Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Topic started by: neroute2 on January 15, 2020, 06:59:44 pm

Title: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: neroute2 on January 15, 2020, 06:59:44 pm
Some may be too short or unimportant.

AZ Fain Road (Prescott Valley)
AZ Northern Parkway
CA 10 (SBD Freeway stub west of I-5)
CA 259
CA 710 (Pasadena stub)
CA Alfred Harrell Highway
CA Colorado Freeway (old 134 east of I-5)
CA Golden State Boulevard (Fresno)
CA Jamboree Road
CA La Jolla Parkway
CA Long Beach connections to I-710
CA Pacific Highway (San Diego)
CO 6th Avenue (Denver)
CO Academy Boulevard (Colorado Springs)
CT Bradley International Airport Connector
CT Whitehead Highway (Hartford)
DC 9th and 12th Street Tunnels
DC E Street Expressway
DC East Capitol Street
DC North Capitol Street
DC South Capitol Street
FL 139 (Mathews Expressway, Jacksonville)
FL CR 296 and CR 611 (Pinellas County)
FL Disney World freeways
FL I-4/Selmon Expressway Connector (Tampa)
FL Nocatee Parkway
GA Lindsey Creek Parkway (I-185 extension)
GA Sugarloaf Parkway
IL Lake Shore Drive north of US 41
IL Stony Island Avenue
KS Woodie Seat Freeway (Hutchinson)
MA Plimoth Plantation Highway
MD Moravia Road (Baltimore)
MD Sam Eig Highway
MI Mound Road
MO Forest Park Parkway
NC Aviation Parkway (Raleigh-Durham)
NC Bryan Boulevard (Greensboro)
ND 810 (Bismarck Expressway)
NE Storz Expressway
NH Raymond Wieczorek Drive
NJ 76C
NV 171
NY 984J (connects I-684 to HRP)
NY Adirondack Northway (south of I-90)
NY Central Westchester Parkway
NY CR 97 and CR 99 (Suffolk County)
NY Inner Loop (Rochester)
NY JFK Expressway (Queens)
NY South Mall Arterial (Albany)
NY West Street (Syracuse)
OK Chickasaw Turnpike
OK LL Tisdale Parkway
PA Highland Park Bridge
RI Airport Connector
RI Henderson Bridge
TN 300 (currently part of Future I-69)
TN Plough Boulevard
TX FM 1764
TX PA 1502 (Wurzbach Parkway)
TX PR 22 (Padre Island)
WA Evergreen Parkway (Olympia)

Related:
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=tx.sp0097 should probably be moved to usasf as IntPkwy. Most of it is not Spur 97, and I don't think it's signed.
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=in.samjonexpy has a hanging west end.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Markkos1992 on January 15, 2020, 07:24:33 pm
I am not sure about PA Highland Park Bridge (HigParkBri) offhand.  A quick glance of length using Google Maps shows that it is only 0.7 miles and acts more like a short connector road between PA 28 and PA 8. (though longer than the connecting road between I-76 and I-79 at Cranberry that has an interchange with US 19 in the middle....  However, that is obviously not in the HB.)

I will think about this one for a while.  PA CenScrExp (Central Scranton Expressway) and PA HarTayBri (Harvey Taylor Bridge) do connect to downtown areas of Scranton and Harrisburg respectively.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: mapcat on January 15, 2020, 08:30:29 pm
The Sam Jones Expy's controlled access section ends at a traffic light, so I chose not to continue it on to I-465.

Not much--maybe a mile?--of Mound Road is a freeway.

I think the reason I left Plough Blvd out is because it doesn't connect to another route. Airways Blvd intersects I-240. These don't have to make a connection, of course, but it's pretty rare that they don't.

There are a couple on the list I could get behind but most of these seem unimportant.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 15, 2020, 08:50:35 pm
I am not sure about PA Highland Park Bridge (HigParkBri) offhand.  A quick glance of length using Google Maps shows that it is only 0.7 miles and acts more like a short connector road between PA 28 and PA 8. (though longer than the connecting road between I-76 and I-79 at Cranberry that has an interchange with US 19 in the middle....  However, that is obviously not in the HB.)

I will think about this one for a while.  PA CenScrExp (Central Scranton Expressway) and PA HarTayBri (Harvey Taylor Bridge) do connect to downtown areas of Scranton and Harrisburg respectively.

I personally would not consider the Highland Park Bridge as a freeway.  Acts like the 10th Street Bypass downtown IMO.

However, if we ever decide to add the 'Belt Highways' of Allegheny County, we could gain the Highland Park Bridge that way.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: oscar on January 15, 2020, 11:12:37 pm
Some quick reactions for CA and NV:

-- I don't like the idea of adding to usasf routes that would belong in usaca (CA 259) or usanv (NV 171) if their route numbers were signed. EDIT: But then there's Florida's Turnpike, which has two unsigned route numbers, but is also one of the main reasons why we need usasf in the first place -- so let's not get carried away with this as a possible guideline.

-- For CA 259, there's the added complication that the highway not only doesn't have a signed route number, but also AFAIK doesn't even have a name (signed or otherwise) by which we could call it in usasf.

-- The Pacific Highway in San Diego, including its short freeway portion, is in the HB already as part of US101HisSan.

-- Some of the shorter routes in CA (Pasadena stub of unsigned CA 710, Colorado Fwy) are less than a mile long. and are otherwise unimportant. The San Bernadino Freeway stub between I-5 and US 101 is more important, but still is only about 0.6 mile long.

