IA: IA 12 vs Business 20 vs "IA 812"

[Highway63]

Crowdsourcing/floating a funny issue here.

While IA 12's signs stop when it meets I-29 on the west side of Sioux City, the designation continues east through the city, on I-29 and on Business 20, to US 20/75 on the east side.

Business 20 is poorly signed in central Sioux City as it comes in from Nebraska. Since replacement of the Combination Bridge, following the through route westbound and following the through route eastbound involve taking separate roads. Here's what the previous configuration looked like: http://iowahighwayends.net/ends/June05/bus20route.jpg

The decade-long reconstruction of I-29 in Sioux City reconfigured the downtown exits. There is now one at Virginia Street instead of Pearl/Nebraska. This was significant enough that the DOT did a transfer of jurisdiction and gave part of Virginia the IA 12 designation. Gordon Drive to the west is now unsigned IA 812, a number I will refrain from ranting about here.

I thought the simplest idea was to adjust the Business 20 routing from Gordon to Virginia and I-29 between the Virginia exit and US 77. However, the one place Business 20 is signed well is... on Gordon Drive between Virginia and US 77. BUT, Gordon becomes westbound-only as it approaches 77.

Following eastbound Business 20 looks like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.4879749,-96.4135313/42.4897482,-96.3963213/@42.4893692,-96.4111798,15.47z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0
Following westbound Business 20 looks like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/42.4898728,-96.3963361/42.4879842,-96.4137098/@42.4906569,-96.4127586,15.09z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0

So the question is: Do I disassociate Business 20 from IA 12 between these two points, leaving it on Gordon Drive to match WB traffic, or do I keep Business 20 on I-29 and Virginia, to sync with both IA 12 and EB traffic? I am not opposed to creating an "IA 812" file.

[Markkos1992]

I am thinking the best option is to just delete the I-29(147B) point on Business 20 with no other changes being made.  I definitely am opposed to an IA 812 file since it is unsigned.

The existing graph connections stay in this format minus the Business 20 one at I-29(147B).

EDIT: US 77 does need to be synced with I-29, IA 12, and Business 20 at I-29(148).

[the_spui_ninja]

I am thinking the best option is to just delete the I-29(147B) point on Business 20 with no other changes being made.

Second that, this makes the most sense.

On a slightly off-topic note, are they finally done with I-29 in Sioux City? I had to travel back and forth through Sioux City on a regular basis the past few years and that stretch always irritated me.

[Highway63]

Yes, the I-29 rebuild is 99% done. There's some work on one bridge being done but otherwise the project is complete.

[yakra]

Wow, the name of the US20Bus connected route is South Sioux City, NE. This probably never got noticed ever since Tim automated the initial creation of _con.csv files. Should be changed to Sioux City, IA.

While IA 12's signs stop when it meets I-29 on the west side of Sioux City, the designation continues east through the city, on I-29 and on Business 20, to US 20/75 on the east side.

Oh joy. Nothing like those routes that are signed overall, but with a significant unsigned portion. Whistling casually and moving on...

Business 20 is poorly signed in central Sioux City as it comes in from Nebraska.

Poorly signed in Nebraska too. My recollection was that it was completely unsigned in one state (NE?) with a single battered old shield in the other (IA?) Re-checking GMSV, I see at least one sign in each state, so I guess it can stay in the HB.

The decade-long reconstruction of I-29 in Sioux City reconfigured the downtown exits. There is now one at Virginia Street instead of Pearl/Nebraska.

Pierce?

This was significant enough that the DOT did a transfer of jurisdiction and gave part of Virginia the IA 12 designation.

Hm. Not familiar enough with how things are done in IA. Is there a way of determining if Virginia is only considered part of IA12 in one direction? Or is that distinction not made? Or do we just not have that info?
Could/would northbound IA12 be considered Gordon, or Virginia?
And then, the fact that the route is unsigned here takes this in a different direction. If it were my state, this uncertainty if nothing else might be enough to tip me to end the route at I-29 (compare TX364).

Gordon Drive to the west is now unsigned IA 812, a number I will refrain from ranting about here.

This makes me curious what the rant is!

the one place Business 20 is signed well is... on Gordon Drive between Virginia and US 77. BUT, Gordon becomes westbound-only as it approaches 77.

Was almost tempted to ask whether it's also signed EB along the 2-way portion (ya can't get theyah from heyah!), but that wouldn't affect my answer...

So the question is: Do I disassociate Business 20 from IA 12 between these two points, leaving it on Gordon Drive to match WB traffic

I am thinking the best option is to just delete the I-29(147B) point on Business 20

Agreed. It follows the "cut across the diagonal" method I almost always espouse (matching one of the directions of travel in the process). Similar to VT VT125 VT23 VT30.

Using I-29(147B) as an AltLabel:
No harm in breaking froggie.list, mapmikey.list or mwasleski.list, as they've only the I-29 concurrency, marked in a separate line on I-29 itself.
bhemphill only explicitly .lists the segments E of I-29(147B) -- and also .lists them as part of IA12. Concurrencies are marked via US77 and I-29, resulting in a 100% clinch.
*If* IA12 is retained all the way E to US20, we can safely break bhemphill.list, and make I-29(147B) an AltLabel for I-29(148).
If IA12 is truncated, some form of .list breakage will be unavoidable.

or do I keep Business 20 on I-29 and Virginia, to sync with both IA 12 and EB traffic?

I think truncating IA12 may be more appropriate.
If nothing else, we'll still have a graph connection at Exit 148.

I definitely am opposed to an IA 812 file since it is unsigned.

Agreed.

[rickmastfan67]

On a side note, shouldn't the 'US75Bus' point in IA-12's file be centered on the interchange at the overpass instead of on the right?  Would also affect US20BusSio & US75BusSio.  Also, FaiSt should be recentered too.

And one other minor note I just saw when quickly looking @ IA-12's file, the 'MilRd' point is way off the intersection there and needs a recenter as well.

[yakra]

Wow, the name of the US20Bus connected route is South Sioux City, NE. This probably never got noticed ever since Tim automated the initial creation of _con.csv files. Should be changed to Sioux City, IA.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4271

[Highway63]

The Business 20 (IA 12)/Business 75 exit point is in the midpoint of the ramps, not the mainlines. (The other ramp goes down to Leech Avenue.) I thought it would be slightly more accurate this way, but can see the argument against. Relocating the point would not significantly change the line for Business 75, so I think it's fine.

[rickmastfan67]

The Business 20 (IA 12)/Business 75 exit point is in the midpoint of the ramps, not the mainlines. (The other ramp goes down to Leech Avenue.) I thought it would be slightly more accurate this way, but can see the argument against.

To be honest, the location is not the midpoint of the ramps.  That 'ramp' you mention that goes down to Leech Avenue from Gordon Avenue is in fact the defacto movement for EB US-20 Bus to SB US-75 Bus. https://goo.gl/maps/ywheqBnB8VLqhkLk9  This is because you're forced to turn right onto NB US-75 Bus on the other ramp going EB US-20 Bus.

Thus, the point is not technically centered on the ramps, and should be centered at the mainline crossings.