login:Today at 11:27:34 am
Re: NJ: NJ 73 Potential Point Errors
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2020, 05:06:25 pm »
Sure I can do that, if it's really something you want to spend the time fixing. 69 examples in PA, and there'd still be 128 examples in other regions.
IMO it's sorta like Mtn vs Mou, Crk vs Cre, etc.

We probably should be speaking with the USPS abbreviation "Pike" for consistency.  The "Mtn" and "Cre" rules are different IMO we are not intending to bind those on USPS.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4422
  • Last Login:November 11, 2024, 12:50:03 pm
  • I like C++
Re: NJ: NJ 73 Potential Point Errors
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2020, 05:46:16 pm »
I was kinda talking out of both sides of my mouth in that last post, wasn't I? "Using this abbrev the USPS doesn't list is like using these other abbrevs the USPS does list" :P
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca