Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Updates to Highway Data / Re: NH: NH 10 and US 302
« Last post by froggie on January 16, 2018, 09:59:15 am »
Given your own comments from Sunday, I think it's safe to extend it at least to the western I-93 interchange.
22
Other Discussion / Re: New Travels and Stats Discussion
« Last post by dave1693 on January 16, 2018, 12:59:23 am »
2017-18 Solstice-holiday-period travels mostly completed now, and while most of it was on familiar roads, I did add a few new segments:

- a new piece of VA55, connecting two already-diven pieces

- two new pieces of PA73, which when added to two already-completed pieces makes one much longer piece (but I still haven't clinched the route, and my traveled portions are in three or four pieces)

- extended pieces of NJ53 and US322 in NJ

- one new piece of US9: the Edison Bridge over the Raritan River, which I *probably* crossed as a baby, but it's certainly possible we used the Garden State Parkway every time back then so I hadn't claimed it. This time we missed the GSP exit for the NJ Turnpike, and the person driving chose to go south on the GSP to the first exit south of the Raritan, which allows you to go back over the river but only via the US9 bridge.
23
Updates to Highway Data / Re: NH: NH 10 and US 302
« Last post by yakra on January 15, 2018, 07:09:26 pm »
Oh wow. Wasn't aware of anything this far east.
This sign also changed between Oct 2008 & Sep 2013.
Seems that NHDOT is getting even more consistent about the northeastern leg being unsigned.

I could possibly be talked into extending NH10 up to NH18 in Littleton...
24
Updates to Highway Data / Re: NH: NH 10 and US 302
« Last post by the_spui_ninja on January 15, 2018, 05:56:55 pm »
OK, looked a bit, and found signage for NH 10 at the eastern I-93 interchange in 2008 but not in 2014 (you have to look kinda through the grass).

I'm not sure if this will help or not.
25
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
« Last post by yakra on January 15, 2018, 05:21:55 pm »
A general overarching thought here:

Parkways in New York, generally, are signed with some sort of special shield. In Long Island it's the lighthouse shield. In Rockland and Orange counties it's the stylized circles. In Westchester county and upstate, it's the state highway shield shape but green. And in the 5 boroughs it's a mishmosh of inconsistent standards but there *are* shields.
I'm inclined to give less weight to shields & shield styles for a system such as this.
• Some existing systems have multiple shield styles, E.G. usavt, usatn, (more debatably, cannb before its split into cannba/cannbc/cannbl), and the toll roads in usapa, usafl, & usatx* systems.
• More importantly, I view this as more of a system of named routes, akin to usasf. Think of that system's "Text on a BGS" style of display in the HB, in either TM or CHM. Some-but-not-all of these routes will bear shields.

It occurs to me that every road I am having the "wait that's not a parkway, why are we including it?" reaction about has something crucial in common: a lack of shield-based signage. So this would not only provide an objective cutoff for excluding them,
Aah, but did you have that reaction about the Jackie Robinson Parkway? That one could throw a wrench in the works. As mariethefoxy noted, it doesn't seem to have any shields.

it would also be arguably consistent with our general policy on excluding unsigned routes.
Excluding unsigned numbered routes, we do, yes. But for a system of named routes? These by their nature play by somewhat different rules. Something can be signed by text on a BGS, on a glorified blade sign, on a vanilla blade sign...

When starting development of this system, I foresaw a lot of difficulty in defining "Just what IS a Parkway?"
This gets into the murky philosophical definition of...
What is the Sunken Meadow State Parkway? Is it the route that bears a certain reference number (908K)? Or is it all the roadway that is just named "Sunken Meadow State Parkway"?

After some consideration, I decided to go by what's included in NYS reference routes. It just seems to be the most even, objective cutoff I can make. This allows us to decisively pin down routes' ends, include obvious additions like BetStaPkwy, JacRobPkwy, KorWarPkwy, and allow for a little bit of the expected "This was added, why not this? It's a Parkway, innit?", while keeping it sensible & providing a clear cutoff to keep us from getting carried away & going too far down that rabbit hole.