-- Is Golden State Blvd. in Fresno even a freeway (except perhaps a tiny < 1 mi. bit at its north end)?
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Markkos1992 on January 16, 2020, 06:53:39 am
I am not sure about PA Highland Park Bridge (HigParkBri) offhand.  A quick glance of length using Google Maps shows that it is only 0.7 miles and acts more like a short connector road between PA 28 and PA 8. (though longer than the connecting road between I-76 and I-79 at Cranberry that has an interchange with US 19 in the middle....  However, that is obviously not in the HB.)

I will think about this one for a while.  PA CenScrExp (Central Scranton Expressway) and PA HarTayBri (Harvey Taylor Bridge) do connect to downtown areas of Scranton and Harrisburg respectively.

I personally would not consider the Highland Park Bridge as a freeway.  Acts like the 10th Street Bypass downtown IMO.

However, if we ever decide to add the 'Belt Highways' of Allegheny County, we could gain the Highland Park Bridge that way.

On the note of the 'Belt Highways', I have already made it a rule to add points at any intersections those routes have with routes in the HB.  We probably need to have the tool to be able to choose what systems we want to track and which ones we do not before adding those.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: neroute2 on January 16, 2020, 08:01:23 am
Some quick reactions for CA and NV:

-- I don't like the idea of adding to usasf routes that would belong in usaca (CA 259) or usanv (NV 171) if their route numbers were signed. For CA 259, there's the added complication that the highway not only doesn't have a signed route number, but also AFAIK doesn't even have a name (signed or otherwise) by which we could call it in usasf.
These seem like the perfect selections: freeways that are state maintained but have no signed numbers.
We do have precedent in Alabama: http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=al.al152
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: oscar on January 16, 2020, 11:00:47 am
Some quick reactions for CA and NV:

-- I don't like the idea of adding to usasf routes that would belong in usaca (CA 259) or usanv (NV 171) if their route numbers were signed. For CA 259, there's the added complication that the highway not only doesn't have a signed route number, but also AFAIK doesn't even have a name (signed or otherwise) by which we could call it in usasf.
These seem like the perfect selections: freeways that are state maintained but have no signed numbers.
We do have precedent in Alabama: http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=al.al152

Maybe not. AL 152 was once signed (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/al-152/), even if it isn't now, and may have been signed when it was added to usansf (not usasf) in CHM's early years.

Should AL 152 be removed from usansf? Will it transfer to usaal when that system is activated, if it remains unsigned?

BTW, CA 259 once had route markers, but it didn't by the time I field-checked the route (several times, I looked hard for a reason to keep it in usaca) in 2016 or 2017.

I'm not aware of any former route signage on NV 171, though it also doesn't include all of the McCarran Airport Connector (about 0.7 mi. in NV 171, about 1.3 mi. in the unnumbered part of the connector).
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: michih on January 16, 2020, 02:35:28 pm
A quick glance of length using Google Maps shows that it is only 0.7 miles and acts more like a short connector road between PA 28 and PA 8.

We usually add routes to eursf system when the route has minimum one more grade-separated junction between the start and end point except when the potential eursf route connects two freeways and it's not just "one giant interchange".
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Bickendan on January 16, 2020, 07:04:34 pm
Some quick reactions for CA and NV:

-- I don't like the idea of adding to usasf routes that would belong in usaca (CA 259) or usanv (NV 171) if their route numbers were signed. For CA 259, there's the added complication that the highway not only doesn't have a signed route number, but also AFAIK doesn't even have a name (signed or otherwise) by which we could call it in usasf.

-- Some of the shorter routes in CA (Pasadena stub of unsigned CA 710, Colorado Fwy) are less than a mile long. and are otherwise unimportant. The San Bernadino Freeway stub between I-5 and US 101 is more important, but still is only about 0.6 mile long.

Without looking at Daniel Faign's site, I'm under the impression that CA 259 is the northern (eastern) most fringe of the San Bernardino Freeway, as I recall that the SBD designation ran along I-10 from US 101 to I-215, then up I-215 to at least the CA 259 split (with the Barstow Freeway starting there).

I was a proponent of adding the US 101 to I-5/10 segment of the SBD back when I drafted usaca, but Tim nixed it on grounds of length despite its importance.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: bejacob on January 16, 2020, 07:10:08 pm
Make the case for why any of these routes should be added. It's possible a handful might make the cut if the case is compelling.

The comments so far go in the other directions. Clearly some were previously considered and rejected. Lack of signage, freeway (or not), and total length seem to be factors.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: neroute2 on January 16, 2020, 07:33:14 pm
Make the case for why any of these routes should be added.
Why not have the individual maintainers look at the list and see if they think any are worth adding?
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Duke87 on January 16, 2020, 07:34:11 pm
The initial drafting of usasf generally used a guideline of 5 miles minimum length to be considered worthy of inclusion. Some routes which do not meet this threshold have been added in the past several years on an ad-hoc basis as requests have been made and as the region's maintainers have felt like it... but there has not been any consistent criteria applied.

The initial drafting generally also excluded freeways which are not state-maintained - THIS, I do think is important since it gets solidly into scope creep territory if we find ourselves mapping county and local roads.



Beyond that, I'll go ahead and share my thoughts on some specifics:

CT Bradley International Airport Connector some recent construction (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1898.msg2468724#msg2468724) has reduced the portion of the connector that is freeway and not part of CT 20 down to essentially nothing. So this should be out of consideration.

