Talk:South Dakota Highway 42
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the South Dakota Highway 42 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images) FENS · JSTOR · NYT |
 | This article is rated D-class on the AARoads Wiki's content assessment scale. It falls under the following topics: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was imported from the English Wikipedia with the last revision as of January 29, 2023.
The following editors on the English Wikipedia contributed to this article: Atilla5, CurranH, TwinsMetsFan, DandyDan2007, Cydebot, Mjgustafson, Lightbot, AlexiusHoratius, Imzadi1979, Fredddie, TCN7JM, Dough4872, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Jllm06, Frietjes, I dream of horses, Greggens, That's Pretty Good, An Errant Knight, GMoney0805, Mkbngr, GünniX, Anonymous editors: 1. |
Segmentation
Noting the following here for myself and others:
- SD 42 is neither signed nor state-maintained along 265th St. between the Aurora/Davison county line and the SD 37 intersection.
- Though SDDOT maintenance logs show a gap in the route between Tea-Ellis Road and Six Mile Road as the roadway travels through Sioux Falls, SD 42 is consistently signed along W 12th St., E 10th St., and Arrowhead Pkwy. within the city. This signage appears on both the roadway itself and the BGS exit signs to access the roadway from intersecting Interstates 29 and 229. Near the I-29 interchange, the route is signed with a "TO" banner, but this seems to be the exception, not the rule.
When I exported the data from Overpass for this article's map, I left in the signed-but-not-maintained portion through Sioux Falls. This might not be final; I'm probably going to start a larger discussion on how we should treat this route once we're getting done with cleanup and the site is closer to stable. For now, I'll leave it at this. TCN7JM 00:12, 15 September 2023 (EDT)