AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Author Topic: Virginia State Highways (in development)  (Read 33055 times)

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1320
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: February 13, 2024, 06:39:12 PM
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2015, 01:12:44 AM »

FWIW, Hawaii has some state routes, like HI 901 and HI 5600, with number signage limited to small number plates under milemarkers (smaller than the Virginia white rectangles). Tim told me to treat them all as unsigned. I'm disinclined to change that, because the signed/unsigned (or barely signed) distinction helps weed out minor routes in a state like Hawaii, Maryland, or (apparently) Virginia that feels compelled to slap a route number on every road it maintains.
ISTR a couple routes left out of NJ for the same reason.

I'm also in favor of keeping the bannered US routes as such unless sign-os.
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12911
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:08:21 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2015, 06:08:05 AM »

ALT 258 Smithfield is definitely a sign-o.  That one, without a doubt, should be switched to the state system.

ALT 220 becomes a case of do you go with what it's signed as, or what it really is?  One could argue that we have precedent for the latter...specifically the hidden Interstate routes.
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:46 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2015, 07:38:28 AM »

ALT 258 Smithfield is definitely a sign-o.  That one, without a doubt, should be switched to the state system.

ALT 220 becomes a case of do you go with what it's signed as, or what it really is?  One could argue that we have precedent for the latter...specifically the hidden Interstate routes.

I have no problem with this outcome - I have never seen a VA 220 ALT posting going back 25 years.

As for rectangle postings, this is not a statewide thing but a district thing.  Some districts use the white rectangles heavily on all primary routes and some basically only on secondary internal intersections.

At least two white rectangle-only 3xx routes are waypoints on the state route system in TM (VA 375 off VA 3; VA 388 off VA 20). 

As for VA 228 Truck, the CTB has stopped recording most of its changes to the primary system.  VA 228 is no longer posted within Herndon so it may be routed on Herndon Pkwy already, though the 2014 traffic log shows it still through town.  I can put together a VA 228 Truck file this evening as well as fix the 258 ALT stuff.

VA 319 is not shown as a waypoint at either of its US 1 junctions (nor is it on the VA 142 file), but VA 357 is.  There are some things I will do with the 3xx routes (331 is posted in a shield but not in TM either) with my inclination to omit routes that are unposted entirely.

Virginia had up until pretty recently been good about going to AASHTO for the Business routes though I don't recall seeing US 460 Bus Grundy go through there.  Virginia hasn't commissioned a US ALT route since the 1950s.

If you wanted to get REALLY nitpicky, the F-series routes are technically primary routes in Virginia.  But I have no intention of including them even though some are signed with circle shields.

Mike
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10936
  • Age: 68
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:35:29 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2015, 02:33:35 PM »

One more note, as I munch through the routes to add my travels to my list file:

On VA 244, what about the fragment of that route around VA 27 (and very-well signed on VA 27 exit signs)?

Also, on that route's main segment, ColPike => Fai/Arl, since the route ends at the Fairfax/Arlington county line now that most of the route in Arlington was decommissioned. That approach to county line ends is used in MD (at least for MD 125), and in WV (US48 used to end at the Tucker/Grant county line, before it was extended last month to a new endpoint within Tucker County). There are other VA routes ending at county lines, like VA 397, that could get similar treatment,
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:46 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #29 on: December 01, 2015, 03:31:16 PM »

One more note, as I munch through the routes to add my travels to my list file:

On VA 244, what about the fragment of that route around VA 27 (and very-well signed on VA 27 exit signs)?

Also, on that route's main segment, ColPike => Fai/Arl, since the route ends at the Fairfax/Arlington county line now that most of the route in Arlington was decommissioned. That approach to county line ends is used in MD (at least for MD 125), and in WV (US48 used to end at the Tucker/Grant county line, before it was extended last month to a new endpoint within Tucker County). There are other VA routes ending at county lines, like VA 397, that could get similar treatment,


VA 244 is interesting.  The project that required turning VA 244 over to the county was cancelled.  I'd be curious to see if they tried to get it back to VDOT (and will the CTB let us know?).  There are other 244 postings in Arlington County besides the one you cited.  I'd be inclined here to include it all as a continuous route. 

