Incorrect highways marked on Google Maps

Started by Riverside Frwy, November 08, 2009, 09:56:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

Especially since these routes aren't marked as future.  There's nothing to distinguish them from a route that actually exists!
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


froggie

Quotethis may be useful, but only depending on how close to a function I-269 the road is.

The road in question is full freeway, with the stretch west of I-40 having been completed for several years.  I don't recall if that stretch is Interstate-grade, but the segment south of I-40 most likely is.

agentsteel53

Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2009, 09:51:31 PM

The road in question is full freeway, with the stretch west of I-40 having been completed for several years.  I don't recall if that stretch is Interstate-grade, but the segment south of I-40 most likely is.


the average driver will not care if an on-ramp has a turning radius one foot too tight ... labeling it I-269 on Google maps is fine.

if I-278 through the Bronx is interstate-grade, anything is.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

froggie

Quotethe average driver will not care if an on-ramp has a turning radius one foot too tight

The average driver may not.  But FHWA will.  And they're footing most of the bill.

Your I-278 example doesn't really compare since it was an older route that was grandfathered in.

vdeane

Quote from: froggie on November 29, 2009, 07:40:11 AM

Your I-278 example doesn't really compare since it was an older route that was grandfathered in.

So why can't the grandfathering happen to NY 17 (which is mostly freeway except for two portions with at-grade intersections)?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

agentsteel53

Quote from: froggie on November 29, 2009, 07:40:11 AM
The average driver may not.  But FHWA will.  And they're footing most of the bill.

Your I-278 example doesn't really compare since it was an older route that was grandfathered in.


I-278 isn't just below standard - it is significantly below standard.  It is a disgrace to the system.  I say we kick that one out and use those oh-so-precious chargeable miles on something like I-269 which, at the very least, has more than one lane.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

froggie

QuoteSo why can't the grandfathering happen to NY 17 (which is mostly freeway except for two portions with at-grade intersections)?

Because, unlike I-278, NY 17 didn't exist as it does today when the Interstate system was created.


QuoteI-278 isn't just below standard - it is significantly below standard.  It is a disgrace to the system.  I say we kick that one out and use those oh-so-precious chargeable miles on something like I-269 which, at the very least, has more than one lane.

Agree that it's significantly below standard.  Disagree that it's a disgrace....it's still very much a major part of the system.

vdeane

So grandfathering only counts for routes that were being incorporated into the original system?  Looks like a huge double standard to me.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

agentsteel53

yep, sounds like political grift all the way.

idealism: "yay! let's make a great system of roads that will be completely at-grade separated, with at least two lanes in each direction!  It will be so delightful and there'll be dancing bears and world peace!"

reality: "psst, you want me to vote on your pork bill, Congressman?  how about you let us sign US-30 through Breezewood with the red, white, and blue shields."
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

SSOWorld

As long as you put "To" above it, that will be fine</traditionalist politician>
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

andytom

Quote from: deanej on November 30, 2009, 06:09:41 PM
So grandfathering only counts for routes that were being incorporated into the original system?

For routes not yet in the system, yes.  Once the system is established, grandfathering only applies to routes already in the system when standards change.  Routes not already in the system have to follow the rules to get in.

Quote from: deanej on November 30, 2009, 06:09:41 PM
Looks like a huge double standard to me.

Not at all.  At the time the system was established, I-278 was close to, if not up to, the current interstate standard at the time.  NY 17 was nowhere close.

--Andy

vdeane

As far as I'm concerned, existing routes should be forced to update to the new standards; otherwise there is little point to updating the standards (as the system is considered "complete").

I've never been on the Quickway, but as far as I can tell, aside from the at-grade portions, any non-standard sections are just nitpicking with the standards.  It looks just fine on a map.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

andytom

Quote from: deanej on December 01, 2009, 05:05:28 PM
As far as I'm concerned, existing routes should be forced to update to the new standards; otherwise there is little point to updating the standards (as the system is considered "complete").

