CO: I-76BSAtwood - Business Loop?

[jayhawkco]

Three quick things.  Firstly, every shield that I see for this segment shows "Loop" not "Spur".
Secondly, is there a reason that we separate this segment from the BL in Fort Morgan since it's continuous?
And lastly, is there a reason that we stop it at CO63 in Atwood?  There is one shield that's past that intersection.  Granted, there aren't any further signs, but it surely technically doesn't end right at CO63. 

Chris

[oscar]

The I-40 business route to Glenrio TX was, last I was there, signed as a business loop. But we call it a business spur, because it doesn't loop back to the Interstate.

[jayhawkco]

The I-40 business route to Glenrio TX was, last I was there, signed as a business loop. But we call it a business spur, because it doesn't loop back to the Interstate.

Makes sense, I suppose.  But I guess since the importance has always been on how things are signed (i.e. unsigned routes not being listed), it seems mildly odd to have something labeled as it isn't in the field.

Chris

[si404]

Secondly, is there a reason that we separate this segment from the BL in Fort Morgan since it's continuous?

They were split because ones BL and the other is BS (even if its signed as a loop - which are, IIRC, treated as old signs that haven't been replaced when the section in Sterling was removed).

And lastly, is there a reason that we stop it at CO63 in Atwood?  There is one shield that's past that intersection.  Granted, there aren't any further signs, but it surely technically doesn't end right at CO63.

https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-076b-ft-morgan-co/
Business loop markers for the portion of the route through Sterling were removed in 2007, and as further noted on Dale Sanderson's End of US highway 138 page. No signs for the business loop are posted at Exits 92 or 125 on Interstate 76, but it is signed at Exits 75 and 115. Exit 115 is notable since it does not actually carry Business Loop I-76 but rather offers a signed connection between Interstate 76 and the business route via Colorado 63. This reference was not posted at Exit 115 in August 2004.

I think it ends at CO63 because it was the last point where the route was certain when it was truncated. I'd suggest extending along US6 to 6th Avenue, where there is a westbound shield for Bus-76.

[jayhawkco]

I think it ends at CO63 because it was the last point where the route was certain when it was truncated. I'd suggest extending along US6 to 6th Avenue, where there is a westbound shield for Bus-76.

That seems reasonable to me. 

Here's a link to the GSV for the WB sign.

Chris

[the_spui_ninja]

Given that this is a signage-based route I think this makes sense; since we're in Sterling I need to add the Sterling S-Curve project in as well (realigned US 6 downtown, should be done by now).

[the_spui_ninja]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4546

[yakra]

Suggest adding points to the Fort Morgan loop (and concurrent US34) at BarRd and HosRd for their connections to nearby I-76 interchanges.

And now, the real reason I'm here, is because of the NE: Business Loop I-80 in Pine Bluffs thread...

The I-40 business route to Glenrio TX was, last I was there, signed as a business loop. But we call it a business spur, because it doesn't loop back to the Interstate.

Was that the intent though, or just a mistaken assumption (made for just that reason)? Business Interstates were added to CHM on 2006-03-21. This predates Google Street View, launched 2007-05-25.
There was less road info going `round the web back then; there may have been a harder time of verifying just what kind of Business Interstate it was...

Anyone know of any other weird cases, loops on only 1/2 of a state line, loops that should be spurs or spurs that should be loops, or similar Alanlandian oddities?

[si404]

Was that the intent though, or just a mistaken assumption (made for just that reason)? Business Interstates were added to CHM on 2006-03-21. This predates Google Street View, launched 2007-05-25.

However the split of I-xxBus into the two types - BL and BS was later.

That said, given the Atwood BS is signed as a loop, and acts like (most) of a loop, I don't see why it couldn't be treated in the browser as a loop (and one route with the Fort Morgan BL). But spur was the judgement because it didn't end at the interstate, with the route split IIRC, as it used to be one I-76Bus route before then.

Which will be the case with the I-40 example that ends at the state line.

Alanlandian oddities?

That takes me back!

However these weren't Alanland oddities, but more Timland insistences.

[yakra]

However the split of I-xxBus into the two types - BL and BS was later.

OK wow. My memory doesn't go back that far on this topic; I don't even remember I-xxBus routes. This surely all predates AltRouteNames?

spur was the judgement because it didn't end at the interstate, with the route split IIRC, as it used to be one I-76Bus route before then.

Splitting into 2 separate routes seems odd & unnecessary, IMO. Counterintuitive. But hey, right now, it's what we got...

Which will be the case with the I-40 example that ends at the state line.

Alanlandian oddities?

That takes me back!

Do you recall any specific discussion of this route at the time?

However these weren't Alanland oddities, but more Timland insistences.

I-35BLLar seems to have snuck under the radar.

That said, given the Atwood BS is signed as a loop, and acts like (most) of a loop, I don't see why it couldn't be treated in the browser as a loop (and one route with the Fort Morgan BL).

