| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
| Back to top |
   |
 |
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| For added Wacky Antics, it seems the Abbrev-less Robstown segment has been renumbered as part of I-69E. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Info from here:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf
This looks a bit older; if I'm right, from the initial round where the applications were rejected, before acceptance. Or something.
What's there for newer (potentially different) info?
I-2:
TX US83 ShowRd* US77_N
*should be ShoRd
I-69E:
North end at TX US77 US77BusRay_N
The mileage figure in the document above suggests an end at the Mexican border. Notably, there are a couple at-grade junctions south of the southernmost interchange.
I-69C:
I assume the south end is at I-2.
Anyone know how far north it's signed? FM2812? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Any update on this yakra? Seems that most, if not all, of the overheads signs are in place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's tied up with a cleanup of the concurrent US routes. It's progressing, but slowly. My working pace on CHM has been less than breakneck these past few weeks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | I-69E:
North end at TX US77 US77BusRay_N
The mileage figure in the document above suggests an end at the Mexican border. Notably, there are a couple at-grade junctions south of the southernmost interchange. |
The SCOH/USRN application (linked upthread) describes a southern terminus at Polk St ("approximately 0.1 mile north of the US 77/University Blvd. intersection") and a northern terminus at US77BusRay_N ("approximately 0.6 mile north of the US 77/CR 3690 junction north of Raymondville").
The designation file describes the same segment with different language:
| Quote: | From the junction of Business 77 north of Raymondville to the limits of access control north of the United States-Mexico International Border Crossing Complex. (Willacy and Cameron Counties)
A 53.3- mile segment of US 77 was designated as I-69 East. |
It's worth noting that the mileage figure is a bit off. I'm going to disregard that and go with what's in the verbal descriptions, which neatly coincides with the controlled-access section.
| yakra wrote: | I-69C:
I assume the south end is at I-2.
Anyone know how far north it's signed? FM2812? |
The designation file confirms "FM 2812 in Edinburg to US 83 in Pharr."
These three interstates are drafted. I have a few more things to tighten up, and then they'll be included with my next Texas update soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My update is pretty much ready to submit, as part of the larger Operation Texas.
But first, a little thinking out loud about the CSV City field:
I believe TX I-69 (the Robstown segment) has been re-signed as I-69E.
So, TX I-69 will become an AltRouteName for TX I-69ERob, leaving us with no vanilla TX I-69.
When this was the first segment of TX I-69 signed, there were no problems with having it as the vanilla city-less segment. But then, I-69Hou and I-69Sug came along, leaving the shortest segment to be the vanilla city-less one. A little awkward IMO.
I'm wondering, is it worth it to name these routes and files to avoid this kind of oddity as future I-69 segments are added to the system?
• Should the longer I-69E segment be I-69Bro, or simply I-69E?
• I69C could be I-69CPha or I-69CEdi, or just plain I-69C.
Last edited by yakra on Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mapcat
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 150
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Any idea which segments of I-69[X] are going to be built/redesignated next? Maybe the plain vanilla could be assigned to whichever segment ought to be the longest next year, or the year after. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: | I'm wondering, is it worth it to name these routes and files to avoid this kind of oddity as future I-69 segments are added to the system?
• Should the longer I-69E segment be I-69Bro, or simply I-69E?
• I69C could be I-69CPha or I-69CEdi, or just plain I-69C. |
I think it would be just fine to name them as "I-69C" and "I-69E".
I personally think that this is one time that eliminating the "I-69" file in TX and not adding it to the "AltRouteName" section would be appropriate for the "I-69ERob" line. As long as people have US-77 marked in their list file, there should be no problems as the multiplex detector should trigger and re-add I-69E there for them. I'm betting Tim would agree with me here on this one time exception to the "AltRouteName" rule when a route is renumbered.
I'm only saying this so we can free up the base I-69 name for the future when we do need it, because we will when we can merge the Houston and Sugar Land segments together. In hindsight, I wish we would have just labeled the I-69 file as I-69Rob from the start since we didn't know how there were going to deal with the three I-69 "spurs" at that time. Would have saved us a lot of trouble now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
si404
Joined: 07 Oct 2009
Posts: 708
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rickmastfan67 wrote: | | I personally think that this is one time that eliminating the "I-69" file in TX and not adding it to the "AltRouteName" section would be appropriate for the "I-69ERob" line. |
I'd concur - the reuse of that RouteName isn't far off, and it would have to be removed then anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bump.