Mm hmm.  So, who's gonna cough up the money to do that each time?  The point of the standard is that you have something to build to and that every mile of the current system was up to an interstate standard at some point.  If every mile had to be upgraded to standard when the new standard came out, the whole system would be under construction in perpetuity and never be 'complete'.

Quote from: deanej
I've never been on the Quickway, but as far as I can tell, aside from the at-grade portions, any non-standard sections are just nitpicking with the standards.  It looks just fine on a map.

So, from that line on the map, you can tell that:

You can get your truck underneath the bridges,

You can get your truck around the curves at speed,

You can get your truck up and down the hills safely,

You have a suitable place to park your truck if it stops running.

--Andy

Alps

Quote from: andytom on December 01, 2009, 04:54:36 PM

Not at all.  At the time the system was established, I-278 was close to, if not up to, the current interstate standard at the time.  NY 17 was nowhere close.

Absolutely not.  I-278 was barely all freeway, and one section is a parkway that doesn't allow trucks.  It was let in with numerous exceptions - and many routes nowadays also allow exceptions as well.  It's part of the application process.

Quote from: andytom on December 01, 2009, 05:32:41 PM
Quote from: deanej on December 01, 2009, 05:05:28 PM

I've never been on the Quickway, but as far as I can tell, aside from the at-grade portions, any non-standard sections are just nitpicking with the standards.  It looks just fine on a map.

So, from that line on the map, you can tell that:

You can get your truck underneath the bridges,

You can get your truck around the curves at speed,

You can get your truck up and down the hills safely,

You have a suitable place to park your truck if it stops running.

--Andy


Hey Andy, can you tell all those things about the current Interstates either or, for that matter, ANY other line on a map?  That's the reason design exceptions are allowed.  It's a question of what's reasonable to require vs. what costs too much money for the incremental increase toward standards.  I've driven NY 17 end to end, and east of Binghamton, other than the at-grades there's precious little that really gets in the way.  I believe there are exceptions for things like shoulder width and possibly a curve radius or two already approved - meaning I-86 won't be up to Interstate standards (technically) when it's designated fully.  Again, all part of the game.

SSOWorld

I-39 is a good example of one - it had low bridges over 10 miles of its northern end.  (still does in places - but replacements are underway.)

I've ran into several interstates that had low bridges - like I-90 in Coeur d'Alene ID.
Scott O.

Not all who wander are lost...
Ah, the open skies, wind at my back, warm sun on my... wait, where the hell am I?!
As a matter of fact, I do own the road.
Raise your what?

Wisconsin - out-multiplexing your state since 1918.

PAHighways

Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2009, 06:48:45 PMreality: "psst, you want me to vote on your pork bill, Congressman?  how about you let us sign US-30 through Breezewood with the red, white, and blue shields."

In reality, 70 is not signed through Breezewood.

andytom

Quote from: AlpsROADS on December 01, 2009, 06:37:22 PM
Quote from: andytom

Not at all.  At the time the system was established, I-278 was close to, if not up to, the current interstate standard at the time.  NY 17 was nowhere close.

Absolutely not.  I-278 was barely all freeway, and one section is a parkway that doesn't allow trucks.  It was let in with numerous exceptions - and many routes nowadays also allow exceptions as well.  It's part of the application process.

Of course I know about exceptions.  Except in a few locations, these are usually few and far between and usually don't break the rules by much.  The point of my statement was that, at the time that the system was established, the barely freeway that became I-278 was a lot closer to the initial interstate standard than the undivided hwy that was most of NY-17.  Even in 1970, more than half of NY-17 was still undivided.


Quote from: AlpsROADS
Quote from: andytom
Quote from: deanej

I've never been on the Quickway, but as far as I can tell, aside from the at-grade portions, any non-standard sections are just nitpicking with the standards.  It looks just fine on a map.

So, from that line on the map, you can tell that:

You can get your truck underneath the bridges,

You can get your truck around the curves at speed,

You can get your truck up and down the hills safely,

You have a suitable place to park your truck if it stops running.

