The usava system was developed for the old CHM but never made it into the system. It's in Travel Mapping now as an in-development system. It had already been subject to some peer review, so hopefully this one won't need a ton of work.
Note: the following routes exist wholly or in part in usansf, so are temporarily not part of usava in the TM DB:
va.va027
va.va037
va.va076
va.va110
va.va146
va.va150
va.va164
va.va195
va.va199
va.va267
va.va288
va.va895
Just taking a quick look at this, it looks like usava has benefited greatly by Mapmikey's earlier review, such as including only signed wyes and excluding the many more that aren't signed.
A couple minor early comments:
-- For VA124, SprRunPkwy => SpoRunPkwy
-- I would be comfortable not breaking up VA 31 at its ferry crossing (AFAIK, only one on a Virginia state route), though I have no objection to keeping VA 31 as is, and more generally favor leaving the treatment of short ferry crossings up to the relevant team member. usaca has a few routes which have not yet been broken up by their ferry crossings, and I would be inclined to leave those routes unbroken. But as I noted in the Alaska State Highways topic, I don't feel that way about the 2-10 hour-long crossings linking up the four AK 7 segments.
-- EDIT: The south end of VA 166 may have changed, with its former intersection with US 17 closed now that both directions of US 17 traffic have been rerouted to what will be the northbound span of a new high-level bridge over the Elizabeth River. VA 166 was at least temporarily barricaded off at the marina entrance a few hundred feet north of the bridge, but pavement continues beyond that point. There was no End signage at the marina entrance, so I don't know if the new route end is there or will be somewhere else south of the barricade. VA 166 signage remains west of the Dominion Blvd. intersection, so the route seems to go at least as far as the marina.
Dave's philosophy was to include any state route that was signed with an actual shield and was in 1 or 2 segments at most, so that is why the 3xx routes that are included are there.
Routes that are not posted at all from the normal system (e.g. VA 113, VA 213) were not included.
3xx and wye routes that are posted solely in white rectangles (even if in a single segment) were not included. I would argue that maybe these should be included at some point as they are clearly signed, even if not in a shield.
I spot checked some changes I knew had occurred since I reviewed Dave's data and he had updated the VA 172 extension and the creation of VA 280. I added VA 281. There really shouldn't be too much requiring update...
Mike
I kinda wish VA would repost VA-381 from the end of I-381 to US-11/19/421 at least.
What's the difference between VA 7 Fwy (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=va.va007fwy) and the equaivalent portion of VA 7 (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=va.va007)? Seems like the segments and waypoints all match up exactly.
Quote from: mapcat on November 06, 2015, 11:12:04 PM
What's the difference between VA 7 Fwy (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=va.va007fwy) and the equaivalent portion of VA 7 (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=va.va007)? Seems like the segments and waypoints all match up exactly.
VA 7 extends 20 miles in each direction from the endpoints of the VA7fwy listing...
Mike
Is the VA 286 file basically the same as the SR 7100 file duplicated? Obviously there is no point in keeping both since SR 7100 is now VA 286.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 06, 2015, 11:17:34 PM
Quote from: mapcat on November 06, 2015, 11:12:04 PM
What's the difference between VA 7 Fwy (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=va.va007fwy) and the equaivalent portion of VA 7 (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=va.va007)? Seems like the segments and waypoints all match up exactly.
VA 7 extends 20 miles in each direction from the endpoints of the VA7fwy listing...
That was my point. Why is there a separtate VA 7 Freeway listing? I've never noticed that roads in other states that have a freeway segment and a non-freeway segment.
The VA state routes that were included in the usansf system (already active) should all have been expanded to their entirety as part of usava, and will be removed from usansf when usava is activated.
Quote from: Jim on November 07, 2015, 09:19:06 AM
The VA state routes that were included in the usansf system (already active) should all have been expanded to their entirety as part of usava, and will be removed from usansf when usava is activated.
OK, thanks. Eric had expanded the similar roads in Texas before posting the list, so the discrepancy seemed worth pointing out here.
Looking through, I have noticed that the VA 46 Truck for Lawrenceville is for some reason marked as Lawrenceburg.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on November 07, 2015, 09:36:05 PM
Looking through, I have noticed that the VA 46 Truck for Lawrenceville is for some reason marked as Lawrenceburg.
Thanks - will be fixed in the next update.
Quote from: oscar-- EDIT: The south end of VA 166 may have changed, with its former intersection with US 17 closed now that both directions of US 17 traffic have been rerouted to what will be the northbound span of a new high-level bridge over the Elizabeth River. VA 166 was at least temporarily barricaded off at the marina entrance a few hundred feet north of the bridge, but pavement continues beyond that point. There was no End signage at the marina entrance, so I don't know if the new route end is there or will be somewhere else south of the barricade. VA 166 signage remains west of the Dominion Blvd. intersection, so the route seems to go at least as far as the marina.
