usapr: I seem to have found a recent route log

[neroute2]

https://act.dtop.pr.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PRHTA-Design-Directive-115-Tables-Tools-Blank-2022-06-21.xlsm
Go to the second to last sheet (lista de segmentos). Click the arrow under route number in the first column and check all. A quick look indicates that this may have all the routes we have, plus others we don't (e.g. 9958, 9980).

[Markkos1992]

Yeah, I figured that usapr would continue to be a work in progress even after activation.

I still need to catch up on my own personal list file before I consider looking further into this.

A quick look shows that this looks similar to the same file mapcat sent me for the peer review.  Hopefully, more GSV has been added to check if some if the missing routes are signed.

[neroute2]

A few minor notes:
14R is signed (the log calls it 14P). Functionally it's eastbound 14 (signed 14R to 14), but the signs here are for westbound 14R. It's also signed here on what is only westbound 14.

[mapcat]

Thanks for passing this along. I will need some time to get through all of it, but it should answer some lingering questions.


Re 14R, it's difficult to separate it from vanilla 14. Both are almost exclusively on one-way streets in Ponce, and 14R doesn't always refer to the same direction (sometimes it's eastbound, sometimes westbound). It looks like I combined 14 with 14R to make the routing for 14 in the HB (I didn't make an entry for 14 or 14R in my notes). I'm open to suggestions for something that may more accurately reflect DTOP's intentions. GMSV (2016) isn't particularly useful, since signage (including km posts) is spotty and occasionally inaccurate (there are several references to PR 10 in downtown Ponce).

[Duke87]

Yeah I would treat that as a one-way pair of 14. It's fairly common for one direction to have a distinct internal designation in such cases. It's not unheard of for such internal designations to end up posted on signs, especially in jurisdictions that are just less organized in general.

[neroute2]

Yeah I would treat that as a one-way pair of 14. It's fairly common for one direction to have a distinct internal designation in such cases. It's not unheard of for such internal designations to end up posted on signs, especially in jurisdictions that are just less organized in general.

The strange part though is that 14R is signed as such in both directions.