Nagamasa, I wanted to review some of the un-name requests before I acted on them for you. Some of these un-name requests will no longer achieve the same results.
This un-named segment will be confusing to drivers headed to this subsequent ramp without further modifying its name or the preceding ramp section you have in your list. Did you just miss that one?
Understood. I was thinking about the people headed to Broadway. Your proposal would ignore the Broadway BGS at the second split. If we add it to your new first named ramp segment, I realize it would be announced exiting the freeway where it does not yet appear. Without including it, you miss it on the subsequent sign. I guess I am not convinced these staged ramps are better using inheritance vs the actual BGS content.
Were there driver complaints you were trying to clear up here?
Once we figure these out I will check out the rest. I’m assuming they are more straight forward.
Yes it does ignore Broadway at the second split, but that’s the subsequent split for which there is no lane for at the first split nor I-5 exit, and serves merely as advance signage for the next exit (especially so since it clearly says 500 ft). Following signs for “to US-50 E” is in fact correct at the second split, and there is no better lane/arrow to follow. Users I believe are going to get the Exit right then keep right at the second split anyways, if it is indeed 500 ft.
For all the sign changes, are you just being proactive to change the guidance to match the signs even if in advance of the physical changes, or do you know they have already changed and we are behind?
We don’t know if they all are updated, but we’ve seen an UR and we already started seeing changes in many August SVs (I-80 /US-50 as you previously mentioned) The November ones also updated signage. I can say for sure it’s in progress, but I cannot say it’s complete.
Dwarflord already completed the one with a UR, the rest are blanket changes based on the doc.
I suppose we can wait for SV before we make changes, but I also don’t want to regenerate PLs so you can unlock only the updates ones, nor play whack a mole with the SV car.
Perhaps we can work something out with a local editor to review which signage has actually changed, in measured doses, so as to not overwhelm anyone, and so that we’re not just updating things willy-nilly which will then have to be changed back when URs start showing up for changes which haven’t happened yet. This might keep us a little ahead of the curve, without having to wait for SV to update.
Kent, I’d like to thank you profusely for taking on this monster request. I started to look into it, saw the hours of work Nagamasa must have done, and the hours of work that would be required to validate everything, and had to set it aside for later - too much on the plate already! Nagamasa, I’d like to apologize for not having posted a response to this earlier, but you’ve got to admit, it’s a heck of a job you’ve requested here.
FYI, the for “compiled links” are not actually “compiled”–I just took the major interchanges (and the ramps in that area) that have been resigned and put them into 4 separate areas.
Most importantly, the previous US-50 / I-80 BUS interline is removed, and I can already confirm via SV that no freeway connections to that section show I-80 BUS through that E-W downtown section.
In fact, the 4 “compiled” PL that I requested, all non-local exits can be confirmed as updated.
Let’s do it like this, scratch all the permalinks in the original–I was trying to cut down on work for you–but seems like it’s having the opposite effect:
Here: I’ve done the work and checked them all on SV. Bonus–one permalink per area, plus individual PL for individual segments. Let me know if you want even more documentation:
Tonestertm, I have been working with Nagamasa and DwarfLord on this. I am local and have been sending pics of the new signs to them in Slack. I believe most, if not all of the I-5/US-50/BUS-80/SR-99 signs have been changed as per the document. I will be happy to assist in the boots-on-the-ground capacity for specific sign verifications.
Nagamasa, sorry for my delay returning to this thread.
I confirmed in a recent trip on I-5 that the BUS-80 signs are all gone, so I feel confident that the team confirmed the rest of those are already removed.
In support of what tonestertm posted, are all of the below changes 100% verified with either SV or a local editor as already changed? If not 100%, can you give me a group of links that are already confirmed first? Then I can drop the lock level for those for the first pass.
For any links that are unconfirmed, I am open to discussions if we want to change them based on URs from unknown drivers, but I am hesitant to change them before we know the sign changed.
Everything in your last reply to me has been lowered to 4. Go ahead and make your changes and let me know when you are complete and I can return them to 5.
Then we can move on to the others unless we got them all in this thread.
All of the items in the previous post can be relocked. As well, the I-80 corridor along the top of Sacramento can be re-locked, as the previous construction project is complete.
This should be the only new PL:
remove non-existent alt-name concurrencies (both SR-99 and SR-16 do not exist on these freeway alignments, and their discontinuous ends are more than 5 km apart to actually have a proper effect on BDP)
All of the above have been reset to 4 (excluding the first link which is reset to 5).
All prior links are still 4 until after we are done with the Sacramento area. At that time I will just lock all freeway/ramp segments in the region back to the default.