I can speak to this. Once the new Steel Bridge project is completed, VA 166 will be rerouted to end at the upcoming Bainbridge Blvd/Dominion Lakes Blvd interchange on 17 located generally here (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7478207,-76.2849622,17z). This interchange site was part of the Hampton Roads meet tour I gave before I retired last year.
I've begun a peer review of the Virginia route entries. This will probably take some time given the number of routes involved.
Following the usual practice, the VA state routes in usansf that are partial versions of the routes now in usava should be expanded to their full lengths (following a quick review of those routes). Once usava is activated, they'd move permanently to usava and be removed from usansf.
Quote from: froggie on November 26, 2015, 07:41:07 PM
I've begun a peer review of the Virginia route entries. This will probably take some time given the number of routes involved.
A few weeks ago, I went ahead and made a separate text file for these entries. Outside of the Lawrenceville example above, I was unsure if I should state anything about waypoints, etc. because I did not want to seem too nitpicky.
Quote from: Jim on November 26, 2015, 10:54:57 PM
Following the usual practice, the VA state routes in usansf that are partial versions of the routes now in usava should be expanded to their full lengths (following a quick review of those routes). Once usava is activated, they'd move permanently to usava and be removed from usansf.
Should we follow the Texas precedent, and expand them while they're still in usansf?
Quote from: yakra on November 27, 2015, 12:09:11 PM
Quote from: Jim on November 26, 2015, 10:54:57 PM
Following the usual practice, the VA state routes in usansf that are partial versions of the routes now in usava should be expanded to their full lengths (following a quick review of those routes). Once usava is activated, they'd move permanently to usava and be removed from usansf.
Should we follow the Texas precedent, and expand them while they're still in usansf?
I think that makes the most sense.
I can have a look (maybe) Saturday. Unless someone else gets to it first.
I'd like to request that the shaping point on VA13 slightly west of Mann Rd in Powhatan be changed to a waypoint right at Mann Rd. It's the main access to the Powhatan town center from the west.
Also, one for SR609 on VA106, since there's a waypoint on VA10 at the other end of SR609.
I'm still working on my peer review, but there are a couple items I'd like to address:
- There are two routes currently listed as bannered US routes that are actually bannered Virginia state routes. They are ALT 220 Roanoke, and ALT 258 Smithfield.
- There are four routes that are signed with shields but are not included in the draft system. I'm curious as to why they were omitted. They are VA 314, VA 319, VA 341, and VA 357.
Had I drafted the set I would've included 341 and 357 as they can be done in two segments. 314 and 319 have multiple segments although i could probably create a logical path that encompasses a fair representation of those routes. I gave him the posting status and number of segments for all the 3xx routes and he chose the ones posted in a full shield and were 1 or 2 segments.
I would've also done the 1 or 2 segment 3xx routes that are posted in white rectangles because Virginia uses those for all kinds of primary routes including US routes.
I have no problem changing 220 ALT and 258 ALT back to the state routes which they are. My guess is that whoever did the US routes in Virginia made them US routes because they are posted that way.
Mike
I think we should leave them as US routes, especially the 220 in Roanoke since it's signed as such. But that's just my opinion.
VA 258 ALT was mostly posted as VA 258 ALT in 1991 and is now exclusively posted as US 258 ALT. VA 220 ALT has been posted as US 220 ALT as far back as I can remember.
All VDOT maps and documents refer to them as state highways, which is how they were designated by the CTB. They have never been submitted to AASHTO (nor would 258 ALT make sense to be as there is a 258 Bus and Byp there). US 220 ALT should be a rerouted US 460 anyway...but I digress.
To me it would be like putting NY 11A into the US route system if they posted all the 11A signs as erroneous US 11A signs. If I were drafting the set from scratch I would've put them in the state highway system...
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 30, 2015, 09:18:37 PM
All VDOT maps and documents refer to them as state highways, which is how they were designated by the CTB. They have never been submitted to AASHTO (nor would 258 ALT make sense to be as there is a 258 Bus and Byp there).
How good is VDOT about getting AASHTO approval for auxiliary US routes? Some states seem not to bother.
I, too, would leave them as auxiliary US routes as they're posted and in the HB, even if they technically shouldn't have been. Unless you're convinced that the US route signage is just an isolated sign-o, like the one I've seen on VA 311.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 30, 2015, 08:18:14 PM
Had I drafted the set I would've included 341 and 357 as they can be done in two segments. 314 and 319 have multiple segments although i could probably create a logical path that encompasses a fair representation of those routes. I gave him the posting status and number of segments for all the 3xx routes and he chose the ones posted in a full shield and were 1 or 2 segments.
