AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: South Carolina State Highways (in development)  (Read 10781 times)

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4118
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 10:27:43 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« on: December 11, 2015, 09:42:55 PM »

Good Evening--

I have completed creating the data set for the South Carolina State Highways.  I need to go through the dozen routes or so already created, then I will go through my set one time as a review before sending all the files to Jim for upload and eventual peer review.

In the meantime, these are the posted banner routes for the state highways that I am aware of (some parts of SC I haven't been to in 20+ years).  Is anyone aware of any I have omitted?

SC 3 Bus (Springfield)
SC 5 Bus (York)
SC 6 Trk (Moncks Corner)
SC 9 Bus (Chester, Bennettsville, Lancaster, Loris)
SC 9 Trk (Cheraw)
SC 14 trk (Greer)
SC 18 Trk (Union)
SC 19 Trk (Aiken)
SC 20 Con (where SC 20-252-284 come together...this is posted with a CONN banner in the field)
SC 20 trk (Abbeville)
SC 23 trk (Edgefield)
SC 28 Bus (Anderson, Pendleton)
SC 34 Trk (Darlington)
SC 38 Bus (Bennettsville)
SC 41 ALT (Marion)
SC 41 bus (Andrews)
SC 47 Trk (Elloree)
SC 49 Trk (Union)
SC 56 Bus (Clinton)
SC 64 Bus (Walterboro)
SC 71 Trk (Abbeville)
SC 72 Bus (Clinton, Greenwood)
SC 75 trk (Van Wyck)
SC 125 Trk (N Augusta)
SC 151 bus (Hartsville, Jefferson, Pageland)
SC 157 trk (Kershaw)
SC 160 trk (Fort Mill)
SC 161 bus (York)
SC 203 trk (Abbeville)
SC 252 trk (Ware Shoals)
SC 290 trk (Greer)
SC 341 trk (Kershaw)
SC 453 trk (Holly Hill)

Thanks-
Mike


Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4118
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 10:27:43 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2015, 08:16:59 PM »

Happy Christmas!

I have now completed going through each route and made appropriate adjustments to waypoints.  This also included making fixes to 4 US route files (US 76-178 missing SC 28 Bus intersection in downtown Anderson and US 521-601 Bus in Kershaw calls its SC 341 junction SC 157).

I submitted this evening the entire file set to Jim for inclusion in the development section of TM.  Hopefully a person or two interested in the SC set can look through them for peer review. 

If someone wants the files sent to them directly just pm me with your e-mail address and I can send separately.  otherwise assuming I didn't make fatal errors in the files they'll be on the TM soon enough...

Mike
Logged

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5872
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:58 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2015, 11:37:55 AM »

Thanks to @Mapmikey for some excellent work getting the first draft of usasc complete!  There's an update running now that will put these into the TM database as a "devel" level system.

After an initial review of the system to look for omissions or other major errors, we can promote it to "preview" so users can start adding entries for usasc routes to their .list files during the more thorough peer review process, working out of datacheck problems, and other fixes in anticipation of activation.

As always, errors can be reported in this thread or by creating an issue in the TravelMapping/HighwayData repository on GitHub.
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)

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5872
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:58 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2015, 11:44:25 AM »

A first thing to note here is several "LABEL_SLASHES" datacheck errors.  CHM's rule, which we have continued to follow so far in TM, is that when a waypoint label is at a place that suggests inclusion of 3 or more route numbers, we select two of them and use only those numbers.  So something like SC 21's "US21/176/321" would become "US21/176".

Personally, I have no problem changing this guideline and using all three (or more) numbers for labels like this, but that's a discussion for the larger group to have.
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)

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4118
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 10:27:43 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2015, 03:49:48 PM »

I have looked at the potential error log generated by the newly uploaded SC data set...

I don't know the genesis of the 'slash' rule or what it is meant to prevent.  While I can see leaving off the state route (e.g. US 76/123 and SC 28), I am fuzzier about why to do this with an all-US route waypoint.  But if the prevailing opinion is to stick with the 2-route rule, I can fix the 9 wpt files that have this, no problem...

