| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
| Back to top |
   |
 |
terescoj
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 617
Location: Amsterdam, NY
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| In addition to taking ny.i099futman and making it ny.i099, I need to update a couple of labels on NY 417 (US15_S and US15_N) for this. Also, am I correct that I should replace all of US 15's labels with I-99(x) names since its NY segment is entirely concurrent with I-99 now? |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| terescoj wrote: | | Also, am I correct that I should replace all of US 15's labels with I-99(x) names since its NY segment is entirely concurrent with I-99 now? |
Yep.
Now we just wait for the shields to show up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
terescoj
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 617
Location: Amsterdam, NY
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| With Interstates, we post them as soon as they're official, even if unsigned, correct? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| terescoj wrote: | | With Interstates, we post them as soon as they're official, even if unsigned, correct? |
No, since Tim didn't allow me to add I-69 in TN, even though it was approved, but not signed. He only allowed me to add it as a 'Future' highway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
terescoj
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 617
Location: Amsterdam, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OK, then I'll hold off until we get reports of signs in the field. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dfilpus
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 717
Location: Chapel Hill NC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Same thing here in North Carolina. We hold off signing new segments of Interstates being converted from Future Interstates until they're actually signed in the field.
_________________
Dave Filpus
http://roadgeek.filpus.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I guess then that CA I-305, MD I-595, ME I-495 etc. are considered a slightly different beast from these... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dfilpus
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 717
Location: Chapel Hill NC
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | | I guess then that CA I-305, MD I-595, ME I-495 etc. are considered a slightly different beast from these... |
Those are Interstates that are permanently left unsigned by the particular state DOT's.
I-99, I-69, I-73, I-74, I-49 are interstates still under development.
There is a segment of I-73 north of I-40 that is complete and officially part of the Interstate System, but the DOT has left signing that segment part of the project to build the next segment of I-73. There is an End I-73 Shield at I-40. If we were to include that segment on the end of I-73, driving the route would pass the End sign and continue for the next few exits. The next project has been let for construction. In a couple of years, the next project will be complete and I-73 will be signed along that segment and we will extend the route.
_________________
Dave Filpus
http://roadgeek.filpus.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oscar_voss
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 622
Location: Arlington VA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
I-99 signs are up in several places on NY's part of US 15. I drove it midday yesterday (Sunday 7/20), on my way back home from Rochester.
I'll post more details, and photos, on the aaroads.com forum (with a link here to that post), once I get some sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds good Oscar. Can't wait to see the pictures myself! (Any State Named shields?  hehe.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oscar_voss
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 622
Location: Arlington VA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
terescoj
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 617
Location: Amsterdam, NY
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now that it's signed, I'd like to get this in. I think this is what needs to happen:
ny.i099futman gets deleted, along with its entry in usaif's csv files.
ny.i099 gets created, along with its entry in usai's csv files. Question here: what becomes of the *'ed points?
ny.us015 gets waypoints renumbered with I-99(x) labels as appropriate.
ny.ny417 gets labels for I-99 interchanges replaced with I-99(x) labels as appropriate. Old names remain as hidden alternates.
Anything else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| terescoj wrote: | | Question here: what becomes of the *'ed points? |
I believe these would stay in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | | terescoj wrote: | | Question here: what becomes of the *'ed points? |
I believe these would stay in. |
I think they should stay in too for I-99. There is a prior case similar to this on I-99 in PA for the temporary exit @ Skytop when it wasn't an Interstate yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