How many segments of those routes (all of which are within state facilities, or correcting them to other primary highways) are posted with standard route markers (not just smaller white rectangles)? ISTM, from your site, that all those routes have at least one fully-posted segment, even if the branches technically assigned to those routes aren't. Normal practice is to include signed segments no matter how many, and ignore the unsigned ones (for example, MD 800). That seems to have been done for VA 321, which seems to include multiple roads on the College of William & Mary campus, but the draft HB has only the one segment starting off-campus. For an example where branches were included, look at UT 282 (main route looping through the U. of Utah campus, with two branch routes in separate route files).
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 30, 2015, 08:18:14 PM
I would've also done the 1 or 2 segment 3xx routes that are posted in white rectangles because Virginia uses those for all kinds of primary routes including US routes.
FWIW, Hawaii has some state routes, like HI 901 and HI 5600, with number signage limited to small number plates under milemarkers (http://www.hawaiihighways.com/route83.jpg) (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.
EDIT: On a completely separate topic, what about adding VA 228 Truck in Herndon? Your website notes a well-posted VA 228 Truck, which loops around downtown Herndon, onto which the town would like VA 228 rerouted.
Quote from: oscar on November 30, 2015, 09:30:59 PM
FWIW, Hawaii has some state routes, like HI 901 and HI 5600, with number signage limited to small number plates under milemarkers (http://www.hawaiihighways.com/route83.jpg) (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.
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.
Quote from: froggie 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.
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
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,
Quote from: oscar 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,
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
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 01, 2015, 03:31:16 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.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 01, 2015, 03:31:16 PMAs 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.
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
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?
Good point. I would think so.
Quote from: JimThe 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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: 74/171FANI 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: bejacobShould 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.
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
Given precedent, should we take out VA 192 since it's unsigned?
The trace for VA10 is still within lateral tolerances without the GillSt point.
Edit: I'm cool with the OsbRd cutoff, though. :D
VA83 should be concurrent with US460 from Vansant to Grundy. Looks like a fairly minor adjustment of a couple waypoints.
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?
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.
Quote from: bejacob 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.
My guess is this is from the realignment of US 460, off of what is now US 460 Business, in Grundy.
Quote from: froggie 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?
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
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 03, 2015, 08:04:46 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'.
A batch of changes received by email from Mapmikey is in this pull request:
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/242
If no one notices any problems in a day or so, I'll pull it in. It has some (seemingly) minor changes in usaus and usausb routes necessitated by usava routes being added.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 03, 2015, 08:22:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 03, 2015, 08:04:46 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'.
I do remember that NC 55 is bannerless through Holly Springs and that the bypass is on here on its own route. I clinched the NC 55 Bypass route a couple years ago when I lived in Garner for the summer. I doubt it matters for the sake of TM, but I did notice that NC 55 Business existed on the NC Roads Annex.
Back when the US Highways were first starting to crawl out of the mud, Tim's instructions for when there's a business/bypass split with no corresponding vanilla route were to include the bypass as part of the mainline. This precedent, combined with the signage in the field, makes me in favor of including the bypasses in the main file and making separate files for the business routes, where applicable. (I forget how it's set up ATM.)
FWIW, I agree with folding VA156BypHop into the main route, and making the existing VA 156 route through downtown Hopewell a business route even if it isn't signed as such.
Some nit-picky, OCD stuff I picked up on other routes I traveled (this isn't a thorough peer review, just assembling entries to add to my list file):
VA 337: AdmTasBlvd -> AdmTauBlvd
VA 233, VA 359, and VA 400: Pky -> Pkwy
Here are the changes I have sent this evening:
Changed VA 156 in Hopewell to the mainline bypassing town and 156 Bus through town. This also required waypoint name changes to VA 10 and VA 36 which I include.
Deleted VA 192 as it has not been posted anywhere in several years
Changed the AdmTas->AdmTau on VA 337
VA 83 was already on the 460 Grundy bypass but was missing a shaping point that is on the 460 routing along that bypass, so I added it to VA 83
Added a point on VA 177 at SR 658 south of I-81 as that is where VA 177 actually begins
Made VA 228 Truck a full loop, as is posted in the field
I have not done anything with the "pky" names, as they are in every Blue Ridge Pkwy reference in both Virginia and North Carolina.
Mike
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 03, 2015, 10:28:20 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 03, 2015, 08:22:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 03, 2015, 08:04:46 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'.
I do remember that NC 55 is bannerless through Holly Springs and that the bypass is on here on its own route. I clinched the NC 55 Bypass route a couple years ago when I lived in Garner for the summer. I doubt it matters for the sake of TM, but I did notice that NC 55 Business existed on the NC Roads Annex.
Mike(or anyone that could do it),
Would it be a good idea to go ahead and put NC 55 Bypass on the mainline and 55 Bus through Holly Springs while we are at it?
I do not know offhand who is in charge of NC (considering that system has been around for a while), but I think that we should go ahead and make it a policy throughout TM.
Also last time I checked the NC Roads Annex it said NC 55 Business was dead, I guess that was just an error.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 12, 2015, 10:10:12 PM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 03, 2015, 10:28:20 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 03, 2015, 08:22:58 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 03, 2015, 08:04:46 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'.
