91
News:
Travel Mapping's main site is at https://travelmapping.net/ . Old tm.teresco.org URLs and http:// URLs are redirected there, and will continue to work indefinitely.
Recent Posts
92
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Last post by the_spui_ninja on April 11, 2024, 11:14:58 am »LCT has a connector on US 12 in Mobridge (east end, west end).
There is also one at Pierre (west end). Signage on the northbank between Pierre and Chamberlain is very sparse, and this sign implies it's not there, but there is this.
The LCT stays with SD 52 west of Yankton.
I can't find any LCT shields on I-29 south of SD 50, but there is this sign for a wayside exhibit.
LCT has a connector at Washburn (west end, east end).
There is also one on ND 810 in Bismarck (west end, east end). Finally this freeway gets added
LCTKen does not pass thru Kennebec. Instead it uses SD 47 north from Reliance to BIA 10, and presumably goes via Lower Brule to SD 1806.
The Yellowstone Trail also has signs in SD, but I haven't looked into how common they are.
For the East River Chamberlain to Pierre segment, Lewis & Clark follows the (BIA 4 cutoff to Ft. Thompson, where it then presumably follows SD 47 and SD 34 to Pierre to link up with the rest (never seen signs along that stretch, but it's pre-existing mileage so including a poorly signed route isn't the end of the world).
As far as the link between Gregory and Ft. Pierre, I'd rather leave it on the current routing because the only evidence of the Lower Brule routing is the one sign that looks older than me, and that way we don't add any new mileage that doesn't have good signage to back it up. Still think it should be "Lewis & Clark Auto Trail (East River)" (SD LCTrl) and "Lewis & Clark Auto Trail (West River)" (SD LCTrlWRi), that way the cities can be used for the connectors/spurs.
Found a sign in Montana! See below for more on badly signed official routings that are concurrent with existing mileage.
Si, I can handle the ND/MT/WY/CO issues that pop up on these routes, it'll give me something to do lol. If you want to keep em in those states, that's fine with me too.
To me, including such routes in a tourist route system is a waste of effort, both for whoever is developing the system, and also potential headaches for the maintainers of the concurrent routes.
I guess I'm fine with maintaining completely concurrent tourist routes, I have to deal with so many concurrencies anyway so what's one more? If there's a national tourist route with easily accessible maps, but one state/province doesn't sign it very well if at all (*cough* MONTANA *cough*) I'd include the legs in that state/province (so there's a cohesive national route) as long as they were concurrent with pre-existing mileage (that's just me though). This is kinda like US 87 in Colorado, which doesn't officially exist per CDOT but we have it in there anyway to link the national route together.
I guess on that note I'm gonna draft up the many Lewis and Clark routes in Montana now, sounds like fun!
93
Updates to Highway Data / Re: MS US 61 Business (Vicksburg)
« Last post by Markkos1992 on April 11, 2024, 10:35:29 am »Yeah, I do not think anyone is convincing froggie to add this route, the US 61 and US 84 BUS routes in Natchez, or to extend US 98 back to Natchez based on official sources even with signage indicating they still exist.
94
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Last post by oscar on April 11, 2024, 09:58:18 am »(But the route thru Vicksburg should remain in TM as US 61 Business.)
US 61 Business isn't in TM now, though it's been suggested for addition to usausb. Take it up with froggie.
95
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Last post by SSOWorld on April 11, 2024, 09:25:26 am »The river - yes - state lines? Once. (With US 10 to connect WI's side properly) - North of that, There isn't a point (signed) to having GRR on each side since it's entirely within a state.I'm supporting a demotion to devel now.
The Great River Road does not cross the river. ever!. There are 2 general routes - one on each bank. You have instances of this crossing (i.e. US 61/151 from Dubuque US 20 to WIS-11)
The GRR National Route crosses the river several times in Minnesota.
I can see the communication between Illinois and Iowa/Wisconsin is screwed up as usual (Julien Dubuque Bridge vs IL/WI 35) - but whatever; it's a tourist route. I do see where Missouri was happy to oblige in Hannibal.
96
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Last post by Markkos1992 on April 11, 2024, 05:58:12 am »Also, there's a spur for the Seaway Trail in Erie following PA 832.
