RI: full comparison of GIS with our routes

[neroute2]

https://www.rigis.org/datasets/ridot-roads-2016/explore is the latest data I can find. Below are all the differences I can find with our routes:
*US 1: GIS shows it using Post Road north of Apponaug. But recent signage shows the more sensible route we have. Post Road is still signed once as US 1 Business.
*US 1: GIS shows it going through downtown Pawtucket. But recent signage agrees with us that it uses I-95.
*US 6: GIS shows that it takes exit 1D from I-195 and follows Warren Avenue (mostly also RI 103). Signage in both directions shows it on I-195 like we have, but some signs along the way show it on Warren Avenue.
*5: GIS shows it on Providence Pike between RI 7 and RI104_N. Likely an error; signed as TO 5.
*12: GIS shows the east end at RI1A/117. Northbound signage has a double arrow, and there is EAST 12 reassurance. BroSt also has JCT 12, so we match signage.
*91: GIS shows Tower Street to US 1 in Westerly, but signage agrees with us.
*103A: missing from GIS. The only signage I can find is one reassurance at the west end, though there may be more hiding in the middle. Delete?
*104: GIS shows north end at MainSt_S. It is signed to continue north not only to RI122 but beyond, with southbound signage also existing at Worrall Street. Recommend extending north to RI 126 for consistency with how we treat RI 12.
*117A: GIS shows it staying on Warwick Avenue rather than turning onto Oakland Beach Avenue. But the latter has at least one sign and the former has none that I can find.
*179: GIS continues it east to the MA line. Signage is minimal, with only one sign implicitly disagreeing. Not sure what to do here.

[yakra]

The TLDR of all this seems to be that the GIS info can't be implicitly trusted as a definitive source of info.

*103A: missing from GIS. The only signage I can find is one reassurance at the west end, though there may be more hiding in the middle. Delete?

ROADTYPE = STATE for Bullocks Point Ave down to Beacon Ave (RTNO = NULL for the whole thing). Checking out that area,
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7592443,-71.3600755,3a,15.3y,206.27h,88.94t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1seFyRvWaQh0NtxEmKs_s2Bw!2e0!5s20110801T000000!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40

*179: GIS continues it east to the MA line. Signage is minimal, with only one sign implicitly disagreeing. Not sure what to do here.

No-build. It matches signage, which is what generally gets the nod elsewhere when there's a disagreement between sources.

*104: GIS shows north end at MainSt_S. It is signed to continue north not only to RI122 but beyond, with southbound signage also existing at Worrall Street. Recommend extending north to RI 126 for consistency with how we treat RI 12.

I'm not sold on an extension all the way to RI126. There's no signage at RI126 itself.
At Social St, signage could also be considered a missing TO; there's a lot of trailblazer signage about, including for RI146.
While this sign may be gone now, but for a number of years it co-existed with the "southbound signage" linked in the OP. So is it 104 or not? A lot of these signs have a unique & nonstandard layouts, suggesting to me they may have been erected by the city, who may not know or care what the "real" RI104 is -- RI104 is herpty derpty derp.