For the ones that are not related to having 3 or more routes in a label:

SC6TrkMon is routed correctly (false angle error)
For both SC41 and SC107, these are stretches of highway through National Forests that have nothing but tiny dirt roads as intersections
For SC125, this stretch is through the Savannah River Site which does not have publicly accessible intersecting roads

Thanks-
Mike
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1306
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: March 19, 2023, 01:58:14 AM
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2015, 01:51:51 PM »

A first thing to note here is several "LABEL_SLASHES" datacheck errors.  CHM's rule, which we have continued to follow so far in TM, is that when a waypoint label is at a place that suggests inclusion of 3 or more route numbers, we select two of them and use only those numbers.  So something like SC 21's "US21/176/321" would become "US21/176".

Personally, I have no problem changing this guideline and using all three (or more) numbers for labels like this, but that's a discussion for the larger group to have.
I feel strongly that the guideline should be kept, in the name of brevity.
If 3 or more route numbers had been allowed from the get-go, label brevity would never have existed in places like Maine or Oklahoma.
Trying to imagine a world in which US201/8/11/27/100 is followed by US201/202/9/100/105. Et cetera.
No thanks; I'll keep them as US201_S & U201_N. Simple; elegant; clean.

Which brings me to another point:
I would even move things a bit in the other direction: The "we select two of them" was something that wasn't originally codified in the beginning, but Tim gradually became more insistent on enforcing it.
I think a collaborator should have the choice of whether to use one route number or two in a label, at his discretion, based on whatever makes the most sense and looks best in the context of a given route file.
For example, instead of US202/9_W or US202/9, just US202_W is OK. Instead of US201/100, just US201.
I have always labeled waypoints this way, and continue to do 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

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9849
  • Age: 67
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:34:37 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2015, 03:01:22 PM »

I don't know the genesis of the 'slash' rule or what it is meant to prevent.  While I can see leaving off the state route (e.g. US 76/123 and SC 28), I am fuzzier about why to do this with an all-US route waypoint.  But if the prevailing opinion is to stick with the 2-route rule, I can fix the 9 wpt files that have this, no problem...

I agree with yakra. Two route numbers are enough, and sometimes more than enough.

For both SC41 and SC107, these are stretches of highway through National Forests that have nothing but tiny dirt roads as intersections
For SC125, this stretch is through the Savannah River Site which does not have publicly accessible intersecting roads.

Same advice as I gave Nick on Utah routes -- review the long gaps in the readily available online maps (including Google Maps, and Bing -- latter is available through CHM's HB even though not yet ours or CHM's Waypoints Editor) for cross-roads with names or route numbers on them, and try to match them up with intersections shown in OSM/Mapnik. If that gets you nowhere, just write off the long gaps as false positives. Looking at topo maps, maps on national forest or government installation websites, etc. is optional and probably overdoing it.

For SC 125, Google Maps and Bing show numbers on some of the intersecting roads within the Savannah River complex. Even if the general public can't use them to enter the complex, its workers probably can. I-5 exit 62 in California, within the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps base, is kind of like that (civilians can use the exit for turnarounds), but still gets a waypoint.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2015, 03:05:54 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4118
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 10:27:43 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2015, 07:58:10 PM »

I have submitted to Jim fixes for all files identified by the datacheck error algorithm (except SC6trkmon which is a false positive)...

SRS does have an alpha and numerical numbering system for its main roads, sometimes posted in pentagons like county systems in other states.  Some roads are not posted well, though.

Thanks-
Mike
Logged

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5872
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:58 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2016, 04:09:56 PM »

Does anyone know of any significant issues with the usasc as currently in TM that should delay its promotion from "devel" to "preview"?  Once that happens, we'll need some volunteers to do a more thorough peer review.
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)

bejacob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 49
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Columbus, OH, USA
  • Last Login: August 17, 2021, 01:37:16 PM
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #9 on: January 26, 2016, 06:37:34 PM »

Curious about waypoints 2 and 3 on SC18. It appears that waypoint 2 (MaiSt) might better be named SC49, while waypoint 3 (SC49) might be removed in favor of a shaping point at N Pickney St or just renamed. It's been a few years since I drove through there, but I do recall picking up SC49 at Main St.

