FL: FL 399

[Duke87]

So, almost all of route 399 is county, but the westernmost 0.32 miles consisting of the northern approach to Bob Sikes Bridge from US 98 are FDOT-maintained and... as of just last month, there is at least one FL 399 shield posted in the field.

This should be added to the HB as a signed state route.

[formulanone]

From the FDOT straight-line diagram:

[rickmastfan67]

So, almost all of route 399 is county, but the westernmost 0.32 miles consisting of the northern approach to Bob Sikes Bridge from US 98 are FDOT-maintained and... as of just last month, there is at least one FL 399 shield posted in the field.

This should be added to the HB as a signed state route.

Please see this post as to why I didn't have it in the first place, and still think this is the best plan of action since those begin/end state maintenance signs are completely inside of the interchange.

Thus, it's clearly a 1 PPI situation here sadly, thus doesn't qualify for the site, even though there is some limited signage.  Had this been a 'proper' intersection and not an interchange, or it at least extended to the first intersection beyond the interchange, this could be a completely different story.

[Duke87]

or it at least extended to the first intersection beyond the interchange

I mean it... basically does. The pavement change is less than 200 feet from the median break for the first intersection.

At any rate, I don't think it is appropriate application of the 1PPI policy to send an otherwise signed route into oblivion by rounding its length down to zero, and indeed there is precedent elsewhere for including signed routes that exist entirely or almost entirely within an interchange footprint. See for example TX Spr97. Furthermore it doesn't sit right with me to see a route which officially exists and is signed excluded - a user who has clinched FL 399 should be able to claim the clinch.

Anyone else care to weigh in here?

[yakra]

I don't think it is appropriate application of the 1PPI policy to send an otherwise signed route into oblivion by rounding its length down to zero, and indeed there is precedent elsewhere for including signed routes that exist entirely or almost entirely within an interchange footprint. See for example TX Spr97. Furthermore it doesn't sit right with me to see a route which officially exists and is signed excluded

Agree. LOL, I opened up TXSpr97 in the HB before even reading your post!

[Markkos1992]

I think that TXSpr97 is a slightly different situation since it does connect to a route in usasf (International Pkwy).

I honestly am not sure what my official position is on this.  My 3:20 AM brain thinks that both sides have a case in this discussion.

[rickmastfan67]

or it at least extended to the first intersection beyond the interchange

I mean it... basically does. The pavement change is less than 200 feet from the median break for the first intersection.

But it doesn't.  Did you even see where the 'begin/end state maintenance signs' are for FL-399 (one example)?  They are completely still inside of the interchange ramp configuration (which is why I considered it as a 1 PPI situation here).  Plus those signs match up EXACTLY with where the GIS data says the route ends.

Thus, this is completely different than the TXSpr97 situation, IMO.  Especially since it's signed on the main lanes itself & after the interchange with TX-183, while FL-399 doesn't even leave the interchange itself (no signage beyond the one you pointed out and a mention on the BGS the other way on US-98), hence why I considered it as a 1 PPI and didn't add FL-399 to the site when crafting usafl.

[Markkos1992]

I am linking to the BGS that rickmastfan67 is referring to.  I am a bit surprised to see an APL here honestly.

[formulanone]

Frankly, if the state-maintained portion is ~823 feet, that's longer than the intersection in question. It links to a bridge which would be of both tourist and local interest. So it's not just the intersection. See Florida SR 470 as a similar example in TM, although that extends beyond both sides of I-75.

There's more substantial routes out there with a single sign. Maryland is loaded with these kinds of examples (not to pick off Maryland, but there's several short one-sign routes that get the nod.)

No, I don't have it clinched...just my two cents.

[yakra]

Would it be different if were an at-grade intersection rather than a trumpet?

[rickmastfan67]

Would it be different if were an at-grade intersection rather than a trumpet?

For sure if it was at-grade intersection.

[neroute2]

If you're not going to call it a route, the label on US 98 needs to be changed.

[Duke87]

No, I don't have it clinched...just my two cents.

If it at all matters, I don't yet but will be in the area in a couple weeks - and as I have not been on any other 399s, whether or not this is added will be the difference between whether or not I get credit for the number here.

I'm claiming credit for it in my own offline records whether or not it is added, but if it isn't then it makes that page inaccurate and less useful.

[corco]

If a route is part of the state highway system it should be included, period. In this case, there are even signs, so it would really be utterly arbitrary to exclude it. I see no reason not to map SR 399 with the north end at US 98 and the south end at the pavement change.

[Jim]

Trying to think from the typical TM user's perspective, I'd want to map my travels on even what amounts to such a tiny piece since it's actually part of the system.