News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

K-30 northern endpoint

Started by yakra, August 08, 2018, 03:03:17 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

yakra

A discussion on the TravelMapping forum brought the north end of K-30 to my attention.

Right now, it's here, at the old Waterman Crossing Rd grade crossing. 2013 GMSV shown an END sign and a very obvious pavement change.
OSM shows the city line roughly following the centerline, and the city map shows the roadway slightly within city limits here.

Current & historic Wabaunsee county maps are maddeningly inconsistent:
2000 shows an end just inside the SW city limits, corresponding to the old RR crossing, as shown in the HB.
2011 seems to indicate the SW city limit itself.
2018 matches the city map, at Main St and the new RR crossing.

An endpoint at the old crossing makes sense from a historical perspective:
https://historicaerials.com/location/39.07976968182654/-96.0288280248642/2002/17
The county road along the SE side of the tracks was built by 2006, after which the old crossing was discontinued, while the endpoint stayed in place. The county map took a while to get updated.
Eventually, the endpoint may have moved (after 2013?) to the new crossing. Makes sense in that that's where the county road access is now.
The 2000 county map still doesn't make sense in this context, though.

Has the endpoint really been bouncing around this much over the past 18 years?
Or, could it be there's some oddity in the way K-30 is defined, and thus mapped?
Could K-30 have been extended quietly on paper in the last few years, with the END sign just staying put?
Or, could it be that the END sign is now farther northeast, at Main St and the new RxR?
Where does K-30 end?
"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


J N Winkler

A few thoughts:

*  Google Maps and OSM disagree as to the form of the Maple Hill city limits, which makes me think that one or the other is more up to date on annexations.

*  KDOT has a city map for Maple Hill that dates to 2002, does not show the area south of the railroad tracks, and suggests that K-30 at the time had its endpoint where the city limits crossed the highway.

*  Have you checked for a city connecting link resolution in respect of any segments of K-30 that are now within the Maple Hill city limits?
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

route56

The re-alignment of Waterman Crossing Road and removal of the railroad crossing should not have had any effect on where K-30's northern endpoint is located.  Although Google shows property south of the railroad tracks as being annexed by Maple Hill, the Wabunsee County GIS system does not.

K-30's north end was defined by resolution as being the west city limits of Maple Hill. I suspect that the State Highway Commission and the City agreed on the demarcation point where the road entered the city limits back when the route was designated, and it appears that Maple Hill has taken no action to annex property to shift that demarc, or if they had, they have deannexed the property.


iPad
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

yakra

Thanks for the responses.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 08, 2018, 04:52:43 PM
*  Google Maps and OSM disagree as to the form of the Maple Hill city limits, which makes me think that one or the other is more up to date on annexations.
Quote from: route56 on August 09, 2018, 01:57:07 PM
Although Google shows property south of the railroad tracks as being annexed by Maple Hill, the Wabunsee County GIS system does not.
I see that if I search for "maple hill ks", the red highlighted area includes land south of the tracks. Without searching, the area with the darker gray shaded area is comparable to what's in OSM. I'll chalk this up to Google being goofy...

Quote from: route56 on August 09, 2018, 01:57:07 PM
The re-alignment of Waterman Crossing Road and removal of the railroad crossing should not have had any effect on where K-30's northern endpoint is located.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 08, 2018, 04:52:43 PM
*  KDOT has a city map for Maple Hill that dates to 2002, does not show the area south of the railroad tracks, and suggests that K-30 at the time had its endpoint where the city limits crossed the highway.
Worth noting here that the city boundary is the same in the 2002 and 2018 revisions. With the thinner line used for K-30 in the 2002 revision, one can just barely make out how the city line zig-zags from N to S across the K-30 ROW.
Here, K-30 clearly ends at the city line and NOT the RxR.

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 08, 2018, 04:52:43 PM
*  Have you checked for a city connecting link resolution in respect of any segments of K-30 that are now within the Maple Hill city limits?
I have not. You're much better than I am at this stuff; ISTR you posting the results of similar searches in other threads. Where's a link to a good place to start looking?

Quote from: route56 on August 09, 2018, 01:57:07 PM
K-30's north end was defined by resolution as being the west city limits of Maple Hill. I suspect that the State Highway Commission and the City agreed on the demarcation point where the road entered the city limits back when the route was designated, and it appears that Maple Hill has taken no action to annex property to shift that demarc, or if they had, they have deannexed the property.
"defined by resolution" -- would this be a resolution that defines K-30 overall, something different from the "city connecting link resolution" JNW mentions above?

One mystery I'm left with -- how do we explain the discrepancy in the city (and county) maps?
"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

route56

Quote from: yakra on August 14, 2018, 08:18:01 PM

Quote from: J N Winkler on August 08, 2018, 04:52:43 PM
*  Have you checked for a city connecting link resolution in respect of any segments of K-30 that are now within the Maple Hill city limits?
I have not. You're much better than I am at this stuff; ISTR you posting the results of similar searches in other threads. Where's a link to a good place to start looking?

Quote from: route56 on August 09, 2018, 01:57:07 PM
K-30's north end was defined by resolution as being the west city limits of Maple Hill. I suspect that the State Highway Commission and the City agreed on the demarcation point where the road entered the city limits back when the route was designated, and it appears that Maple Hill has taken no action to annex property to shift that demarc, or if they had, they have deannexed the property.
"defined by resolution" -- would this be a resolution that defines K-30 overall, something different from the "city connecting link resolution" JNW mentions above?

One mystery I'm left with -- how do we explain the discrepancy in the city (and county) maps?