As for routes ending at jurisdiction lines (there are actually a fair number of these), I'm not sure it's worth the hassle to go change the waypoint name from the SR number (as most of them would have) to the jurisdictional line itself (which in the case of towns and cities can move without the route ever being extended).

Mike

Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10936
  • Age: 68
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:35:29 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #30 on: December 01, 2015, 05:05:47 PM »

VA 244 is interesting.  The project that required turning VA 244 over to the county was cancelled.  I'd be curious to see if they tried to get it back to VDOT (and will the CTB let us know?).  There are other 244 postings in Arlington County besides the one you cited.  I'd be inclined here to include it all as a continuous route.

That last part seems reasonable to me. I don't recall seeing any VA 244 signage in Arlington other than at the VA 27 interchange. In particular, there is none at the VA 120 intersection, which I drive through pretty regularly.

As for routes ending at jurisdiction lines (there are actually a fair number of these), I'm not sure it's worth the hassle to go change the waypoint name from the SR number (as most of them would have) to the jurisdictional line itself (which in the case of towns and cities can move without the route ever being extended).

That is most reasonable where the road changes route number and/or name, which I assume would apply to the ending waypoints with SR numbers. Not so much for VA 244 and VA 397, where the state route ends at a county line (the most stable of the jurisdiction lines) without a new number taking over on the other side, and the road name doesn't change either.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:46 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #31 on: December 01, 2015, 08:06:17 PM »

I haven't driven VA 244 in probably 10 years but GMSV taken since VA 244 was turned over show these:

https://goo.gl/maps/ajW8rFRgpPo - July 2015
https://goo.gl/maps/a9JmbH7QHu42 - July 2014
https://goo.gl/maps/bBPz7eVcv812 - July 2014

Based on today's discussions I have submitted the following changes to Jim:

Changed US258BusAltSmi -> VA258AltSmi and if I did it right retained the old name as an Alt name
Changed VA244 to continuous route to the Pentagon
Changed the VA397 end point to the county line names
Added the following posted routes:
VA 314 (2 segments)
VA 319 (2 segments)
VA 331 (1 segment)
VA 341 (2 segments)
VA 357 (2 segments)

Mike
Logged

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6731
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:01:00 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #32 on: December 01, 2015, 10:13:55 PM »

The US258BusAltSmi -> VA258AltSmi move would take that route out of an active system and add it to an inactive one, right?  Should we leave it where it is for now and move it into usava when that system is ready for activation?
Logged
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: https://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, skiing, weather, sports)

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1320
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: February 13, 2024, 06:39:12 PM
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #33 on: December 01, 2015, 11:26:13 PM »

Good point. I would think so.
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12911
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:08:21 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2015, 10:21:03 AM »

Quote from: Jim
The US258BusAltSmi -> VA258AltSmi move would take that route out of an active system and add it to an inactive one, right?  Should we leave it where it is for now and move it into usava when that system is ready for activation?

Boiling it down, it was a mistake to add it to the bannered US routes to begin with.  I see nothing wrong with switching it now.
Logged

bejacob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 49
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Columbus, OH, USA
  • Last Login: August 17, 2021, 01:37:16 PM
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2015, 05:33:33 PM »

This will probably be found during the peer review, but waypoint 1 on VA8BusStu should probably be renamed VA8_S. Pretty minor, but I found it as I was looking over my own travels on the VA state highways.

Brian
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10936
  • Age: 68
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:35:29 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2015, 05:36:14 PM »

I agree with froggie. FWIW, I've driven "US258BusAltSmi", but don't remember how it was signed.

Point relabels would be needed for US258BusSmi (point not in use by any TM or CHM users) and VA10BusSmi.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:46 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2015, 08:17:31 PM »

I corrected my cut/paste error on VA 8 Bus file and will send with my next update to Jim.

