[Talk-us] NE2: Changeset 6612910: What is?
baloo at ursamundi.org
Wed Dec 15 06:31:51 GMT 2010
On 12/14/2010 11:56 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> Based on your addition of the sign (thanks for adding it) it's only
> 500 feet (150 m) from the exit ramp, which is where OSM currently has
> US 169 ending (and where the relation has had it ending since well
> before this little brouhaha). This is pretty standard for end sign
> placement to reduce sign clutter at the precise end.
Either way, in surveying (where centimeters count and GPS alone is only
good for ballpark figures), being as far off as we both were on the
issue, the endpoint of 169 might as well have been in China.
You should see some of the sign trees here, ODOT has a penchant for
commemorative highway names and going WAY overboard on signed routes,
changing both frequently enough that it's quite maddening to figure out
what something is *really* named or numbered. Signage location isn't
usually as imprecise as we seem to have in this particular instance
without being left over from a previously rerouted or retired route
entirely: I think a more relevant explanation in this case is that the
Creek Turnpike is free between the Veteran's Memorial Expressway and
Memorial Drive, in order to accommodate US-64 traffic, and someone
trying to follow 169 not being aware that it ends might just get pissed
at the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (who operates Creek) for not warning
them prior to Memorial Drive (the last-chance exit for toll-free traffic
before you're on the hook for 75¢ in toll or misdemeanor charges if you
> Also note http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/maps/control-maps/tulsa3.pdf
> (inset 13) which has US 169 ending between the ramp and the overpass.
Based on the ODOT control map you cited, which may or may not be to
scale, and previous tracing from NAIP, it looks like the end of 169 is
actually the east abutment of the Memorial Drive underpass. Due to the
placement of the sign and the imprecision of the control map, I'm
starting to wonder if there's any engineering blueprints for the Creek
that might shed better light on the precise real location of 169's end,
or if we should call it good with the ground truth location immediately
adjacent to the sign.
Thanks for citing government data on this one, though. A couple
suggestions I would make would be to use much smaller changesets and
more relevant changeset comments, so people who are mapping on the
ground can follow what you're doing and get a better understanding of
why you're changing something without a GPX to back it up. I don't know
about you, but I'm sure getting tired of meeting in this way (especially
after moving ~1700 miles since the last time).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Talk-us