MD Moravia Road (Baltimore) is not even marked as a freeway on OSM! :) it's also a local road maintained by the city of Baltimore. Since Maryland is one of my regions I'm going to go ahead and make the call that no this isn't getting added to usasf.

MD Sam Eig Highway is considered by SHA (https://www.roads.maryland.gov/OPPEN/2016%20Montgomery_HLR_web.pdf) to be part of I-370 up until where the ramp from 270 westbound merges in, which is only about 1000 feet shy of where it solidly ceases being freeway at Fields Rd. I-370 having its western endpoint there was likely nixed (and rightly so) by 1 point per interchange policy. The last ~1000 feet of freeway, including the Washingtonian Blvd overpass and west-facing ramps, are county maintenance.
So, this is also not worthy of inclusion on account of being both short and not state-maintained.

NJ 76C is a long exit ramp and has no signed name. Methinks this does not belong in usasf. However in the event we were to make a system for the unsigned NJ state routes it would absolutely go in there.

NY Central Westchester Parkway is county maintenance, so should be categorically excluded.

NY CR 97 and CR 99 (Suffolk County) a.k.a. Nicolls Rd and Woodside Ave, respectively, should also be categorically excluded on account of being county routes.

NY Inner Loop (Rochester) is worth including even in abbreviated form.

NY JFK Expressway (Queens) has been proposed for addition in the past by others. I think it would be worth adding.

RI Henderson Bridge is physically on the chopping block, to be narrowed to two lanes and cease being a freeway. So, nothing to add here.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Duke87 on January 16, 2020, 07:37:59 pm
Related:
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=tx.sp0097 should probably be moved to usasf as IntPkwy. Most of it is not Spur 97, and I don't think it's signed.

It is signed, (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8453387,-97.0403463,3a,15y,21.18h,87.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sou-GAS-edStH_r8erkbdNw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) even if not terribly thoroughly.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: oscar on January 16, 2020, 07:57:58 pm
Lack of signage, freeway (or not), and total length seem to be factors.

The shortest route now in usasf, Pennsylvania's Central Scranton Expressway at 0.96 mi., is also the only one less than 1 mile long. There are a handful in the 1-2 mile range. I think any new routes less than a mile long (some of them are on neroute2's list) would be a tough sell, and maintainers might be balky about other routes at the low end of the 1-5 mile range.

The initial drafting generally also excluded freeways which are not state-maintained - THIS, I do think is important since it gets solidly into scope creep territory if we find ourselves mapping county and local roads.

I disagree. Nevada's CR 215 beltway, almost 40 miles long, is a prime counter-example.

The requirement that usasf routes be mostly or entirely freeways, and our focus on "select" freeways rather than trying to be comprehensive, should head off the "scope creep" concern.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: vdeane on January 16, 2020, 09:51:30 pm
CR 215 is almost an exception that proves the rule.  I could potentially see Central Westchester Parkway if we were going to include country freeways, but IMO the Suffolk County ones are debatable if they're even freeways.  CR 97 in particular would be hard to define endpoints for.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: froggie on January 16, 2020, 09:55:20 pm
These seem like the perfect selections: freeways that are state maintained but have no signed numbers.
We do have precedent in Alabama: http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=al.al152

Maybe not. AL 152 was once signed (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/al-152/), even if it isn't now, and may have been signed when it was added to usansf (not usasf) in CHM's early years.

Correct.  It was signed at the time (several years ago now).

Quote
Should AL 152 be removed from usansf? Will it transfer to usaal when that system is activated, if it remains unsigned?

Following with past precedent, AL 152 was to be removed from usansf once usaal gets activated.  I'll need to double-check its signage (pretty sure it was still signed at US 231 recently, but not 100% on that).
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: neroute2 on January 17, 2020, 11:24:25 am
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=tn.samcooblvd (former I-40) is another that clearly belongs despite being locally maintained.

Here are some from the list that stand out for whatever reason:

exit numbers
AZ Fain Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6103375,-112.2718283,3a,27.4y,13.01h,86.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syXz6dVq6tCpJXGBNY31tyw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
AZ Northern Parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5593536,-112.3883276,3a,27.4y,268.99h,95.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srNpHdZV4gr6aqeC9ZZmHpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
CA 259 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1326002,-117.302709,3a,44.4y,13.22h,99.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfgd5-dVOOvTQg_zphAvfeg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
NY JFK Expressway (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6606781,-73.7918819,3a,23.1y,214.66h,86.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPMhFBkYxR-QVr4eYYxZk3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)

length
CA Alfred Harrell Highway (4.5 mi)
FL Nocatee Parkway (5 mi)
GA Sugarloaf Parkway (6 mi)
OK Chickasaw Turnpike (11 mi)
TX PA 1502 (10 mi)
TX PR 22 (5 mi)

number of interchanges
CO Academy Boulevard (6 interchanges, but a couple at-grades in the middle)
NC Bryan Boulevard (5 interchanges)

other reasons
CT Whitehead Highway (former I-484)
MA Plimoth Plantation Highway (former MA 3)
OK LL Tisdale Parkway (special shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1770169,-95.999877,3a,27y,329.26h,86.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAbppAvJB9sLZ7sH6FFkM7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656))
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: oscar on January 17, 2020, 11:40:16 am
number of interchanges
CO Academy Boulevard (6 interchanges, but a couple at-grades in the middle)4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAbppAvJB9sLZ7sH6FFkM7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]special shields[/url])

When I tried to add Alaska's Johansen Expressway to usasf, the one at-grade in the middle was fatal.