I submitted waypoint changes/additions for all the changes from yesterday with those changes, so it should be all set.

Mike
Logged

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5354
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:01:22 PM
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2015, 10:40:58 PM »

I feel very nitpicky about this one, but I do not feel that the waypoint on VA 10 at Gill St (a dead end road without a traffic signal) makes complete sense other than it is right across from Thomas Dale High School.  I would rather possibly even have two waypoints (one at SR Old Centralia Rd (SR 609) and one at Curtis St/Osborne Rd(SR 616)- both traffic signals) to replace the Gill St one.
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

bejacob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 49
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Columbus, OH, USA
  • Last Login: August 17, 2021, 01:37:16 PM
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2015, 07:28:17 AM »

Concurrency question on VA32 in Suffolk.

Should VA32 and US15BusSuf be concurrent between VA10/337 and US58/460Bus_W? It might mean adding a waypoint to US15BusSuf (FinAve) and renaming the point US13/58Bus on VA32 to us58/460Bus_W as one possible solution.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12911
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:08:21 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #40 on: December 03, 2015, 09:26:31 AM »

Quote from: 74/171FAN
I feel very nitpicky about this one, but I do not feel that the waypoint on VA 10 at Gill St (a dead end road without a traffic signal) makes complete sense other than it is right across from Thomas Dale High School.  I would rather possibly even have two waypoints (one at SR Old Centralia Rd (SR 609) and one at Curtis St/Osborne Rd(SR 616)- both traffic signals) to replace the Gill St one.

That point is for shaping purposes.  General policy is that, if a list needs a shaping point and the location of that shaping point is at or very close to an intersection, we go with a regular point at that intersection.

Quote from: bejacob
Should VA32 and US15BusSuf be concurrent between VA10/337 and US58/460Bus_W? It might mean adding a waypoint to US15BusSuf (FinAve) and renaming the point US13/58Bus on VA32 to us58/460Bus_W as one possible solution.

The point labels do not need to be the same on both routes for it to be concurrent.  Only the point locations need to be the same.  That said, you are correct in that the US13BusSuf list is missing the point at FinAve.
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:46 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #41 on: December 03, 2015, 12:45:47 PM »

I have sent the following to Jim for update:

Fixed the rookie mistake with VA 8 Bus  (Hope these kinds of mistakes are minimized on the SC route set which I have completed 2-186 so far)
Added VA 228 Trk with fix to VA 228
Added the FinAve waypoint to US 13BusSuf
Moved the VA 13 shape point to Mann Rd, because there are TO VA 13 shields on US 60 at Mann Rd.
Moved the VA 10 Gil St over to Osborn Rd which could be used as a cut-over to US 1-301 and doesn't really change the shape of the curve
Added SR 609 waypoint to VA 106 and VA 156BypHop

Mike
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12911
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:08:21 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #42 on: December 03, 2015, 01:56:03 PM »

Given precedent, should we take out VA 192 since it's unsigned?
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1320
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: February 13, 2024, 06:39:12 PM
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #43 on: December 03, 2015, 02:42:04 PM »

The trace for VA10 is still within lateral tolerances without the GillSt point.
Edit: I'm cool with the OsbRd cutoff, though. :D
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

bejacob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 49
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Columbus, OH, USA
  • Last Login: August 17, 2021, 01:37:16 PM
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #44 on: December 03, 2015, 04:01:33 PM »

VA83 should be concurrent with US460 from Vansant to Grundy. Looks like a fairly minor adjustment of  a couple waypoints.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12911
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:08:21 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #45 on: December 03, 2015, 04:45:33 PM »

A question primarily for Mike but directed to the group (and especially past collaborators) as a whole:  the situation with VA 156 and its bannered routes.

Currently, the TM files have mainline VA 156 going through Hopewell and a BYPASS VA 156 that bypasses the city (concurrent with VA 106).  This is consistent with VDOT's 2003 route log as well as the traffic logs.