--Andy


Hey Andy, can you tell all those things about the current Interstates either or, for that matter, ANY other line on a map?  That's the reason design exceptions are allowed.  It's a question of what's reasonable to require vs. what costs too much money for the incremental increase toward standards.  I've driven NY 17 end to end, and east of Binghamton, other than the at-grades there's precious little that really gets in the way.  I believe there are exceptions for things like shoulder width and possibly a curve radius or two already approved - meaning I-86 won't be up to Interstate standards (technically) when it's designated fully.  Again, all part of the game.

Concerning the line on the map, you make my point for me.  The line only specifies the classification (freeway, divided, paved, unparved).  The shield on that line provides more information.  If it's an Interstate shield, you know that it was built, with a few exceptions, to a standard.  Nowdays, if it's a US hwy shield, that also has to meet certain standards for a change of alignment or extension to be approved.

--Andy

Mr_Northside

Quote from: PAHighways on December 01, 2009, 08:22:00 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 30, 2009, 06:48:45 PMreality: "psst, you want me to vote on your pork bill, Congressman?  how about you let us sign US-30 through Breezewood with the red, white, and blue shields."

In reality, 70 is not signed through Breezewood.

With I-70 in PA, I'm not sure what is a more egregious example of making exceptions.... Breezewood, with a (relatively) brief section (being technically signed or not notwithstanding) of surface highway, a quirk of PennDOT & the Tpk not building it properly and local interests opposed to "fixing" the situation...
OR
The section between New Stanton & Washngton, PA... it's "limited access", but woefully substandard... not for a brief section, but for almost 40 miles.
I'm not sure what's worse.
(Some of the sections of Turnpike that haven't been rebuilt yet aren't all that great either...)
I don't have opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything

vdeane

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

mgk920

#44
Another:

For a nice 'promotion' of a gravel-surfaced local road, zoom in on Rapelje, MT on their map (it's a little bit northwest of Billings, MT).

:cool:

(That area is middle-of-nowhere solitude central, BTW.)

Mike

Fcexpress80

Interesting note:  Google EARTH is jumping the gun by labling Alaska's highways with the as yet to be officially posted Interstate designations, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4.  While this would make sense where these highways meet Interstate highway standards, mainly in the Anchorage area and somewhat in the Fairbanks area; the two lane undivided rural roads should not be labeled as such, in my opinion.

WillWeaverRVA

Quote from: Fcexpress80 on December 17, 2009, 08:26:46 PM
Interesting note:  Google EARTH is jumping the gun by labling Alaska's highways with the as yet to be officially posted Interstate designations, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4.  While this would make sense where these highways meet Interstate highway standards, mainly in the Anchorage area and somewhat in the Fairbanks area; the two lane undivided rural roads should not be labeled as such, in my opinion.

Those designations officially exist; they just are not signed and are, as far as I am aware, not required to meet interstate standards (basically, the routes get federal funding but are not necessarily freeways). Therefore, Google Maps/Earth labeling them as such is not an error.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

agentsteel53

Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on December 18, 2009, 12:11:28 AM


Those designations officially exist; they just are not signed and are, as far as I am aware, not required to meet interstate standards (basically, the routes get federal funding but are not necessarily freeways). Therefore, Google Maps/Earth labeling them as such is not an error.

they will be signposted in the field?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

mightyace

Quote from: SyntheticDreamer on December 18, 2009, 12:11:28 AM
Those designations officially exist; they just are not signed and are, as far as I am aware, not required to meet interstate standards (basically, the routes get federal funding but are not necessarily freeways). Therefore, Google Maps/Earth labeling them as such is not an error.

Yes, but as the designations are not signed, they shouldn't be shown on the maps as they can confuse people.  (Like I-595 in Maryland or the numerous "secret" routes coincident with US Routes here in the South)
My Flickr Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mightyace

I'm out of this F***KING PLACE!

WillWeaverRVA

Okay, I suppose it both is and isn't an error in that case. :p
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2



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.