It didn't help that the Johansen had the only exit numbers anywhere in Alaska. None on Alaska's four other freeways, including one (Hickel Parkway in Anchorage) that did get into usasf.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Jim on January 17, 2020, 01:51:05 pm
My own interest here is that systems like this should include routes that don't fit into our comprehensive systems but for which TM users would most likely be interested in mapping their travels.  I'm opposed to the rigid rules we inherited from CHM, but developing an updated set of guidelines to help decide what should qualify would be useful.  There is the matter of finding the balance between wanting to include anything someone wants with trying not to annoy those who see very minor additions as clutter.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: neroute2 on January 17, 2020, 02:26:06 pm
number of interchanges
CO Academy Boulevard (6 interchanges, but a couple at-grades in the middle)

When I tried to add Alaska's Johansen Expressway to usasf, the one at-grade in the middle was fatal.

It shouldn't have been, given the following others that have at-grades not at the endpoints:
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ak.hicpkwy
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ga.ronreapkwy
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=in.vetmempkwy
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ks.turdia (recent downgrading)
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=la.lakeponcswy (whoa)
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=nv.cr215
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.brorivpkwy
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.sawmillpkwy
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.tacstapkwy
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=tn.samcooblvd
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=tx.chitrlpkwy
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Duke87 on January 18, 2020, 01:58:41 am
My own interest here is that systems like this should include routes that don't fit into our comprehensive systems but for which TM users would most likely be interested in mapping their travels.  I'm opposed to the rigid rules we inherited from CHM, but developing an updated set of guidelines to help decide what should qualify would be useful.  There is the matter of finding the balance between wanting to include anything someone wants with trying not to annoy those who see very minor additions as clutter.

I think the issue on the negative side is more than simply a matter of "clutter".

From my perspective, the issue is thus: like with anything else which can be collected, routes form a "set" which at least some collectors will seek to complete. Whether a particular route should be included, therefore, needs to be evaluated not just on its own individual merit, but also in the context of whether collecting it should be considered necessary to complete the "set".

This is the biggest reason why I am generally defensive regarding additions of more roads to usasf, and why I've also been a critic of other systems that have been added outside the normal trinity of Interstate/US/state routes. By adding these extra things, we are not just providing users with more routes they can clinch- we're also making it such that if someone wants their stats for a state to show 100%, there are more routes they must clinch.

This is especially problematic when you consider the game has already been ongoing for quite some time. I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: michih on January 18, 2020, 04:21:59 am
I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.

I fully agree!

----------------------------

I think that the only solution is writing a manual (to avoid discussing this again and again). We need to agree on the rules first.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/Web/issues/400

Quote
The description should contain:
  • What we consider as a highway system (how to be distinuished from other systems)
  • What needs to be fulfilled for routes to be added (signed in field, signed on maps, indicated in official documents,...)
  • Which sources are required (likely different depending on the region, country on continent)
Especially "Select" systems need a clear definition (eursf, usansf, usasf, usanp, eurtr, cannf, mexsf,...)
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: vdeane on January 18, 2020, 04:12:29 pm
My own interest here is that systems like this should include routes that don't fit into our comprehensive systems but for which TM users would most likely be interested in mapping their travels.  I'm opposed to the rigid rules we inherited from CHM, but developing an updated set of guidelines to help decide what should qualify would be useful.  There is the matter of finding the balance between wanting to include anything someone wants with trying not to annoy those who see very minor additions as clutter.

I think the issue on the negative side is more than simply a matter of "clutter".

From my perspective, the issue is thus: like with anything else which can be collected, routes form a "set" which at least some collectors will seek to complete. Whether a particular route should be included, therefore, needs to be evaluated not just on its own individual merit, but also in the context of whether collecting it should be considered necessary to complete the "set".

This is the biggest reason why I am generally defensive regarding additions of more roads to usasf, and why I've also been a critic of other systems that have been added outside the normal trinity of Interstate/US/state routes. By adding these extra things, we are not just providing users with more routes they can clinch- we're also making it such that if someone wants their stats for a state to show 100%, there are more routes they must clinch.

This is especially problematic when you consider the game has already been ongoing for quite some time. I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.
Agreed.  Though this is still subjective, one question to look at when considering routes to add is "is it major/significant enough that someone familiar with the state aiming to clinch everything would likely clinch it even though it's not currently in TM?".
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: US 89 on January 18, 2020, 04:20:48 pm
This is especially problematic when you consider the game has already been ongoing for quite some time. I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.

I disagree with this simply because the goalposts move on their own. State routes and even US Highways get moved, truncated, decommissioned, etc...

Personally, I think there's way more interest among the general route-clinching population in non-numbered freeways than there is in, say, historic US highway alignments and national park scenic drives.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: michih on January 19, 2020, 10:42:36 am
I disagree with this simply because the goalposts move on their own. State routes and even US Highways get moved, truncated, decommissioned, etc...

This happens when the road authority makes a change but adding a route just because a TM highway data manager feels like this, is something different.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Duke87 on January 19, 2020, 08:18:47 pm
I disagree with this simply because the goalposts move on their own. State routes and even US Highways get moved, truncated, decommissioned, etc...

This happens when the road authority makes a change but adding a route just because a TM highway data manager feels like this, is something different.

