Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Google Maps implies that this road only has grade-separated interchanges in between, though not necessariy including, I-29 and the circle at the terminal.
Updates to Highway Data / Re: KS: El Dorado Truck Routes
« Last post by the_spui_ninja on Yesterday at 08:33:07 pm »
Well, they were well signed...
Okay, I am finally continuing the review.

PR110: CllAHer -> CllAmeHer (note that there's an accent mark over the "e" in "Ame" according to OSM, but I'd omit that because it'd be fairly difficult for people to type the e with the accent mark). Also, is there a reason why the northern end point is just a hundred feet west of the CliRd waypoint? GMSV doesn't show an End sign there, and I have to wonder if that's the right place to put the End waypoint.
PR110RAgu: Signage for this one is a bit weird. First there's a sign here that says "INT [intersection?] 4010", then a bit further up, you see another sign that says 110R is to the left, and then at the beginning of 110R there's a reassurance shield that indicates that the route number is actually PR 4010! So not sure if this route should be changed to PR 4010 or not. (note that all the street view in the area has the same May 2016 date)
PR110RMoc: fine
PR111: PR4128 appears to be unsigned.

That's all for now.
Updates to Highway Data / Re: NC: Goodbye I-495, Hello I-87
« Last post by mapmikey on Yesterday at 08:01:33 pm »
The US 64/264 point was the more centered so I changed the other 3 routes to match that point and submitted to Jim...
I know it's two months after the fact, but I am very not OK with this. If we're going to make historic routes a thing, we need to set parameters, probably limit it to very significant highways and alignments, and have the routes maintained by that state's administrator.

Couldn't agree more. I don't think historic routes should be a system, signed or otherwise as noted by my earlier comments. Once upon a time they may have been actual signed "official" routes, but they aren't any more. I see the "Historic" route signage as akin to the roadside historical markers. Even Historic US66, which is undoubtedly the most famous historical route isn't well marked in all places as I discovered on a recent trip in Oklahoma. The majority of decommissioned US routes have been renumbered as state routes (i.e. OK66). At least there is some official repository at the state level for those routes. As someone mentioned previously, other than users just noticing signage in the field, there's no way of being certain this system could ever be complete.

While I'll hate to lose the mileage I have clinched on those few segments that aren't part of the state route systems, I believe the historic route system should be scrapped. If they do end up staying, the folks handling the appropriate regions need to take these on. I'm sure there will be a difference of opinion on the subject, and I'll be interested to hear the pros and cons.
Updates to Highway Data / Re: AL: Montgomery outer loop (Future I-85)
« Last post by compdude787 on Yesterday at 05:33:46 pm »
Well, according to StreetView, it's posted as AL-108 right now.  I checked the entire road in StreetView, and saw no mention of a 'Future I-85 corridor'.

Worth adding to usansf? That system already has part or all of four other Alabama routes.

Probably. At least it would allow this topic to be solved. :)
Updates to Highway Data / Re: SD: I-190/US 16 complete overhaul
« Last post by yakra on Yesterday at 03:14:01 pm »
Given the short length of the route, I don't know if changing the current style to exit numbers really helps.

The I-90 exit is really 1A and 1B, so renaming it to 1A would omit 1B. And it shouldn't be "1" because of the 1C.
Both 1A and 1 are acceptable per
4 or 4AExits 4A & 4B in one interchange. Usually drop the letter if the lower letter is A. If there is another interchange with the same number and different letters, optionally keep the A.
There's precedent for both usages throughout usai.
1A would keep things consistent with the other 3DI in the state.

GMSV shows that Exit 1C is signed as North Street so I should change that.

It looks like an on-ramp from the former Anamosa Street exit remains so perhaps I should star it, i.e. not mark as closed. But it doesn't have its own exit number, so it would remain with a name instead of a number. That's an argument for keeping the whole set as it is.
Un-star it, I guess you mean?
My first thought was to leave it in, but the_spui_ninja makes a good case for deleting it on 1PPI grounds.
FWIW, The SilSt/NorSt/1C <-> *AnaSt distance falls just short of the .5 mi "double half interchanges" threshold.

IMO, the way to go here is to change SilSt to NorSt and leave everything else as is.
My $0.02:
For such a short route, I might even be inclined to use all named style labels for consistency, if keeping *AnaSt in the mix. (even though the manual may say otherwise...)
If deleting *AnaSt, that tips the scales in favor of using signed exit numbers IMO.
If renaming SilSt, why not go with the signed exit number...
Updates to Highway Data / Re: KS: El Dorado Truck Routes
« Last post by yakra on Yesterday at 02:35:14 pm »
Stupid truck routes...
Updates to Highway Data / Re: QC: A-25 northern end
« Last post by yakra on Yesterday at 02:31:48 pm »
(part of a week-long road trip, to celebrate my apparently complete and successful recovery from eye surgery)
Glad to hear that's turned out well, and that you're better and back on the road!
Updates to Highway Data / WV: WV-10 reroute in Logan, WV
« Last post by rickmastfan67 on Yesterday at 08:44:34 am »

The new route is already in OSM (though could use some tag cleanup).  Also, OSM says the old route is now 'WV 210'.  If that's true, is anybody going to be in that area soon that could get some proof?  This would be a second WV-210 if true, the other one is in Beckley.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10