View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
oscar_voss

Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 622 Location: Arlington VA
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:48 am Post subject: False point on ID US30? |
|
|
In the "Concurrency List" thread in "Other Discussion":
[quote="tikester"]I note that the concurrency function cannot sort out situations where highways share consecutive points, but not concurrent routings. As an example, on ID I-84, 137 and 141 are consecutive waypoints; they are also consecutive waypoints on ID US26 and ID US30 (in both cases, I-84(137) and I-84(141)), despite the fact that I-84 does not share the routing with the two US highways between these points (the US highways follow ID I-84BLBli).[/quote]
Actually, looking at the US30 routing, it appears that the I-84(141) point should be deleted for US30 (but not US26), as US30 peels away from ID I-84BLBli west of interchange 141, rather than re-intersecting I-84 there. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
oscar_voss

Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 622 Location: Arlington VA
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:12 am Post subject: Re: False point on ID US30? |
|
|
[quote="oscar_voss"]
Actually, looking at the US30 routing, it appears that the I-84(141) point should be deleted for US30 (but not US26), as US30 peels away from ID I-84BLBli west of interchange 141, rather than re-intersecting I-84 there.[/quote]
A related point: Since US30 peels away from ID I-84BLBli and US 26 between I-84(137) and I-84(141), a point should be added to US 26 between those two exits for US30_E. That would make it unnecessary to add a shaping point for US26, per the "Concurrency List" thread in "Other Discussion," to eliminate the false concurrency of US26 with I-84 east of exit 137. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
yakra

Joined: 30 Jul 2008 Posts: 2600 Location: Area Code 207
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:25 pm Post subject: Re: False point on ID US30? |
|
|
My observations are based on a quick scan of GMSV.
What I see is:
• US26 on I-84
• US30 on I-84BL
oscar_voss wrote: | Actually, looking at the US30 routing, it appears that the I-84(141) point should be deleted for US30 (but not US26), as US30 peels away from ID I-84BLBli west of interchange 141, rather than re-intersecting I-84 there. | Correct. Furthermore, a 1stAve point should be added further west, to properly align with the I-84BL. What we're looking at now *is* US30 `plexing with I-84, taking the exit, and jogging back west a bit before continuing.
oscar_voss wrote: | A related point: Since US30 peels away from ID I-84BLBli and US 26 between I-84(137) and I-84(141), a point should be added to US 26 between those two exits for US30_E. That would make it unnecessary to add a shaping point for US26, per the "Concurrency List" thread in "Other Discussion," to eliminate the false concurrency of US26 with I-84 east of exit 137. | If I'm right & US-26 does follow I-84, that makes this moot.
The concurrency detected between I-84 & US26 would be a true positive.
With US30 moved off I-84, there'd be no false positive, and a true positive for I-84BL.
Andy, what's your take on where the routes should go here?
As for shaping points, I'd still consider them per the 5-mile rule for visual clarity. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
andytom

Joined: 14 Jul 2008 Posts: 412 Location: Beaverton, OR
|
Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I finally took a good look at this area, both in the route logs and on GMSV. The route logs are inconclusive as to which exit US-30 comes off. Concurrent routes are only shown on one of the route logs with the concurrency and a link shown on the other route. Interstates get precendent for the route listing then IBL's, US hwys then finally SR's. The end of the US-30 alone section doesn't show which way the hwy goes from there (I thought it did which is why I used the route that I did). GMSV obviously shows that US-26 gets off at exit 141 and US-30 gets off at exit 137.
I'll make this change and it will go in with the big changes coming when the ID state routes are put in to be activated (probably another week or two).
--Andy |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
yakra

Joined: 30 Jul 2008 Posts: 2600 Location: Area Code 207
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Any idea what's with the inverse shields?
Or Google calling US30 Scenic? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bickendan

Joined: 29 Jul 2008 Posts: 1018 Location: Portland, OR
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scenic US 30 is the correct designation, IIRC. The shields are brown. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
froggie
Joined: 14 Jul 2008 Posts: 848 Location: Norfolk, VA (when not out to sea)
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is Scenic US 30 a separate route from US 30? Reason I'm asking is because US 89 in the southeast corner of Idaho has brown shields, but is still "vanilla" US 89. _________________ Froggie
http://www.ajfroggie.com |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
yakra

Joined: 30 Jul 2008 Posts: 2600 Location: Area Code 207
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not according to us-highways.com. I also don't see another alternative for US30 on the map. Looks like the brown shields are just a peculiarity of Idaho's then? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
andytom

Joined: 14 Jul 2008 Posts: 412 Location: Beaverton, OR
|
Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any designated scenic route in ID has a brown shield rather than a black one. In the case of US-30 in this area, it is probably because the hwy goes through the Thousand Springs area, the outflow from the aquifer under south central ID.
--Andy |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
tikester

Joined: 07 May 2009 Posts: 21 Location: San Leandro, CA
|
Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: Thanks! |
|
|
Thanks for all of the info. I'm going up there in a couple weeks to drive I-84BLBli and US30 and US26 around there...so I'll see and update appropriately. _________________ tikester |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
admin Site Admin

Joined: 13 Jul 2008 Posts: 4053 Location: Maryland
|
Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anything here that still needs action? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
si404
Joined: 07 Oct 2009 Posts: 708
|
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
clearly not |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|