This. It's one thing to need to go back to clinch a route which simply didn't exist at the time I was last in the area. It's another to need to go back to clinch a route which was physically there but which was just not included on TM at the time.

It's also worth noting that the degree to which the goalposts "move on their own" varies greatly from state to state. Within the last decade, there has only been one change each to the signed state/US/interstate highway networks of NJ (the first section of US 206 Bypass opening) and CT (truncation of CT 34). RI has had two (reroute of US 1 onto I-95 in Pawtucket, realignment of I-195), and MA has had none unless you count the creation of the two "historic" US route segments.

And then you have states like PA, where truck routes blink in and out of existence like quantum particles and you're chasing a constantly moving target if you're trying to clinch all of them.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Markkos1992 on January 20, 2020, 06:28:42 am
Quote
And then you have states like PA, where truck routes blink in and out of existence like quantum particles and you're chasing a constantly moving target if you're trying to clinch all of them.

As you state this, I am about to check out one that may have recently formed for PA 73 near Schwenksville today.

I personally try to avoid going too insane about clinching the truck routes, but as vdeane and I talked about at Newburyport, it gets very easy to want to clinch everything to make the map look good.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: froggie on January 22, 2020, 08:54:01 am
Can also have goalposts "move back and forth" multiple times.

Case in point:  I had a segment of former MN 101 on my initial drafts of the MN state system, despite it being unsigned MN 801, because it was an important link between two major routes (US 169 and MN 13).  Tim took it out at some point because Tim, but it's something I wouldn't mind putting back in, especially now that it is effectively all-freeway.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: formulanone on January 29, 2020, 11:19:52 am
Some quick reactions for CA and NV:

-- I don't like the idea of adding to usasf routes that would belong in usaca (CA 259) or usanv (NV 171) if their route numbers were signed. For CA 259, there's the added complication that the highway not only doesn't have a signed route number, but also AFAIK doesn't even have a name (signed or otherwise) by which we could call it in usasf.
These seem like the perfect selections: freeways that are state maintained but have no signed numbers.
We do have precedent in Alabama: http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=al.al152

Maybe not. AL 152 was once signed (https://www.aaroads.com/guides/al-152/), even if it isn't now, and may have been signed when it was added to usansf (not usasf) in CHM's early years.

Haven't been down there since mid-2016, but eastbound AL 152 was signed then. (Sorry, no photo.)

A lot of NE2's suggestions are airport connectors, some of which are signed with mile/reference markers. As there's some other airport access routes included in TM, the ones which at least have an entry in state logs or have supporting signage should be counted.

Where to draw the line, though?
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: yakra on March 01, 2020, 05:40:24 pm
There are a couple on the list I could get behind but most of these seem unimportant.
My takeaway here too.

-- I don't like the idea of adding to usasf routes that would belong in usaca (CA 259) or usanv (NV 171) if their route numbers were signed. EDIT: But then there's Florida's Turnpike, which has two unsigned route numbers, but is also one of the main reasons why we need usasf in the first place -- so let's not get carried away with this as a possible guideline.
I think usasf could be a good landing pad for unsigned routes left out of state systems, as long as they're freeways. Don't know how CA259 or NV171 would qualify here.

CT Bradley International Airport Connector some recent construction (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1898.msg2468724#msg2468724) has reduced the portion of the connector that is freeway and not part of CT 20 down to essentially nothing. So this should be out of consideration.
This was discussed and nixed before, on the grounds of already being short & non-freeway.

NJ 76C is a long exit ramp and has no signed name. Methinks this does not belong in usasf. However in the event we were to make a system for the unsigned NJ state routes it would absolutely go in there.
I stumbled across this a while back. Based on how NJ is classifying things, I don't think a state route set would be the right fit. I thought about adding it to usai (compare OH I-480War (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?=oh.i480war)) but ultimately took no action...

NY Central Westchester Parkway is county maintenance, so should be categorically excluded.
Not necessarily. There's Nevada's CR 215 beltway as Oscar mentioned, as well as a potential freeway in Oklahoma. (LL Tisdale?)

NY CR 97 and CR 99 (Suffolk County) a.k.a. Nicolls Rd and Woodside Ave, respectively, should also be categorically excluded on account of being county routes.
I'd just nix these on "not a freeway" grounds, the latter also being too short.

NY Inner Loop (Rochester) is worth including even in abbreviated form.
Meh... I was more enthusiastic about it before it was slighted, but... maybe?

NY JFK Expressway (Queens) has been proposed for addition in the past by others. I think it would be worth adding.
ISTR this one being mentioned on the AARoads thread for potential usasf additions. Maybe.

Related:
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=tx.sp0097 should probably be moved to usasf as IntPkwy. Most of it is not Spur 97, and I don't think it's signed.
It is signed, (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8453387,-97.0403463,3a,15y,21.18h,87.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sou-GAS-edStH_r8erkbdNw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) even if not terribly thoroughly.
neroute2 is correct; Most of it is not Spur 97. Designation file (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ss/ss0097.htm) says "From south entrance of Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport, southward to SH 183." Shapefiles have the end at the Fort Worth / Euless boundary, pretty much right at the edge of the interchange footprint. Meaning the sign that Duke87 posted is effectively at the end of the route. Note the pavement change.
For the sake of correctness, TXSpr97 should be truncated, and IntPkwy should pick up the rest of the route.
Do we have it go all the way south to the TX183 interchange, or pick up at the city line where TXSpr97 leaves off? Edit: Statewide Planning Map has MM 0 at the city line. Which may not mean much in terms of the named route, but why not go with that.
The old TXLp97 AltRouteName is only used in ovoss_old.list.
As noted in another thread, Texas toll roads need a rethink.