I do remember that NC 55 is bannerless through Holly Springs and that the bypass is on here on its own route. I clinched the NC 55 Bypass route a couple years ago when I lived in Garner for the summer. I doubt it matters for the sake of TM, but I did notice that NC 55 Business existed on the NC Roads Annex.
Mike(or anyone that could do it),
Would it be a good idea to go ahead and put NC 55 Bypass on the mainline and 55 Bus through Holly Springs while we are at it?
I do not know offhand who is in charge of NC (considering that system has been around for a while), but I think that we should go ahead and make it a policy throughout TM.
Also last time I checked the NC Roads Annex it said NC 55 Business was dead, I guess that was just an error.
The word "dead" there is an error on my part...
I *think* I am supposed to be inheriting the maintenance of North Carolina...so I will eventually do this swap with NC 55...
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 12, 2015, 08:46:27 PM
Here are the changes I have sent this evening:
Changed VA 156 in Hopewell to the mainline bypassing town and 156 Bus through town. This also required waypoint name changes to VA 10 and VA 36 which I include.
Deleted VA 192 as it has not been posted anywhere in several years
Changed the AdmTas->AdmTau on VA 337
VA 83 was already on the 460 Grundy bypass but was missing a shaping point that is on the 460 routing along that bypass, so I added it to VA 83
Added a point on VA 177 at SR 658 south of I-81 as that is where VA 177 actually begins
Made VA 228 Truck a full loop, as is posted in the field
I have not done anything with the "pky" names, as they are in every Blue Ridge Pkwy reference in both Virginia and North Carolina.
Mike
These are now live in TM.
My peer review has basically been put on hold due to the end of the semester...finals week coming up this week and I have 4 projects to finish. I'm sure Jim can relate.
That said, I had compiled several comments for VA 337 specifically that I will list below. Several involve points on other route lists:
- Railroad Ave in Suffolk does not exist where the point for it is located. Would suggest moving the point either down to S 12th St or across the railroad to Hollywood Ave.
- A point should be added at SR 642/Wilroy Rd. This is the connection to the US 58 bypass if coming from the north.
- Suggest adding a point at SR 627/Bennetts Pasture Rd. This is the connection to US 17 in western Suffolk.
- The StaSt point doesn't make any sense as VA 337 does not use that ramp. I see the desire in keeping 337's routing separate from 464 but the reality is that 337 uses the ramps on either side of the 464 mainline, and technically the ramps for 337/Berkley Ave merge with 464 on both sides before 464 merges/splits with 264 at the Berkley Bridge. My recommendation is to replace the StaSt point with the 464(6A) point, which itself needs to be moved slightly to be on top of Berkeley Ave.
- Given that Church St in Norfolk is signed (possibly/probably erroneously) as US 460, a point might be worthwhile there.
- The 460/460Alt point should probably be moved to St. Pauls Blvd. The 2015 shapefiles suggest that Monticello Ave is no longer used for either route.
- The US58_E point should be moved to Duke St. There is no longer a Duke/Boush split for 58 and hasn't been for some years now.
- Given the urban nature, there should probably be a point somewhere between 247 and 165/Little Creek Rd. I'd suggest at Jamestown Crescent.
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2015, 10:08:01 AM
My peer review has basically been put on hold due to the end of the semester...finals week coming up this week and I have 4 projects to finish. I'm sure Jim can relate.
That said, I had compiled several comments for VA 337 specifically that I will list below. Several involve points on other route lists:
- Railroad Ave in Suffolk does not exist where the point for it is located. Would suggest moving the point either down to S 12th St or across the railroad to Hollywood Ave.
- A point should be added at SR 642/Wilroy Rd. This is the connection to the US 58 bypass if coming from the north.
- Suggest adding a point at SR 627/Bennetts Pasture Rd. This is the connection to US 17 in western Suffolk.
- The StaSt point doesn't make any sense as VA 337 does not use that ramp. I see the desire in keeping 337's routing separate from 464 but the reality is that 337 uses the ramps on either side of the 464 mainline, and technically the ramps for 337/Berkley Ave merge with 464 on both sides before 464 merges/splits with 264 at the Berkley Bridge. My recommendation is to replace the StaSt point with the 464(6A) point, which itself needs to be moved slightly to be on top of Berkeley Ave.
- Given that Church St in Norfolk is signed (possibly/probably erroneously) as US 460, a point might be worthwhile there.
- The 460/460Alt point should probably be moved to St. Pauls Blvd. The 2015 shapefiles suggest that Monticello Ave is no longer used for either route.
- The US58_E point should be moved to Duke St. There is no longer a Duke/Boush split for 58 and hasn't been for some years now.
- Given the urban nature, there should probably be a point somewhere between 247 and 165/Little Creek Rd. I'd suggest at Jamestown Crescent.