However, what's signed in the field (most of which being VDOT jurisdiction to begin with) is mainline 156 taking the bypass and a BUSINESS route going through Hopewell.

Thoughts?  Should we leave it as-is?  Or swap the bypass route for the business route?
Logged

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5354
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:01:22 PM
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #46 on: December 03, 2015, 05:19:13 PM »

Well VA 156 was practically my life until recently, for me it depends on if you want to go by what is in the field or not.  What would be VA 156 Business has no business banners in Hopewell and there is no mention of VA 156 Business at where Ruffin Rd meets VA 10, also I always remember all of Prince George Drive being referred to as VA 156 so I guess I am indifferent.
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10936
  • Age: 68
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:35:29 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #47 on: December 03, 2015, 05:39:36 PM »

VA83 should be concurrent with US460 from Vansant to Grundy. Looks like a fairly minor adjustment of  a couple waypoints.

My guess is this is from the realignment of US 460, off of what is now US 460 Business, in Grundy.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4353
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 54
  • Last Login: Today at 04:27:46 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #48 on: December 03, 2015, 08:04:46 PM »

A question primarily for Mike but directed to the group (and especially past collaborators) as a whole:  the situation with VA 156 and its bannered routes.

Currently, the TM files have mainline VA 156 going through Hopewell and a BYPASS VA 156 that bypasses the city (concurrent with VA 106).  This is consistent with VDOT's 2003 route log as well as the traffic logs.

However, what's signed in the field (most of which being VDOT jurisdiction to begin with) is mainline 156 taking the bypass and a BUSINESS route going through Hopewell.

Thoughts?  Should we leave it as-is?  Or swap the bypass route for the business route?


My own philosophy about Bypass bannered routes like VA 156 is to ignore it and call the route through town the Business route whether it is signed that way or not.  This is how I treat these situations on all 3 websites that I construct route pages for (although I might note if the route through town is bannerless).  The only time i recognize a Bypass route is when there is a situation that North Carolina likes to do which is to have a bypass, business, and a non-bannered route in the same location.

As for how to treat these on TM, the way I would frame it is this:  Suppose this was 1975 instead of 2015.  I can't speak for everywhere, but many locations in the southeast at a city would have a business banner on the route through town and a bypass banner on the route around town, with no unbannered route.  Would we chop up the mainline into a bunch of segments running between cities and have a bunch of Bypass banner routes?  I wouldn't.

So in a 2-route situation I would ignore the bypass banner and have the business designation.  For VA 156 which is actually posted like a normal business route for the most part, I would definitely ignore the bypass banner.

Because the point of TM is to map where you've been, you get to claim credit for the bypass if you've been on it no matter what it is called, so I don't see it as being that big a deal.  But it is more convenient without the bypass banner for a traveler not from the area as they are more likely to have traveled only the bypass and having a bypass bannered route for it requires at least 3 lines in your file instead of 1 if you have driven the entirety of that numbered designation.



Mike
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3222
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 39
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: March 16, 2024, 01:05:30 AM
Re: Virginia State Highways (in development)
« Reply #49 on: December 03, 2015, 08:22:58 PM »

As for how to treat these on TM, the way I would frame it is this:  Suppose this was 1975 instead of 2015.  I can't speak for everywhere, but many locations in the southeast at a city would have a business banner on the route through town and a bypass banner on the route around town, with no unbannered route.  Would we chop up the mainline into a bunch of segments running between cities and have a bunch of Bypass banner routes?  I wouldn't.

So in a 2-route situation I would ignore the bypass banner and have the business designation.  For VA 156 which is actually posted like a normal business route for the most part, I would definitely ignore the bypass banner.

That's how US-21 is dealt with in NC around Elkin.  Doesn't have a 'normal' route, but has a Bypass (on I-77) and a Business route.  We have the main route along the 'Bypass'.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.