When I tried to add Alaska's Johansen Expressway to usasf, the one at-grade in the middle was fatal.

It shouldn't have been, given the following others that have at-grades not at the endpoints:
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ks.turdia (recent downgrading)
I always thought this one was a bit borderline, and it gave me indigestion when the downgrade was proposed like immediately after it was added to the HB. I kinda wanna give it the axe. (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4320)

http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.brorivpkwy
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.sawmillpkwy
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.tacstapkwy
These will be eventually transferred to usanyp upon its activation; it'll then be a moot point in terms of usasf criteria.

http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=tx.chitrlpkwy
Nolan River Road, eh? Well, crap...
(Might be worth it to dig a little deeper and see if the CTP designation ends farther north)
Edit: This map (https://www.ntta.org/roadsprojects/rates/Pages/Toll-Rates.aspx) shows it going all the way to the S edge of the US67 interchange footprint. This map (https://www.ntta.org/roadsprojects/projprog/ChisholmTrail/Documents/2015/CTP_Project_Map_081915.pdf) has less detail overall but still shows the CTP all the way down to US67, as well as Future Direct Connect Ramps. Time will take care of this one in theory, so I won't worry about it.

This is especially problematic when you consider the game has already been ongoing for quite some time. I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.
To water down this argument a bit, the DOTs will do this themselves, with extensions, relocations, and new designations...

This happens when the road authority makes a change but adding a route just because a TM highway data manager feels like this, is something different.
The end effect is the same, in terms of Duke87's post.

It's one thing to need to go back to clinch a route which simply didn't exist at the time I was last in the area. It's another to need to go back to clinch a route which was physically there but which was just not included on TM at the time.
Or not. Subjective judgment, I guess. :)

It's also worth noting that the degree to which the goalposts "move on their own" varies greatly from state to state. Within the last decade, there has only been one change each to the signed state/US/interstate highway networks of NJ (the first section of US 206 Bypass opening) and CT (truncation of CT 34). RI has had two (reroute of US 1 onto I-95 in Pawtucket, realignment of I-195), and MA has had none unless you count the creation of the two "historic" US route segments.
NJ: Oi, don't forget I-95!
RI: The Iway's >10 now, I believe. :)
CT: Do you mean at the E end, to CT10? The full extent is still in the HB, and a recent check of shapefiles & town maps suggest it's still offically CT34, albeit poorly or unsigned. Ecch, I hate these short unsigned segments of otherwise-signed routes...
MA: usaush, that's... yeah. Indigestion.

I had a segment of former MN 101 on my initial drafts of the MN state system, despite it being unsigned MN 801, because it was an important link between two major routes (US 169 and MN 13).  Tim took it out at some point because Tim, but it's something I wouldn't mind putting back in, especially now that it is effectively all-freeway.
Sounds like this is less "because Tim" and more "because unsigned"...

> CT Whitehead Highway (former I-484)
The fact that it's a former (actual? proposed?) interstate shouldn't make a difference IMO. A ~0.58 mi stub, a glorified exit ramp.

> KS Woodie Seat Freeway (Hutchinson)
A glorified city street, that happens to have an interchange in the middle. And some at-grades at the S end. Doesn't even connect to anything else in the system. I'll pass; I'm not down with including every little stub.

> MA Plimoth Plantation Highway (former MA 3)
Sure, why not.

> NE Storz Expressway
> NH Raymond Wieczorek Drive
Not freeways.

> NY 984J (connects I-684 to HRP)
Real damn short. Like CA259, no name to call it?

> NY Adirondack Northway (south of I-90)
> NY Central Westchester Parkway
> NY South Mall Arterial (Albany)
Stubsville

> NY West Street (Syracuse)
Glorified street, mostly non-freeway

> OK Chickasaw Turnpike
Relatively minor, short, not all freeway. I could see this happening if an Oklahoma Turnpikes system was carved out of usasf, similar to what happened with Kentucky Parkways some years back.

> OK LL Tisdale Parkway (special shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1770169,-95.999877,3a,27y,329.26h,86.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAbppAvJB9sLZ7sH6FFkM7g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656))
Hm, ISTR this was considered back in the CHM days; seems it was dropped. Due to length, maybe? (Shorter stuff has since made the cut.) ISTR one of the proposed OK routes being locally maintained; maybe this one if the "CR LL" tag shown on OSM is any indication. There's an at-grade near the N end.

> RI Airport Connector
Proposed before, and tabled. Short, questionably significant, problematic terminus. Pass.

> TX FM 1764
Only freeway between I-45 & TX146. Personally, I'm not a big fan of truncating routes just to include a partial, freeway, segment. Or including non-freeway routes in a nominally freeway system.
This falls within the scope of usatxf (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2275) / usatxf4 (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2275.msg17903#msg17903).

> TX PA 1502 (Wurzbach Parkway)
This was discussed (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2275.msg11849#msg11849) in the Texas systems thread.

> TX PR 22 (Padre Island)
Largely non-freeway; see above.
Could conceivably fall within the scope of a "Select Park Roads" system, but it'd be very low priority (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2275.msg13609#msg13609).
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: cl94 on March 01, 2020, 07:52:49 pm
Regarding the NY cases, the Central Westchester and stub end of the Northway are major links. I would include them in some fashion.