I will drop the Railroad Ave point...nothing actually needed in that area.
Agree about SR 642
I will move the SpoBlvd pt to SR 627
I agree with the I-464 area stuff
Sep2015 GMSV shows US 460 posted on both Church and Monticello from US 58, but only on Church from VA 247; neither is posted at Brambleton to tell you 460 turns left. Norfolk's postings flat out suck. And apparently 460 ALT just ends at St Pauls/Brambleton (though it would make sense to either use Brambleton to Church or Monticello to Church). 2014 traffic log says 460 uses Monticello. I will have point at both Church and Monticello and slide the 58 split over to Duke St.
Your last suggestion brings a larger philosophical question which I wrestled with for the S Carolina set: In urban areas, or in areas where I know probable traffic patterns and short cuts in SC, it was tempting to add points I knew were logical to a local. But it occurred to me that locals would in the course of being local, would drive the whole state route anyway. For people from out of the area, they are much more likely to stay on the primary routes all the way. And in both scenarios one could argue that the local waypoint isn't needed. So I tended to be judicious with these unless they were local connections to freeways.
Mike
Regarding the "Pky" vs. "Pkwy" names, I have converted all of them in usava to use the preferred "Pkwy".
In the rest of the data, we currently have 105 lines across all .wpt files that have a "Pky" somewhere (several are in hidden alternate labels). I am willing to convert all of those to "Pkwy" with the old names retained as hidden alternates. For comparison, we currently have 1156 lines using the preferred "Pkwy".
Any objections to the conversion?
VA 36 and VA 144 should probably both have points added at SR 645/Puddledock Road (due to the development that has increased the importance of the road in the last ten years). In the case of VA 144, I would also recommend points at SR 725/River Rd (a connection to the ordnance campus at Fort Lee) and at SR 619/Happy Hill Rd(connects directly to US 1/US 301 near SR 620 and SR 746).
Also, VA 36 could use a point at SR 630(Jefferson Park Rd) as this road indirectly connects to the Prince George County Courthouse (via SR 634/Allin Rd and VA 106). Would points for Laurel Spring Road(SR 616) make sense for VA 106 and VA 156 in this case? (VA 156 has a point for SR 616/Pole Run Rd at the moment.)
In the case of Happy Hill Rd (the point is just north of there at Dudley Dr), this goes back to the case I made earlier to move the point on VA 10 to the Osborne Rd intersection. Should we go for a policy that as long as a signalized or more important intersection fits the tolerance that we would choose that over a road that goes to a subdivision?
On a side note, while looking at the US 460 file to see if a point was located at the SR 630 intersection (due to Rives Rd connecting to I-95), I saw that the US 460 relocation to Wagner Rd and the extension of US 460 Business was never put into the system.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 26, 2015, 12:42:08 PM
Should we go for a policy that as long as a signalized or more important intersection fits the tolerance that we would choose that over a road that goes to a subdivision?
For my two cents, I think that's a good idea.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 26, 2015, 12:42:08 PM
VA 36 and VA 144 should probably both have points added at SR 645/Puddledock Road (due to the development that has increased the importance of the road in the last ten years). In the case of VA 144, I would also recommend points at SR 725/River Rd (a connection to the ordnance campus at Fort Lee) and at SR 619/Happy Hill Rd(connects directly to US 1/US 301 near SR 620 and SR 746).
Also, VA 36 could use a point at SR 630(Jefferson Park Rd) as this road indirectly connects to the Prince George County Courthouse (via SR 634/Allin Rd and VA 106). Would points for Laurel Spring Road(SR 616) make sense for VA 106 and VA 156 in this case? (VA 156 has a point for SR 616/Pole Run Rd at the moment.)
In the case of Happy Hill Rd (the point is just north of there at Dudley Dr), this goes back to the case I made earlier to move the point on VA 10 to the Osborne Rd intersection. Should we go for a policy that as long as a signalized or more important intersection fits the tolerance that we would choose that over a road that goes to a subdivision?
On a side note, while looking at the US 460 file to see if a point was located at the SR 630 intersection (due to Rives Rd connecting to I-95), I saw that the US 460 relocation to Wagner Rd and the extension of US 460 Business was never put into the system.
I have added a point at US 460 and SR 630 because of direct connection to I-95. I also changed the 460 and 460buspet files to reflect the current conditions of those routes. These will be submitted to Jim on my next Virginia update request.
As for the other suggestions, these go back to my earlier post regarding local points. For people who use short cuts and developed areas locally, they almost certainly have driven all of the primary route in that area in the course of living in that area; for out-of-towners, it is far less likely that they would drive the primary route only to the local points and not drive the whole primary route passing through the area. In both of these situations it makes having the local points not necessary, other than for shaping reasons. I do think it makes sense to include local direct connections to freeways as a through traveler could end up doing that in case of traffic problems, etc.
