SD: SD203 Unsigned

[jayhawkco]

I haven't verified this in the field, but I was looking for some options to drive a highway numbered 203 since it's my lowest untraveled, and a GSV shows no signs of any form there.

Chris

[the_spui_ninja]

It's been several years since I went through there; if there was any signage it would be the "SD Secondary" style of a small black and white rectangle with the number on it. The thing with sparsely signed SD routes is that they are usually very obviously marked on maps (see SD 251 for an example) or otherwise known as state highways, but 203 is so short I'm not sure how many people know about it other than roadgeeks and people who bought the SD DeLorme. From what I remember, SD 258 had the "SD Secondary" signs but I didn't see any for 203.

Probably didn't help that I'm pretty sure I clinched it in the dark.

[Markkos1992]

I am working on the update on this for Highway63 at the moment with the go-ahead to delete SD 203, and I think that the deletion of SD 258 should be included as well.

SD 258 was previously discussed in this thread, but it was not deleted then.  (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3770.0)

[the_spui_ninja]

SD 258 is signed with the "SD Secondary Shield", which is a small white rectangle (see 1 and 2). SD 203, by contrast, has no signage whatsoever that I can tell. In my opinion, this qualifies it for inclusion.

[Markkos1992]

SD 258 is signed with the "SD Secondary Shield", which is a small white rectangle (see https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7117776,-98.4452164,3a,15y,330.53h,80.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KUCXb-gIg2X9_nRa-EOhw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 and https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7102701,-98.4848512,3a,15y,139.03h,85.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFv0jxapa-wyX0Cg6-SPR6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). SD 203, by contrast, has no signage whatsoever that I can tell.

Yeah, I was aware of that based on the other thread, but VA 209 is signed in the same way (like a rectangle) and is more defined yet we currently do not include it.

[the_spui_ninja]

SD 258 is signed with the "SD Secondary Shield", which is a small white rectangle (see https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7117776,-98.4452164,3a,15y,330.53h,80.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KUCXb-gIg2X9_nRa-EOhw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 and https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7102701,-98.4848512,3a,15y,139.03h,85.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFv0jxapa-wyX0Cg6-SPR6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). SD 203, by contrast, has no signage whatsoever that I can tell.

Yeah, I was aware of that based on the other thread, but VA 209 is signed in the same way (like a rectangle) and is more defined yet we currently do not include it.

I'm not sure how Virginia does it (I thought routes with those signs were in their own system but I don't know out East that well), but the other routes signed like that in SD (251, 473) are prominently marked on maps similarly to fully signed state routes (Official SD Tourist Map, 473 is by Lead in the Hills and 251 is down by Gregory in the south-central part of the state) and I think it would be more confusing to toss them out and leave the others.

I guess what I'm getting at is are those routes in VA treated differently than normally signed routes (i.e. VA primary vs VA secondary)? The ones in SD are not, and so in my opinion it's an all-or-nothing approach.

[the_spui_ninja]

While we're talking about Plankinton, by the way, if 258 stays the old 203 point should be relabeled "387thAve" and the Exit 308 point on I-90 is off (the point that 258 uses is better).

[Duke87]

SD 258 is signed with the "SD Secondary Shield", which is a small white rectangle (see https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7117776,-98.4452164,3a,15y,330.53h,80.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KUCXb-gIg2X9_nRa-EOhw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 and https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7102701,-98.4848512,3a,15y,139.03h,85.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFv0jxapa-wyX0Cg6-SPR6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). SD 203, by contrast, has no signage whatsoever that I can tell.

Yeah, I was aware of that based on the other thread, but VA 209 is signed in the same way (like a rectangle) and is more defined yet we currently do not include it.

I'm in favor of including both of these. That's a sign pointing to the route with the number. It's therefore signed.

[Markkos1992]

While we're talking about Plankinton, by the way, if 258 stays the old 203 point should be relabeled "387thAve" and the Exit 308 point on I-90 is off (the point that 258 uses is better).

Yes, I meant to post that in this thread but forgot.

SD 258 is signed with the "SD Secondary Shield", which is a small white rectangle (see https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7117776,-98.4452164,3a,15y,330.53h,80.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KUCXb-gIg2X9_nRa-EOhw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 and https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7102701,-98.4848512,3a,15y,139.03h,85.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFv0jxapa-wyX0Cg6-SPR6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). SD 203, by contrast, has no signage whatsoever that I can tell.

Yeah, I was aware of that based on the other thread, but VA 209 is signed in the same way (like a rectangle) and is more defined yet we currently do not include it.

I'm in favor of including both of these. That's a sign pointing to the route with the number. It's therefore signed.

Yeah, this is definitely going back to the unsigned routes discussion we had started earlier this year.

[dave1693]

SD 258 is signed with the "SD Secondary Shield", which is a small white rectangle (see https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7117776,-98.4452164,3a,15y,330.53h,80.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KUCXb-gIg2X9_nRa-EOhw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 and https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7102701,-98.4848512,3a,15y,139.03h,85.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFv0jxapa-wyX0Cg6-SPR6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). SD 203, by contrast, has no signage whatsoever that I can tell.

Yeah, I was aware of that based on the other thread, but VA 209 is signed in the same way (like a rectangle) and is more defined yet we currently do not include it.

I'm not sure how Virginia does it (I thought routes with those signs were in their own system but I don't know out East that well), but the other routes signed like that in SD (251, 473) are prominently marked on maps similarly to fully signed state routes (Official SD Tourist Map, 473 is by Lead in the Hills and 251 is down by Gregory in the south-central part of the state) and I think it would be more confusing to toss them out and leave the others.

I guess what I'm getting at is are those routes in VA treated differently than normally signed routes (i.e. VA primary vs VA secondary)? The ones in SD are not, and so in my opinion it's an all-or-nothing approach.

As far as Virginia goes, they are not treated differently. The little white rectangle signs are exactly the same for primary and secondary routes. They appear at intersections. They are used for all state routes, both conventionally signed and those not otherwise signed.
Reassurance markers and signs used on exits and such distinguish between types of state routes, in that VA primary routes get plain escutcheon shield shapes, while VA secondary routes get circle shapes. (Of course, sign errors occur. In many places.)
While VA secondary routes are indeed state routes, that system would be an utter nightmare to even try to implement, so despite that it would add LOTS of miles to my personal log, I am on record as favoring never doing it.

[yakra]

Yeah, this is definitely going back to the unsigned routes discussion we had started earlier this year.