The Central Westchester, while county maintenance, would be a better fit in usanyp. While it might be a "county route", it's far more major and a real "parkway" than some of the stuff currently in usanyp just because of reference route number (cough...LOSP spur and Cross Bay Parkway). Playland Parkway might belong in the usanyp club as well, being as it is partially grade-separated and there's no doubt that it's a parkway. When it comes to Westchester, state maintenance is not the sole indicator of something being a parkway.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Duke87 on March 01, 2020, 07:56:46 pm
It's also worth noting that the degree to which the goalposts "move on their own" varies greatly from state to state. Within the last decade, there has only been one change each to the signed state/US/interstate highway networks of NJ (the first section of US 206 Bypass opening) and CT (truncation of CT 34). RI has had two (reroute of US 1 onto I-95 in Pawtucket, realignment of I-195), and MA has had none unless you count the creation of the two "historic" US route segments.
NJ: Oi, don't forget I-95!

Didn't forget it - this is not a goalpost move since no pavement was added to or removed from the system. The same roads just changed designations. Nothing needed to be reclinched as a result of this.

Quote
CT: Do you mean at the E end, to CT10? The full extent is still in the HB, and a recent check of shapefiles & town maps suggest it's still offically CT34, albeit poorly or unsigned. Ecch, I hate these short unsigned segments of otherwise-signed routes...

That's what I mean, yes.

Look closely at the state highway map (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/policymaps/ref/hwymap18ps-Final.pdf?la=en) and you will notice that maintenance of the one-way pair of surface streets east of CT 10 has been turned back over to the city of New Haven (as they wanted). What remains of the Oak Street connector is still officially designated CT 34, but is disconnected from the rest.

Signage for CT 34 was deliberately removed from I-91/95 in this area and added to signage for exit 44 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2861836,-72.9263174,3a,50.4y,225.89h,83.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG2gPHSJ9RIATusx2pk-bPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), because ConnDOT (and the city of New Haven) wants traffic heading to CT 34 west to go that way rather than cutting through downtown.

I do suppose it remains to be seen whether The remaining Oak Street Connector will get redesignated as SR 7xx or whether the status quo of "it sort of is and sort of isn't" CT 34 will remain basically forever.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: neroute2 on March 01, 2020, 08:22:01 pm
Look closely at the state highway map (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/documents/dpolicy/policymaps/ref/hwymap18ps-Final.pdf?la=en) and you will notice that maintenance of the one-way pair of surface streets east of CT 10 has been turned back over to the city of New Haven (as they wanted). What remains of the Oak Street connector is still officially designated CT 34, but is disconnected from the rest.
This is nothing new (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/dot/documents/dpolicy/policymaps/adt/2004-03-02pdf/092adt.pdf). 34 has always had a maintenance gap; all that changed is that 706 no longer exists. That state highway map also (correctly) shows the gap on 83 in Manchester.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: oscar on March 01, 2020, 08:34:14 pm
-- I don't like the idea of adding to usasf routes that would belong in usaca (CA 259) or usanv (NV 171) if their route numbers were signed. EDIT: But then there's Florida's Turnpike, which has two unsigned route numbers, but is also one of the main reasons why we need usasf in the first place -- so let's not get carried away with this as a possible guideline.
I think usasf could be a good landing pad for unsigned routes left out of state systems, as long as they're freeways. Don't know how CA259 or NV171 would qualify here.

Both CA 259 and NV 171 are short (about a mile long each, not counting locally-maintained parts of the Las Vegas airport connector).

neroute2's list for California includes one item (a county freeway in Bakersfield) that is long enough, but rather obscure -- I never heard of it before, even though I'm a frequent visitor to the state and used to live there. On hold until we work out some criteria for usasf additions.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: yakra on March 03, 2020, 04:26:17 pm
The Central Westchester, while county maintenance, would be a better fit in usanyp. While it might be a "county route", it's far more major and a real "parkway" than some of the stuff currently in usanyp just because of reference route number (cough...LOSP spur and Cross Bay Parkway). Playland Parkway might belong in the usanyp club as well, being as it is partially grade-separated and there's no doubt that it's a parkway. When it comes to Westchester, state maintenance is not the sole indicator of something being a parkway.
usanyp (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1928) was purposefully restricted to only nysdot routes with a reference number (grandfathering in only the full Bronx River Pkwy, which has a reference number only in New York City). I want to keep the criteria for inclusion pretty restrictive, to avoid "should we add this?" mission creep.

Didn't forget it - this is not a goalpost move since no pavement was added to or removed from the system. The same roads just changed designations. Nothing needed to be reclinched as a result of this.
Aa, sou. RI I-95... new C/D roadway, I'll give it. CT34 is more borderline, only pavement change affecting it TMK is at the terminal interchange; it becomes a question of how precise a given traveler wishes to be.
...But I'm getting off topic. :)

This is nothing new (https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/dot/documents/dpolicy/policymaps/adt/2004-03-02pdf/092adt.pdf). 34 has always had a maintenance gap; all that changed is that 706 no longer exists. That state highway map also (correctly) shows the gap on 83 in Manchester.
Interesting. I had thought up toll now that in CT, signed state route -> state maintained, period.