I also agree that a shaping point at a real road is better than a subdivision road and I will look into the example you have regarding Happy Hill Rd.
Mike
Mike, I think I understand what you are going for. I know I am partially biased towards my home area (I lived near Hopewell most of my life until a couple months ago) when it comes to routes, but I realize that you do need to be realistic on where people are driving to (whether being local or out-of-town).
I also went through the US 1 file and a couple others to check on direct connections to interstates (and other minor stuff) because I noticed at least one was missing. I will add those to this post when I find the paper I put them on.
EDIT: Points that I found considerable:
US 301-the VA 35 points should be N and S instead of W and E
Note: I am not saying anything specific about US 1 in Petersburg. I am so used to using Adams St the technical routing on Jefferson St only exists on paper to me.
US 1 AND US 301(all of these are on the duplex):
Dupuy Ave: Mainly debatable due to the presence of VSU and it does connect to VA 36 via E River Rd and Granger St in Ettrick. VA 36 does have a point at Granger St.
Ellerslie Ave: I would expect the consensus to lean towards "no" here. Though with the weight limit on VA 144 SB west of I-95, I am somewhat surprised there is not a VA 144 Truck following Ellerslie and Conduit Rd back to VA 144 by Southpark Mall. (I blame the US 30 BUS ALT Truck Route that exists in Downingtown, PA, which partially even uses the US 30 Bypass.)
SR 746(Ruffin Mill Rd): SR 620 has a point already, two here might be unnecessary but worth mentioning since SR 746 is a part of the I-95 interchange there
SR 613(Willis Rd): This was the missing direct connection (I-95 Exit 64) that got me to look a bit more in-depth. This could have been an oversight due to VA 145 being nearby.
Maury St: Direct connection(I-95 Exit 73). Looking at GSV, there are no "TO I-95" shields at this intersection or even at US 360 (Hull St). I guess this would apply more for the non-existent VA 416 (Commerce Rd).
US 11:
(US 460 Business here as well): Depot St serves as a bypass of downtown Christiansburg that connects to VA 8 and I-81 (to the point where traffic to I-81 is directed to use it from Franklin St (US 460 Business EB). I would rather this part of Depot St be VA 111 than the actual VA 111.
VA 280: The point here just needs to be added. It already exists in the VA 280 file that has been created.
It also looks like the route files (US 11, US 17, US 50, US 522, maybe VA 7) in Winchester need to be updated to the latest routings (as of early 2010 as stated on the US 17 entry in the VA Highways Project).
VA 199:
OldYorkRd: Should be moved to either Marquis Pkwy(MarPkwy) or the entrance to Water Country USA, maybe even consider deleting
VA 114:
SR659: Should be changed to reference the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, SR 659 itself is a loop road that connects to VA 114 on both ends farther east called Vicker Switch Rd (as found in the latest VDOT traffic logs)
US 13:
PitRd: Refers to Pittmantown Rd nearby which does not actually intersect US 13, both Arthur Dr and Boonetown Rd are nearby
VA 314:
SprRd>BeaWay: Spring Road has been renamed Beamer Way (http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2015/08/080615-bov-beamerway.html) after now former Virginia Tech football coach Frank Beamer
Mike, I am trying to understand how the TM system works by looking into this as well. I am not really sure what the mindset exactly was when some of these files were originally created though I believe you made it clearer to me what points should be there and what should not. I also added a few more to this post than you originally saw.
Thanks,
Mark
I've made a branch of the HighwayData repository (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/compare/master...yakra:va-usansf) containing the changes suggested in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15733.msg2115309#msg2115309). I'm holding off on making an actual pull request pending some peer review of the extended routes. I've only done VA7 so far...
-----
Is there a convention as to whether to use SR### style labels, or just the local street names? I would think SR###, as these are signed in almost every GMSV example I've looked at... Either way, I think consistency in this regard would be good.
VA7:
FirWooDr -> SR656?
SniTpk -> SR734?
delete +x05 (and maybe even +x04)
mark SR643 as closed
LanBlvd -> SR901 or SR901/2400
LouCouPkwy -> SR607
CityCenPkwy -> SR1570 or CityCenBlvd
CasPkwy -> SR1794?
+x10: replace with a point at SR676_N / TowRd (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.951299&lon=-77.264405&zoom=15) (for connection to VA267)
US50: recenter on both routes. Or maybe I'm just being too anal.
-----
VA402:
Why SemRd and not VA420?
Quote from: yakra on December 30, 2015, 01:25:36 AM
Is there a convention as to whether to use SR### style labels, or just the local street names? I would think SR###, as these are signed in almost every GMSV example I've looked at... Either way, I think consistency in this regard would be good.
I could not find any consistency on this whatsoever. Either way, we do have to use local street names for intersections not with primary routes in independent cities or towns without posted SRs (Blacksburg, Christiansburg, etc.)
As I created neither the state highway or US route sets in Virginia, I am mostly operating on speculation about why things are the way they are.