The way it is now is confusing (at least to me).
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4118
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 10:27:43 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #10 on: January 26, 2016, 07:04:45 PM »

Curious about waypoints 2 and 3 on SC18. It appears that waypoint 2 (MaiSt) might better be named SC49, while waypoint 3 (SC49) might be removed in favor of a shaping point at N Pickney St or just renamed. It's been a few years since I drove through there, but I do recall picking up SC49 at Main St.

The way it is now is confusing (at least to me).

SC 49 was moved from Main St to Arthur Dr several years ago...

Mike
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1306
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: March 19, 2023, 01:58:14 AM
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2016, 11:20:25 PM »

MaiSt -> MainSt per the " 1-4 letters - use whole word" rule.
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: 56
  • Location: Columbus, OH, USA
  • Last Login: August 17, 2021, 01:37:16 PM
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #12 on: January 27, 2016, 04:37:44 PM »

Curious about waypoints 2 and 3 on SC18. It appears that waypoint 2 (MaiSt) might better be named SC49, while waypoint 3 (SC49) might be removed in favor of a shaping point at N Pickney St or just renamed. It's been a few years since I drove through there, but I do recall picking up SC49 at Main St.

The way it is now is confusing (at least to me).

SC 49 was moved from Main St to Arthur Dr several years ago...

Mike

Now it makes sense.
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4118
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 10:27:43 AM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #13 on: January 27, 2016, 07:16:19 PM »

MaiSt -> MainSt per the " 1-4 letters - use whole word" rule.

I have a fair number of 4-letter names shortened to 3 (figuring out the ones that aren't extremely obvious would be tedious).

If this requires renaming all my "Main"s, it will have to wait until I return from Texas in a couple weeks...

Is there a consolidated list of the rules?

Mike
Logged

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5872
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:58 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #14 on: January 27, 2016, 07:47:43 PM »

I am seeing surprisingly few "MaiSt" or related labels within our data:

Code: [Select]
./CA/usaca/ca.ca049.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.870746&lon=-120.431260
./CA/usaca/ca.ca120.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.870746&lon=-120.431260
./ENG/gbna/eng.a065.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=53.939200&lon=-1.870828
./ENG/gbna/eng.a066.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.621915&lon=-2.566792
./ENG/gbna/eng.a339.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.371352&lon=-1.278706
./FL/usaus/fl.us019.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.250170&lon=-82.727754
./MB/cansph/mb.mb006.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.180796&lon=-98.350124
./MB/cansph/mb.mb010.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.498263&lon=-99.907866
./ME/usame/me.me009.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.360890&lon=-70.474098
./ME/usame/me.me024busbru.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.910599&lon=-69.963303
./NIR/nira/nir.a024.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.307072&lon=-5.841594
./NIR/nira/nir.a025.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=54.184508&lon=-6.486740
./OR/usaor/or.or039.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.024048&lon=-121.600242
./OR/usaor/or.or047.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.294151&lon=-123.177037
./OR/usaor/or.or099.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.194379&lon=-122.709475
./OR/usaor/or.or099.wpt:EMaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.797274&lon=-123.059020
./PA/usapa/pa.pa018.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.164133&lon=-80.253797
./SC/usasc/sc.sc005.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.914872&lon=-81.004880
./SC/usasc/sc.sc010.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.987419&lon=-82.297429
./SC/usasc/sc.sc018.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.715250&lon=-81.623796
./SC/usasc/sc.sc028.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.763389&lon=-83.056823
./SC/usasc/sc.sc049.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.715376&lon=-81.607003
./SC/usasc/sc.sc051.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.995902&lon=-79.570006
./SC/usasc/sc.sc070.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.247355&lon=-81.348424
./SC/usasc/sc.sc097.wpt:EMaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.042987&lon=-81.406211
./SC/usasc/sc.sc097.wpt:WMaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.041371&lon=-81.411640
./SC/usasc/sc.sc101.wpt:NMaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.611811&lon=-82.118699
./SC/usasc/sc.sc121.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.914872&lon=-81.004880
./SC/usasc/sc.sc122.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.926633&lon=-81.028490
./SC/usasc/sc.sc145.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.736014&lon=-80.088343
./SC/usasc/sc.sc292.wpt:NMaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.048654&lon=-82.090778
./SC/usasc/sc.sc304.wpt:EMaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.273397&lon=-81.246953
./SC/usasc/sc.sc391.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.208122&lon=-81.532184
./SC/usasc/sc.sc395.wpt:MaiSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.273854&lon=-81.620924
./VA/usausb/va.us522buswas.wpt:MainSt +MaiSt_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.713518&lon=-78.159796