- Also, I would argue that the eastern endpoint of Pelham Parkway should be at the point where the ramp from Bruckner Blvd merges in (right about where the divided highway ends), not at I-95 itself. A "one point per interchange" argument could be made to the contrary, but I would counterargue by saying that "ramp" isn't really a ramp - it's part of Shore Rd, and it predates the construction of both Pelham Parkway and I-95 (it used to be two way).
My take is that Shore Rd used to be there, but moved. TDV & GIS list the northern path, to the cloverleaf, as Shore Rd itself, and the ramp as a ramp.
TDR, TDV & GIS all three clearly show PelPkwy ending at the I-95 underpass. Thus PelPkwy gets its end here, a step before 1PPI even comes into play.

Quote
Pelham Parkway ends at Shore Rd where the two meet.
I agree with this statement, because I consider Shore Rd to end at at a different point. 8)

- Mosholu Parkway unambiguously ends at a T intersection with Southern Blvd, and always has. Reference Route 908F does turn up Southern Blvd to end at Bronx River Parkway exit 8, but this section of road is not in any way part of Mosholu Parkway and therefore should not be plotted as part of the route
I'm not sold on this. TLDR, Mosholu Parkway is clearly signed @ BRP Exit 8, in both directions.
vdeane, what's your take here?
26
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: Spain Carretera Nacionales (espn)
« Last post by cinx on January 15, 2018, 04:51:22 pm »
^^Hm, sorry about that. Somehow I didn't find them...
27
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: cansk: Saskatchewan Provincial Highways (1-399)
« Last post by yakra on January 15, 2018, 01:10:29 pm »
In cannf, Circle Dr. has been finally updated, since several cansk routes intersect that loop around Saskatoon.
• IMO the three SK11/16 points would be better served as SK11_A, SK11_B, and SK11_C. Compare TXLp7.
• SK11 could then change to SK11_N, denoting the multiplex split.
• SK762 is only signed for Valley Rd, with enough blank space for a shield to be added. Shapefiles have 762 ending at the Corman Park / Saskatoon line. 'City Connecting Link" hijinks, as discussed upthread?
• WamRd -> WarRd

Some of these routes have unclear endpoints. I expect that to be a problem especially with the 2xx routes (loops and spurs to parks), which tend to be short but poorly mapped. I'll hold off on addressing those endpoints, until I've finished drafting the route set (still about 120 routes to draft, so that'll take awhile) and can compile a complete list of what needs followup.
Shapefiles should be helpful for this when the time comes.

Does 39A show in the 2017 shapefiles? Any other suffixed routes?
No suffixed routes. All RTNUMBER1 values are completely numeric, no alpha (Aside from "None", which I left off the above list for obvious reasons").
The Estevan bypass is shown, just with RTNUMBER1 = None. 39 is still sown on the old alignment thru town.
Take with a grain of salt; it may not mean much. It could be that things are just taking a while getting updated.

The provincial Highway Hotline map shows 39 on both the bypass and the old route through downtown Estevan. Other maps and official info don't address.
*slow clap*
28
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: cansk: Saskatchewan Provincial Highways (1-399)
« Last post by oscar on January 15, 2018, 05:57:44 am »
Here's a list of RTNUMBER1 values mined from the 9.0 shapefiles:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 54 55 56 57 58 60 80 99.

One of the new routes I've added is 39A, consisting of old 39 mileage through Estevan, assuming (as Mapnik does) that 39 has been moved to the new truck bypass opened in 2015 or 2016. Does 39A show in the 2017 shapefiles? Any other suffixed routes?

The provincial Highway Hotline map shows 39 on both the bypass and the old route through downtown Estevan. Other maps and official info don't address. And neither GMSV's camera cars nor I have been to Estevan lately (it was the first city in Saskatchewan I've been to, in 1994, but did not inspire a re-visit).
29
Other Discussion / Re: New Travels and Stats Discussion
« Last post by Jeff Morrison on January 15, 2018, 02:52:01 am »
Because I'm very bad at getting trip reports on time, a whirlwind version:

29 states, 10/18/16-10/17/17
30
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
« Last post by yakra on January 15, 2018, 01:46:31 am »
- Bear Mountain State Parkway could use a point at Carhart Ave (it's a signalized intersection, so major enough to warrant)
Agreed, this is a significant enough intersection to include.
That, and it gives me an excuse to tweak the shaping. Sure, it's already within tolerance, but I don't like the way it looks. 8)
Committed to my fork of the HighwayData repo, though I'm not feeling rushed to open a pull request yet.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10