My guess about why SR XXX isn't predominant is that the numbers repeat in every county, so there would be some duplicative designations to wrangle with.
My guess about VA 420 being called SemRd is that VA 420 is not posted at all anywhere.
I will evaluate all the suggestions over the weekend and make fixes...
Mike
I know that when I created usany, I sometimes used "CRxx" and sometimes used a road's name. It was entirely a function of how roads were labeled on our mapping sources. So there's not much consistency there. I'm sure I could have gone to GMSV for every intersection looking for signed county routes at those, but if I did that, I'd probably never have finished. I'd say aim for consistency but don't worry if some of the waypoints in Virginia that could be "SRxxx" are instead labeled with route names.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 30, 2015, 06:45:13 AM
I will evaluate all the suggestions over the weekend and make fixes...
Please coordinate with yakra on any changes to the ones currently being reviewed to become extensions of routes already in the usansf system, since he has a branch with the changes he's made so far. I'd like to avoid git conflicts if we can.
Quote from: Jim on December 30, 2015, 09:20:14 AM
Please coordinate with yakra on any changes to the ones currently being reviewed to become extensions of routes already in the usansf system, since he has a branch with the changes he's made so far. I'd like to avoid git conflicts if we can.
It would also not be very difficult for me to scrap my branch and recreate it with Mapmikey's changes.
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 30, 2015, 06:45:13 AM
My guess about VA 420 being called SemRd is that VA 420 is not posted at all anywhere.
Ah! Then in that case, on VA7, VA420 -> JanLn
Quote from: yakra on December 30, 2015, 01:25:36 AM
I've made a branch of the HighwayData repository (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/compare/master...yakra:va-usansf) containing the changes suggested in this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15733.msg2115309#msg2115309). I'm holding off on making an actual pull request pending some peer review of the extended routes. I've only done VA7 so far...
-----
Is there a convention as to whether to use SR### style labels, or just the local street names? I would think SR###, as these are signed in almost every GMSV example I've looked at... Either way, I think consistency in this regard would be good.
VA7:
FirWooDr -> SR656?
SniTpk -> SR734?
delete +x05 (and maybe even +x04)
mark SR643 as closed
LanBlvd -> SR901 or SR901/2400
LouCouPkwy -> SR607
CityCenPkwy -> SR1570 or CityCenBlvd
CasPkwy -> SR1794?
+x10: replace with a point at SR676_N / TowRd (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.951299&lon=-77.264405&zoom=15) (for connection to VA267)
US50: recenter on both routes. Or maybe I'm just being too anal.
-----
VA402:
Why SemRd and not VA420?
Here are the changes I made related to this post:
VA 7:Removed its westernmost point (VA 7 now ends at Cameron)
Removed one of the minor Winchester city streets used as a shaping point
Removed one of the shaping points east of purcellville
Changed the shaping point to SR 676
Changed VA420 -> JanLn
Centered the point with US 50 (only because I also had US 50 changes to make)
What does marking SR 643 as closed actually mean in the file? While there is no longer access, someone could have that as where they accessed VA 7 (and US 15)
US 17:Added where it is posted to end (where US 50 leaves Cameron)
US 11-50-522:Moved all the points to directly on Cameron as there are no one way routings, except at the US 522 north split which has a small one-way couplet
US 17-50-522:Added a point at Jubal Early Dr
US 50:Changed points in Winchester to reflect posted routing
These will be sent to Jim when I send my next Virginia files update.
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 31, 2015, 03:34:23 PM
Quote from: yakra on December 30, 2015, 01:25:36 AM
VA7:
mark SR643 as closed
What does marking SR 643 as closed actually mean in the file? While there is no longer access, someone could have that as where they accessed VA 7 (and US 15)
Does this reasoning have to do with the PA 743_S point still being in the eastern US 422 file? (since now US 422 meets PA 743 at one intersection instead of having a short duplex in Hershey.)
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 31, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 31, 2015, 03:34:23 PM
Quote from: yakra on December 30, 2015, 01:25:36 AM
VA7:
mark SR643 as closed
What does marking SR 643 as closed actually mean in the file? While there is no longer access, someone could have that as where they accessed VA 7 (and US 15)
It means, prefix the label with a *. It's now a grade separation with no access, but was formerly an at-grade intersection, that someone could have used in the past. Any .list file entries without the * will still be processed correctly.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on December 31, 2015, 04:32:26 PM
Does this reasoning have to do with the PA 743_S point still being in the eastern US 422 file? (since now US 422 meets PA 743 at one intersection instead of having a short duplex in Hershey.)
I don't know about this personally. Is the label prefixed with an asterisk? I'll go have a look in a little bit.
Edit: Yes, it looks like this was done for exactly that reason.