This update is ready to submit.
Any official opinion on route names & city fields? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oscar_voss
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 622
Location: Arlington VA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rickmastfan67 wrote: |
I personally think that this is one time that eliminating the "I-69" file in TX and not adding it to the "AltRouteName" section would be appropriate for the "I-69ERob" line. As long as people have US-77 marked in their list file, there should be no problems as the multiplex detector should trigger and re-add I-69E there for them. I'm betting Tim would agree with me here on this one time exception to the "AltRouteName" rule when a route is renumbered. |
I agree with that. I've removed the line in my list file for the I-69 segment in Robstown, but kept the line for the concurrent US route segment, so the multiplex detector can credit me for whatever I-69x segment ends up there. I'm doing same for the other I-69x segments in TX I've clinched (and also I-2), which are all concurrent with preexisting US routes. |
|
| Back to top |
  |
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rickmastfan67 wrote: | | I personally think that this is one time that eliminating the "I-69" file in TX and not adding it to the "AltRouteName" section would be appropriate for the "I-69ERob" line. |
I'm on board with James, Si and Oscar re eliminating TX I-69 and not adding it as an AltRouteName. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 4053
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: |
I believe TX I-69 (the Robstown segment) has been re-signed as I-69E.
So, TX I-69 will become an AltRouteName for TX I-69ERob, leaving us with no vanilla TX I-69. |
One option is that TX I-69 becomes an AltRouteName for awhile and then is scrapped from that I-69E route when a new I-69 is signed. But then the scrapping might be offset by months or longer from the renaming entry on the Updates page, leading to confusion. So it's better to just drop instead of retain I-69 so that the change is broadcast at the same time in the Updates page.
| Quote: | When this was the first segment of TX I-69 signed, there were no problems with having it as the vanilla city-less segment. But then, I-69Hou and I-69Sug came along, leaving the shortest segment to be the vanilla city-less one. A little awkward IMO.
I'm wondering, is it worth it to name these routes and files to avoid this kind of oddity as future I-69 segments are added to the system?
• Should the longer I-69E segment be I-69Bro, or simply I-69E?
• I69C could be I-69CPha or I-69CEdi, or just plain I-69C. |
Use Abbrev-less I-69E and I-69C for the longest current sections, and I-69 for the first I-69 section once there is one. Be sure to keep the C or E suffix as part of the I-69C and I-69E route names for other sections that will have an Abbrev. (Maybe I-69Bro instead of I-69EBro was just a typo.) And I think it'd be helpful to use a City in all the sections, including the Abbrev-less one.
Evolution is inherently awkward. It's natural for the plain route in a multi-section, incomplete route to become a sub-longest section for some time. But of course the goal is for that plain route to survive mergers as more sections are connected into the final, full route. For many CHM examples of these growing pains that follow this course, see Any Motorway-Building Country In Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | One option is that TX I-69 becomes an AltRouteName for awhile and then is scrapped from that I-69E route when a new I-69 is signed. But then the scrapping might be offset by months or longer from the renaming entry on the Updates page, leading to confusion. So it's better to just drop instead of retain I-69 so that the change is broadcast at the same time in the Updates page. |
K. Let's kill it.
For Update text, I could say "(USA) Texas I-69 (Robstown): Renamed to I-69E (Robstown)."
It's not a complete match-up with "(USA) Vermont US 5 Alternate (Newport): Renamed to US 5 Truck (Newport).", there being no AltRouteNames involved.
Should I still phrase it this way, or as a deletion + an added route?
| Quote: | | Use Abbrev-less I-69E and I-69C for the longest current sections... Be sure to keep the C or E suffix as part of the I-69C and I-69E route names for other sections that will have an Abbrev. (Maybe I-69Bro instead of I-69EBro was just a typo.) |
Deal. Yes, I-69Bro was a typo, and I-69EBro was intended.
| Quote: | | And I think it'd be helpful to use a City in all the sections, including the Abbrev-less one. |
Right now there is only one single I-69C segment. My inclination would be to not use a City field here, until a second I-69C segment is added.
Since USAI.CSV is your CSV to maintain, I'll leave it your call.
| Quote: | | Use ... I-69 for the first I-69 section once there is one. |
This left me scratching my head. We already have I-69, I-69Hou and I69Sug. I-69Hou and I69Sug will be left after vanilla I-69 is deleted. Clarify? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