Short answer to your last question: I'd chalk it up to the differences in cartography between the three different maps (different versions of CAD software, perhaps?) Basically, there's a lack of precision on the county maps as to the definition of K-30's north endpoint.

The only resolution I have regarding K-30 is the one that established it in 1941:

http://dmsweb.ksdot.org/AppNetProd/docpop/pdfpop.aspx?KT142_0_0_0=003711107%3A2&clienttype=html&doctypeid=114

The resolution only defines the route as ending at the "west corporate limits" of Maple Hill. However, it does appear that the City defined the southern boundary as following the north side of the K-30 ROW until it reaches the quarter-section line, then it jogs south across the roadway to the south side. As far as the resolution is concerned, "west corporate limits" would include this jog in the southern boundary.

There are two types of resolutions - Rural resolutions and City Connecting Link resolutions. Any numbered route in an incorporated area is not considered a state highway, but a city connecting link. The CCL resolutions define what routes are CCL, and whether the state maintains the route directly, or if the city maintains the route with KDOT providing a fixed amount per lane-mile. There is no CCL resolution for Maple Hill, and there shouldn't be - if Maple Hill moves the boundary, KDOT's more likely to turn back any portion of their highway that gets annexed.

CCL Resolutions: https://dmsweb.ksdot.org/resolutions/
Rural Resolutons: http://ksdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=dd8eab6c309645289649a46a27a86158
Peace to you, and... don't drive like my brother.

R.P.K.

J N Winkler

Quote from: yakra on August 14, 2018, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 08, 2018, 04:52:43 PM*  KDOT has a city map for Maple Hill that dates to 2002, does not show the area south of the railroad tracks, and suggests that K-30 at the time had its endpoint where the city limits crossed the highway.

Worth noting here that the city boundary is the same in the 2002 and 2018 revisions. With the thinner line used for K-30 in the 2002 revision, one can just barely make out how the city line zig-zags from N to S across the K-30 ROW.

Here, K-30 clearly ends at the city line and NOT the RxR.

One tricky aspect of city limits in Kansas, which has been mentioned in a FAQ on the KDOT website in the past, is that they can follow the edges of highway ROW (sometimes for miles) before they actually cross it.  Cities can also annex developable land on either side of a highway for extended distances while also refraining from annexing the highway itself.  The City of Wichita appears to be doing this with long segments of 119th Street West, Maize Road, and K-42, for example.  It is the norm for KDOT to post a city limit sign, or to agree to the posting of such on a road whose signing it maintains, only at the point where the city limit actually crosses the highway.  (Most cities in Kansas have standard KDOT city limit signs on state routes, but Wichita has its own custom design that is used on both KDOT and local agency facilities.)  And while there are certain requirements in annexation law in Kansas that make it infeasible for a city to engage in strip annexation without the consent of the county governing body, noncontiguous annexation is allowed under some circumstances.  I believe this is how Wichita ended up with a plot (or plots) of land near Furley, an unincorporated community in far northeast Sedgwick County, which was proposed in the late 1980's/early 1990's as the site of a landfill.  (The land is just north of the Fifth Standard Parallel South, but the KDOT Wichita map and Google disagree as to the boundaries.  The KDOT map says that none of the section line roads in the area lie within the city limits, and this is consistent with low-res StreetView imagery showing an absence of city limit signs.  Google asserts that part of 127th Street East in the area is within Wichita.)

Quote from: yakra on August 14, 2018, 08:18:01 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 08, 2018, 04:52:43 PM*  Have you checked for a city connecting link resolution in respect of any segments of K-30 that are now within the Maple Hill city limits?

I have not. You're much better than I am at this stuff; ISTR you posting the results of similar searches in other threads. Where's a link to a good place to start looking?

Richie's answer is more comprehensive, so I'll just add links for the two main databases:

City connecting link resolutions

State highway resolutions

Since the K-30 resolution dates from July 8, 1941 (just five months shy of US entry into World War II), it refers to features that no longer exist in the vicinity, like K-10.  However, Kansas is a 100% PLSS state, with the baseline being 40° N (also the Kansas-Nebraska boundary) and the survey meridian being the Sixth Principal Meridian (overlaps Meridian Avenue in Wichita and gives it its name), so township and range designations don't move.

For purposes of cross-checking the northern terminus of K-30, the relevant part of the description references a road actually on the ground that follows the west edge of Sections 25 and 26, Township 11 South, Range 12 East, and then runs in a northeasterly direction for six-tenths of a mile before it hits the Maple Hill city limits.

(As an aside, KDOT's EDMS is designed so that the direct link Richie gave probably won't work.  When I clicked on it, a turnback resolution for a state highway off US 54 near Pratt loaded.  I suggest going in through the front door and entering the appropriate search criteria for K-30.)
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

yakra

QuoteThere is no CCL resolution for Maple Hill, and there shouldn't be - if Maple Hill moves the boundary, KDOT's more likely to turn back any portion of their highway that gets annexed.
Just noting here though that this case, based on the city map especially, appears to be a potential case of extending a highway along a roadway that was already within city limits, with no movement of the boundary involved.

QuoteShort answer to your last question: I'd chalk it up to the differences in cartography between the three different maps (different versions of CAD software, perhaps?) Basically, there's a lack of precision on the county maps as to the definition of K-30's north endpoint.
That said, I'm fine with accepting this explanation, combined with the fact that there are no CCL resolutions, and just the one rural resolution establishing the route.

For TravelMapping purposes, it seems the thing to do is leave the northern endpoint in place, and rename it to "MapLim", the usual standard for routes ending at city limits.
"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



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.