Some of these are undoubtedly some other street that happens to start with "Mai" and are correct.  But I'm sure many are "Main Street".

Note also that the labeling rules require leaving off directional prefixes, so "East Main Street" should still be labeled "MainSt".  I don't like this rule and would be happy to change it, but that's what we've done and I know it was a sticking point on some of the systems I had developed for CHM.

As far as I know, we are still using the CHM labeling guidelines:

http://cmap.m-plex.com/tools/manual_wayptlabels.php
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: 1306
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: March 19, 2023, 01:58:14 AM
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #15 on: January 27, 2016, 09:16:20 PM »

I've thought about starting a thread on the new forum about where we might break from Tim's labeling guidelines. Perhaps it's a good time to do so. I have a few notes jotted down in my text editor; I'll give them a look when I get home in a couple hours.
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

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2930
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 12:38:12 PM
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2016, 01:35:03 AM »

If memory serves, the instances in CA 49 and CA 120 are correct, as there are multiple Main St points in those respective files, though this was before the _CityName suffix standard was added.
I'll be addressing the Oregon instances as I bring the system up to standards.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1306
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: March 19, 2023, 01:58:14 AM
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #17 on: January 28, 2016, 09:27:33 AM »

_CityName suffix has been around since the very beginning. The earliest routedata.html days.
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

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2930
  • Last Login: March 21, 2023, 12:38:12 PM
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #18 on: January 28, 2016, 10:42:33 PM »

It might have been, but as I hadn't worked on any of the US highways and I had the first canxx/usaxx sets up, it's something I hadn't noticed until after usaca was drafted.
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3644
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: July 02, 2022, 05:33:16 AM
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2016, 06:58:38 AM »

I've fixed the MaiSt -> MainSt in my systems, which were missed despite Tim going through those systems with a fine tooth comb.
Logged

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5872
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:58 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2016, 07:49:17 AM »

I've fixed the MaiSt -> MainSt in my systems, which were missed despite Tim going through those systems with a fine tooth comb.

Do we care enough to make this (and maybe a few other likely mislabelings) a datacheck error?  I am pretty sure I don't, but I can easily add the check if it's the consensus that we should be that picky.
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: 1306
  • Location: Area Code 207, bub!
  • Last Login: March 19, 2023, 01:58:14 AM
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2016, 12:05:05 PM »

I've fixed the MaiSt -> MainSt in my systems, which were missed despite Tim going through those systems with a fine tooth comb.
The PA and ME examples are legitimate. MB6 MaiSt was deleted in my CANMB draft. MB10 MaiSt was relabeled MainSt_Eri, but should have been simply MainSt. Changed in my local files.

Do we care enough to make this (and maybe a few other likely mislabelings) a datacheck error?  I am pretty sure I don't, but I can easily add the check if it's the consensus that we should be that picky.
I don't care enough about it. MaiSt for MainSt, on its own, looks rare enough not to worry.
Are there any other specific likely mislabelings you have in mind for a datacheck?
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

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5872
  • Check out https://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:58 PM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: South Carolina State Highways (in development)
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2016, 06:07:07 PM »

Do we care enough to make this (and maybe a few other likely mislabelings) a datacheck error?  I am pretty sure I don't, but I can easily add the check if it's the consensus that we should be that picky.
I don't care enough about it. MaiSt for MainSt, on its own, looks rare enough not to worry.
Are there any other specific likely mislabelings you have in mind for a datacheck?

Nothing specific.  So I'm thinking it's not worth the trouble.
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)

 


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.