Still going through peer review, but going to mention this one now:
On the VA 100 list, the EggRd point at Staffordsville should be moved or replaced. As Mike can verify, the old SR 730 bridge over Walker Creek (which, theoretically, whomever built the list intended the EggRd point to connect to) has been closed for many years...since before CHM began state-based sets. SR 730 should have a point...Mike and I have long theorized that an upgraded SR 730 would have connected two segments of VA 42 (the segments west of VA 100 and east of US 460)...SR 730 is the semi-direct connection between the two. The twistiness of VA 100 in this area means that additional evaluation should be taken to determine proper shaping points, but at a minimum, the EggRd point should be removed and replaced with a new point at SR 730/Triangle Ln.
Quote from: froggie on January 03, 2016, 09:13:28 AM
Still going through peer review, but going to mention this one now:
On the VA 100 list, the EggRd point at Staffordsville should be moved or replaced. As Mike can verify, the old SR 730 bridge over Walker Creek (which, theoretically, whomever built the list intended the EggRd point to connect to) has been closed for many years...since before CHM began state-based sets. SR 730 should have a point...Mike and I have long theorized that an upgraded SR 730 would have connected two segments of VA 42 (the segments west of VA 100 and east of US 460)...SR 730 is the semi-direct connection between the two. The twistiness of VA 100 in this area means that additional evaluation should be taken to determine proper shaping points, but at a minimum, the EggRd point should be removed and replaced with a new point at SR 730/Triangle Ln.
I have moved the point to Triangle Ln and made sure the shaping is within tolerance...in the queue for next Virginia submission to Jim.
It would take a LOT of work to turn SR 730 back into VA 42 again (full of narrow 20-25 mph curves) and I'm guessing they wouldn't build a new bridge to replace the closed one that VA 100 used to use but instead use Triangle Ln.
Thanks-
Mike
Found a few more worth mentioning:
US 33: Needs point at Parham Rd (only route missing a point there surprisingly)
VA 33: Could use point at Laburnum Ave due to directly connecting to I-64 (probably not there due to VA 33 having its own interchange with I-64 not that far west)
VA 171:LawRd point is not centered onto VA 171
VA 412: US460Bus point needs to be recentered onto the roundabout, same for US 460 Business
US 522: Tasker Rd connects US 522 to I-81 at VA 37, I had a debate in my mind over this one but there are no "TO I-81" signs at US 522 according to Street View so it probably does not matter. If VA 37 is ever extended east to US 522, obviously this would be a moot point.
EDIT: VA 165 at VA 190 (Va Beach): Due to the relocation of this intersection, the points here just need to be moved to the new location.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on January 04, 2016, 08:30:25 PM
Found a few more worth mentioning:
US 33: Needs point at Parham Rd (only route missing a point there surprisingly)
VA 33: Could use point at Laburnum Ave due to directly connecting to I-64 (probably not there due to VA 33 having its own interchange with I-64 not that far west)
VA 171:LawRd point is not centered onto VA 171
VA 412: US460Bus point needs to be recentered onto the roundabout, same for US 460 Business
US 522: Tasker Rd connects US 522 to I-81 at VA 37, I had a debate in my mind over this one but there are no "TO I-81" signs at US 522 according to Street View so it probably does not matter. If VA 37 is ever extended east to US 522, obviously this would be a moot point.
I moved the Masonic Ln point on VA 33 over to Laburnum.
For VA 171 I centered the point plus added points at where it goes to Messick Rd (unposted so I'm sure people continue right on to the waterfront) which required a point at Ridge Rd for shaping.
VA 412/US 460 Bus point is inside the circle so I let it be.
I did not do anything with US 522/Tasker Rd based on no TO I-81 postings.
I added Parham Rd to US 33.
From earlier posts I made all the VA 337 changes I had indicated except I did not leave a point at Monticello Ave. The VA 337 changes required fixes to I-464, US 460, US 460 ALT, US 58 (including new point at US 460 Church St) which I did. I moved US 460 to Church St to be consistent with how we are treating US route posting changes in Independent Cities within Virginia (required a VA 247 fix). For US 460 ALT I changed it to the most defensible routing I could. I did not connect it back to Brambleton/Church even though I think that is where it likely goes because right now there is zero proof of it.
I moved the VA144 Dudley Dr point to Happy Hill Rd.
I made most of the changes to US 1-301 suggested in the thread above as well as those for US 11, US 13, Us 460 Bus Chr, VA 114, VA 199, and VA 314.
Sending everything I have to Jim this evening and that catches me up to all Virginia changes I am aware of (I think)...
Mike
Quote from: Mapmikey on January 08, 2016, 08:54:26 PMFor US 460 ALT I changed it to the most defensible routing I could. I did not connect it back to Brambleton/Church even though I think that is where it likely goes because right now there is zero proof of it.
Yeah, US 460 Alt is pretty ridiculous. When I went out to clinch it, I just followed about every conceivable routing through downtown Norfolk. I hope that the one you went with turns out to be one of the routings I followed.