Gap in NJ-7

[_Simon]

For whatever reason I had always been under the impression that there is a gap in NJ-7 between the Passaic River and where it re-begins at Mill St and Washington Ave.  I checked the SLD and that's how it's shown there as well, but I recently went to update Google maps (which shows it incorrectly as travelling on Rutgers St) -- something that's been bothering me everytime I see it; and I cited the SLD as the source but was rejected.  The reject reason is "has wrong information".  What?  Is this another case of the SLD being wrong?  It's a state road, so isn't the SLD the authority?  If not, what is? 

[NE2]

That's the Goog, but also you're being too anal. Doesn't ground-level signage make it continuous?

[_Simon]

That's the Goog, but also you're being too anal. Doesn't ground-level signage make it continuous?

From Alp's Roads:

There are two NJ 7's you will travel on if you follow NJDOT signage, and they have the most inconsistent signage of any NJ state highway

They're not even signed in the same directions.

[NE2]

Also from Alps' Roads:

While NJ 7 may be signed along a continuous route

http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_7/

And here's the southbound signage: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.787544,-74.152822&spn=0.014817,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.787653,-74.152784&panoid=1FUBs4dM4yESUfEe37OYgg&cbp=12,245.03,,2,0
And westbound: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.787138,-74.151385&spn=0.014882,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.787193,-74.151661&panoid=hSEQcW5XtqEEiacbRBNUlg&cbp=12,282.19,,2,-1.89

Definitely signed as one route. At most you could add NJ 7 to Washington south of Rutgers. But removing it from Rutgers does not reflect signage.

[_Simon]

And here's the southbound signage: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.787544,-74.152822&spn=0.014817,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.787653,-74.152784&panoid=1FUBs4dM4yESUfEe37OYgg&cbp=12,245.03,,2,0

Except that it says SOUTH NJ-7 and is pointing toward EAST NJ-7.

If "signed as a route" and "is actually a route" are the same things, I'm going back to my idea of signing made-up route numbers to create new routes.

[NE2]

If "signed as a route" and "is actually a route" are the same things, I'm going back to my idea of signing made-up route numbers to create new routes.

You do that. Make sure to let the poo out every once in a while.

[_Simon]

?

"has wrong information"

[NE2]

?

"has form response"

[_Simon]

i want to install multiple horns so i can make it sound like the people behind me also agree with me.

[akotchi]

Also from Alps' Roads:

While NJ 7 may be signed along a continuous route

http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/nj_7/

And here's the southbound signage: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.787544,-74.152822&spn=0.014817,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.787653,-74.152784&panoid=1FUBs4dM4yESUfEe37OYgg&cbp=12,245.03,,2,0
And westbound: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.787138,-74.151385&spn=0.014882,0.033023&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.787193,-74.151661&panoid=hSEQcW5XtqEEiacbRBNUlg&cbp=12,282.19,,2,-1.89

Definitely signed as one route. At most you could add NJ 7 to Washington south of Rutgers. But removing it from Rutgers does not reflect signage.

The ground signing does bear that out, but to further muddy the waters . . .

The mast arm signs at the signal seem to suggest that Washington is Route 7 and that Rutgers is C.R. 506 only.  I looked at the westbound approach, and both views at the intersection make it seem this way.

Certainly much easier to the motorist to sign it as one route, and that is probably the most important consideration.

[NE2]

The mastarm signs match the SLD definitions, which have two segments. This is because Rutgers is not state maintained.

[_Simon]

I doubt NJ would ever promote Rutgers and demote Washington Ave, so barring that (which makes the most sense), the alternative (which would also account for the change in direction) would probably be some type of "END WEST NJ-7" + "TO NORTH NJ-7 [UP]" assembly (heading westbound).

[roadman65]

This is a whole reverse thing of US 281 in Texas.  Here NJ 7 is signed as one continuous route, but on on paper as two different routes.

In The Lone Star State you have only one US 281 alignment, but signed as two with N-S US 281 terminated at E-W US 281.

The bottom line is the signing is the most important thing as that in practice is the real thing as that is what is visually implemented.

[_Simon]

This is a whole reverse thing of US 281 in Texas.  Here NJ 7 is signed as one continuous route, but on on paper as two different routes.

In The Lone Star State you have only one US 281 alignment, but signed as two with N-S US 281 terminated at E-W US 281.

The bottom line is the signing is the most important thing as that in practice is the real thing as that is what is visually implemented.

That seems like the simplest way to sign a directionality change -- which I think they should do here.

[roadman65]

This is a whole reverse thing of US 281 in Texas.  Here NJ 7 is signed as one continuous route, but on on paper as two different routes.

In The Lone Star State you have only one US 281 alignment, but signed as two with N-S US 281 terminated at E-W US 281.

The bottom line is the signing is the most important thing as that in practice is the real thing as that is what is visually implemented.

That seems like the simplest way to sign a directionality change -- which I think they should do here.

I never really thought of that.  Just have WB end at the N-S NJ 7 like SB US 281 ends at its E-W counterpart.  If Texans can get used to it, so can New Jersians.

[vdeane]

That seems more like a directional change to me than a route ending.

[Alps]

It's entirely possible, by the way, that this was an error introduced early on that has been perpetuated into triviadom. The original route definition:
ROUTE NO. 7. Beginning on Route No. 25 in Jersey City, running northwesterly through Kearny, North Arlington, crossing the Passaic river in the vicinity of Belleville and connecting with Route No. 9 and continuing northerly along the west bank of the Passaic river in Nutley, intersecting Route S-3 in the vicinity of Clifton, still in a northerly direction on the east side of the Passaic river through Rutherford and East Rutherford, intersecting Route No. 3 in Wallington. L. 1929, c. 126, p. 215, s. 7.