Fluffy89502's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 82259252 | over 5 years ago | I must have indicated that that road is one way on accident. My apologies. |
| 81664797 | over 5 years ago | I don't remove them it is done automatically my apologies |
| 78442199 | almost 6 years ago | Marking that as an emergency access road was an accident. Thank you for catching that error. |
| 81252251 | almost 6 years ago | Alright thank you for letting me know |
| 81090698 | almost 6 years ago | For example, Interstate 5 in northern Los Angeles County permits bikes on it. |
| 81090698 | almost 6 years ago | Also Interstate standards are not freeway standards. Freeway standards only require separate grade access and a divided highway, while Interstates require more. |
| 81090698 | almost 6 years ago | Freeways do permit bikes on them. In California by default bikes are allowed on freeways unless otherwise signed. See Cal. Vehicle Code section 21960. The part north of Kearny Mesa Road could be argued as not a freeway, but the rest of the road clearly is a freeway, w/ multiple sources listing it as such. |
| 81190749 | almost 6 years ago | Alright thank you for letting me know |
| 80705221 | almost 6 years ago | Thats what the definition may say but official state maps show otherwise. See https://postmile.dot.ca.gov/PMQT/PostmileQueryTool.html? (Make sure to check the "View County Boundaries, Routes, and Calibration Postmiles" box in the top left corner). This goes back to the founding of California and its counties where the state would define a boundary and the counties would survey that boundary to a substantial degree but did not care if it was exactly accurate. Hell Los Angeles and Ventura Counties cared so little at one point that they surveyed the boundry 16 miles from where it was supposed to be. See the following book: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:California_County_Boundaries.pdf |
| 77864754 | about 6 years ago | Huh I swore there were signs stating that this segment was designated a freeway but the route concept report now says otherwise. Ill change this back to a trunk. Thanks for letting me know about this and my bad for this error. |
| 77855581 | about 6 years ago | I'll change such to be a motorway except for the portion adjacent to Shippee due to it being designated as a freeway per cahighways.org/145-152.html#149 |
| 77856238 | about 6 years ago | I added them since there is a lane, as indicated by the dashed white line, for exiting vehicles to use to enter and exit. |
| 77855581 | about 6 years ago | Yes you're correct it should be the same on either side. My bad for creating this error. |
| 73690567 | over 6 years ago | I was using bing and no I havn't done the survey but thank you for bringing this up to my attention and I'll make sure to check it out :) |
| 73703866 | over 6 years ago | Alright thanks for letting me know. |
| 73368013 | over 6 years ago | Alright thank you for letting me know. I'll make sure to be much more conservative with my "trunk" edits. Thank you! |
| 73212109 | over 6 years ago | No and I havnt been able to find any other sources to it so ill be removing it my bad. |
| 73212109 | over 6 years ago | I don't have a link to it but it is on the April 2002 CTC Agenda as Item 2.2a.(2) |
| 72451990 | over 6 years ago | Ah thats a mistake thank you for letting me know Ill get onto it :) |
| 72977918 | over 6 years ago | welp im stupid for missing that ill revert that asap :/. |