I saw that when I decided to replace the previous nearby hidden shaping point on PA 832.
Is there a way for me to prove whether this supposed spur goes into Presque Isle State Park or ends at the state park line like PA 832 itself? This page seems to indicate that it goes into the park.
97
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Last post by cl94 on April 11, 2024, 02:39:19 am »I'd be okay with the suggested demotion to devel. I love the idea of this system and stuff people have been wanting is in here, but a bunch of kinks to work out. Some of this stuff isn't super clear and I think we need to make some decisions.
I also think we need to have a detailed discussion about what counts/does not count as "signed", especially when signs are sporadic or follow multiple alignments, as well as "what counts as a sign?" For several of these auto trails, the main markings are paint or stone/concrete, not standard metal signs, and these nonstandard markings are clearly intended to serve as reassurance/directional assemblies in a way that EMMs or blade shields are not. This is especially relevant for the Lincoln Highway, because there are a crapton of painted shields and concrete markers along the route that people use for wayfinding, but other notable tourist/historic routes in the US are marked primarily with paint. Before the US Route system, paint and concrete markers were the original shields and were used as shields are used today, so I would argue that they should be grandfathered in, as some of the auto trail associations have been trying to maintain some semblance of historical accuracy with their signage.
As far as what's currently on the browser, the LH alignment along old US 40 in Sparks is signed east to McCarran Blvd. I can confirm there was a LH shield on that eastern segment as of last week. I can make that change myself in the coming days.
I also think we need to have a detailed discussion about what counts/does not count as "signed", especially when signs are sporadic or follow multiple alignments, as well as "what counts as a sign?" For several of these auto trails, the main markings are paint or stone/concrete, not standard metal signs, and these nonstandard markings are clearly intended to serve as reassurance/directional assemblies in a way that EMMs or blade shields are not. This is especially relevant for the Lincoln Highway, because there are a crapton of painted shields and concrete markers along the route that people use for wayfinding, but other notable tourist/historic routes in the US are marked primarily with paint. Before the US Route system, paint and concrete markers were the original shields and were used as shields are used today, so I would argue that they should be grandfathered in, as some of the auto trail associations have been trying to maintain some semblance of historical accuracy with their signage.
As far as what's currently on the browser, the LH alignment along old US 40 in Sparks is signed east to McCarran Blvd. I can confirm there was a LH shield on that eastern segment as of last week. I can make that change myself in the coming days.
98
Updates to Highway Data / TN: TN-385 should be split?
« Last post by rickmastfan67 on April 11, 2024, 01:07:04 am »I think we need to split TN-385 and removed from the now I-269 segment. I don't think TN even considers the now I-269 part as TN-385 anymore.
Especially with this signage at the northern end of I-269.
Especially with this signage at the northern end of I-269.
99
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes
« Last post by oscar on April 11, 2024, 01:01:30 am »Also the BC routes need to be moved to a cantr system as those are not in the United States.
The BC routes also seem at first glance to be completely concurrent with canbc routes. To me, including such routes in a tourist route system is a waste of effort, both for whoever is developing the system, and also potential headaches for the maintainers of the concurrent routes. This is different from, say, the Lincoln Highway, which seems to include significant mileage not already in TM.
Also, the BC routes seem to be deemed part of an international Selkirk route system reaching into Idaho. Those Idaho routes not only are concurrent with Idaho state routes, but I've driven many of those concurrent routes, and never saw any signage indicating they were part of any scenic route system, Selkirk or otherwise. (Ditto the BC routes, though I haven't traveled them as extensively as the Idaho routes.)
100
Updates to Highway Data / TN: I-40/I-240 graph connection issue
« Last post by rickmastfan67 on April 11, 2024, 01:00:18 am »I think that we can now safely work a way to have a graph connection of I-40 & I-240(Future I-69) @ Exit 1E/31.
I'll leave it up to you Mapcat as to which route you'll add a hidden shaping point to (I think I-40 is the best option) between Exit 1E/31 & 1F/32 to prevent a false multiplex between the routes once the graph connection is fixed.
I'll leave it up to you Mapcat as to which route you'll add a hidden shaping point to (I think I-40 is the best option) between Exit 1E/31 & 1F/32 to prevent a false multiplex between the routes once the graph connection is fixed.