I could get behind combining them, with an AltRouteName.

Code: [Select]

I-76_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.254213&lon=-103.880796
CO52_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.254000&lon=-103.801575
CR24 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.253959&lon=-103.697248
CO71_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.255384&lon=-103.621802
CO71_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.259420&lon=-103.601171
US34_E http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.260632&lon=-103.595881
I-76_E +I-76 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.271668&lon=-103.584080
WestSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.321845&lon=-103.527431
EastSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.328912&lon=-103.517990
CR35.5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.349586&lon=-103.483701
CR55 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.364171&lon=-103.439713
CRQ http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.377446&lon=-103.427095
CR59 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.428819&lon=-103.381906
CR6 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.469429&lon=-103.374116
ColAve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.482568&lon=-103.351607
CO63 +US6/63 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.544102&lon=-103.269596
6thAve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.604960&lon=-103.219085Additionally, I-76_W & I-76_E could become AltLabels for I-76(75) & I-76(92), no longer being endpoints.

the_spui_ninja? Thoughts?

The I-40 business route to Glenrio TX was, last I was there, signed as a business loop. But we call it a business spur, because it doesn't loop back to the Interstate.

Makes sense, I suppose.  But I guess since the importance has always been on how things are signed (i.e. unsigned routes not being listed), it seems mildly odd to have something labeled as it isn't in the field.

IAWTP. In the orignal context re: Glenrio at the very least...

[si404]

Do you recall any specific discussion of this route at the time?

I was merely reminiscing and not reminiscing about Alanland!

---

The BS/BL split predates alt route names, AFAICS. Possibly it was the change that made the demand for them enough that they were invented. It could be that I'm misremembering, and they've always been split. We are talking about 2008-ish, which is a long time ago!

I certainly remember a discussion about merging them when I managed Colorado, but it might have been inside my head. Or in the dying days of CHM, and so lost to the ether.

This from https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-076b-ft-morgan-co/ : "Signs along the 48.6 mile route vary as both a business loop and spur." is going to be why they remain two different routes.
https://www.aaroads.com/co/076/bl-076_wb_after_cr-29-5.jpg and https://www.aaroads.com/co/076/bl-076_wb_after_cr-q.jpg are photographic proof. Now I've found out why, I now agree with my decision from half-a-decade ago to not merge.

[jayhawkco]

Do you recall any specific discussion of this route at the time?

I was merely reminiscing and not reminiscing about Alanland!

---

The BS/BL split predates alt route names, AFAICS. Possibly it was the change that made the demand for them enough that they were invented. It could be that I'm misremembering, and they've always been split. We are talking about 2008-ish, which is a long time ago!

I certainly remember a discussion about merging them when I managed Colorado, but it might have been inside my head. Or in the dying days of CHM, and so lost to the ether.

This from https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-076b-ft-morgan-co/ : "Signs along the 48.6 mile route vary as both a business loop and spur." is going to be why they remain two different routes.
https://www.aaroads.com/co/076/bl-076_wb_after_cr-29-5.jpg and https://www.aaroads.com/co/076/bl-076_wb_after_cr-q.jpg are photographic proof. Now I've found out why, I now agree with my decision from half-a-decade ago to not merge.

But those spur signs are on the Atwood portion.  So if I'm following the logic, we'd have to have three separate segments?  Because the Fort Morgan portion is signed loop; those signs say spur; further northeast, it's back to loop.  I'd still merge the whole damn thing since I don't know how to parse when it changes from a loop to a spur to a loop.

Chris

[yakra]

Hail Eris!

[si404]

So if I'm following the logic, we'd have to have three separate segments?

No, the logic is that there's a loop and a spur, but some of the signs on the spur say 'loop' as they date from when it was a loop and haven't been changed as its not worth the effort for that small text to be updated.

What originally had split them, IIRC, was "this loop now doesn't loop back to the mainline, ergo its now a spur". That logic is rather flawed and I certainly disagreed with that (and so wondered why I hadn't merged them when I maintained CO).

I'd still merge the whole damn thing since I don't know how to parse when it changes from a loop to a spur to a loop.

I'd be fine with that. It's a different logic, but it's a decent logic.

[jayhawkco]

So if I'm following the logic, we'd have to have three separate segments?

No, the logic is that there's a loop and a spur, but some of the signs on the spur say 'loop' as they date from when it was a loop and haven't been changed as its not worth the effort for that small text to be updated.

What originally had split them, IIRC, was "this loop now doesn't loop back to the mainline, ergo its now a spur". That logic is rather flawed and I certainly disagreed with that (and so wondered why I hadn't merged them when I maintained CO).

Are we sure those signs didn't always say spur?  I clinched it the first time in 1993, but hadn't driven it again until last year.  If those signs are just "two off" errors, then in reality it's just one long route with a couple of typos.

Chris