Signage for CT 34 was deliberately removed from I-91/95 in this area and added to signage for exit 44 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2861836,-72.9263174,3a,50.4y,225.89h,83.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sG2gPHSJ9RIATusx2pk-bPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), because ConnDOT (and the city of New Haven) wants traffic heading to CT 34 west to go that way rather than cutting through downtown.

I do suppose it remains to be seen whether The remaining Oak Street Connector will get redesignated as SR 7xx or whether the status quo of "it sort of is and sort of isn't" CT 34 will remain basically forever.
Whether still CT34 on paper, it's unsigned, and the city and state have taken steps to direct thru CT34 traffic away from that corridor.
If this (http://travelmapping.net/user/mapview.php?rte=TX364) is how I'm going to treat TX364, then I should just cut the procrastination and truncate CT34 already.

Both CA 259 and NV 171 are short (about a mile long each, not counting locally-maintained parts of the Las Vegas airport connector).
Fully freeway?
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: yakra on March 03, 2020, 05:54:38 pm
Edited my earlier post (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3480.msg17905#msg17905), adding comments on the endpoints of ChiTrlPkwy & IntPkwy/TXSpr97.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: US 89 on March 05, 2020, 01:46:02 pm
Both CA 259 and NV 171 are short (about a mile long each, not counting locally-maintained parts of the Las Vegas airport connector).
Fully freeway?

Nevada 171 consists only of the segment between I-215 and Sunset Rd (https://goo.gl/maps/6w91MHjLnmu4Lnfe7), which is entirely freeway. The non-freeway portions of the connector north of Sunset are all maintained by Clark County and are not NV 171.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Eth on March 08, 2020, 08:13:45 pm
Here are some from the list that stand out for whatever reason:

<snip>

length
GA Sugarloaf Parkway (6 mi)

I drove both this and the nearby Ronald Reagan Pkwy (which is already in the system (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&r=ga.ronreapkwy)) today. If RRP is good enough to be included, so is Sugarloaf, the freeway portion of which is of similar length, maintained by the same authority, and built to a slightly higher standard (wider shoulders, and good enough for a speed limit of 55 instead of 50).
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: yakra on March 10, 2020, 03:49:02 pm
I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.
I see that MA is one of your 100% clinched states. Have you got the Plimouth Plantation Hwy?
MA3 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.932213&lon=-70.641964
SanRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.933924&lon=-70.629792
RivSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.936458&lon=-70.623285
MA3A http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.938626&lon=-70.613404
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Duke87 on March 10, 2020, 07:25:38 pm
I myself have 100% clinches of four states, and for all of them I used what was in CHM/TM as a checklist to determine what I did and did not need to clinch. I would not appreciate losing one of these 100% clinches because someone decided to move the goalposts ex post facto.
I see that MA is one of your 100% clinched states. Have you got the Plimouth Plantation Hwy?

I don't *think* I do - but having made no deliberate effort to keep track (since it never mattered before), I can't definitively say no.

Don't let me stop you from adding it if I'm the only reason not to, though.

I'd seriously consider marking it off as clinched anyway purely on the grounds that once I have a 100% clinch of MA which was obtained legitimately and in good faith based on the rules in play at the time, I should be entitled to keep it.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: neroute2 on March 10, 2020, 08:28:30 pm
You'd better check the Route 62 realignment in Clinton too.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Markkos1992 on February 15, 2021, 07:08:31 pm
NY Inner Loop was added in this thread (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4110.0).
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: mapcat on July 30, 2021, 01:44:02 pm
Re the LL Tisdale Pkwy in Tulsa: yes, it does have an at-grade intersection at its north end: its intersection with the Gilcrease Expy, which is in the HB. OSM shows both of these routes as county-maintained there (the eastern part of the Gilcrease is OK 11 and the future section will be OTA-controlled). It's about 3 miles long according to Wikipedia, so I wouldn't mind seeing it added in.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: yakra on July 30, 2021, 02:54:00 pm
How does OSM show maintenance?
Oh -- CR G and CR LL tags.

ETA: I suppose we could follow the "truncate to just the freeway bits" precedent set with GilExpy & numerous other usasf routes.
Title: Short freeway connectors around New York City
Post by: kjslaughter on April 10, 2022, 11:05:04 am
Not sure if this is best place to post.  After a couple of trips to NYC area now, I've got a couple of gaps where I took connecting "spurs" between highways that are not in TM.  Best I can tell, they aren't signed as state roads or even names, but seem important.  Ones in question are:

1) Brooklyn-Queens expressway East connecting I-278 to Grand Central Parkway.  This was route maps suggested and taken my Uber from LaGuardia into Manhattan.  Seems this one could added easily enough as a named freeway.

2) Unnamed road (with an exit!) between Hutchinson River Pkwy and I-684 in Westchester County.  When I made trip for work years ago, we went this route following signs via I-684 to Connecticut.  I wasn't driving or I clearly would have followed I-287.  Without a name, unsure how it could be added, but this gap in my travels still bothers me and don't know when I'll be in the area again to travel the TM mapped route via I-287.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Markkos1992 on April 20, 2022, 03:54:33 pm
For the record, PA Highland Park Bridge is officially out of the running to be added to usasf (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5738.msg2728938#msg2728938).
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: kjslaughter on April 22, 2022, 04:14:17 pm
I had posted below a few weeks ago in Other Discussion, but had no replies as of yet and wasn't sure that was right board.  Reposting here as this may be the better thread:

After a couple of trips to NYC area now, I've got a couple of gaps where I took connecting "spurs" between highways that are not in TM.  Best I can tell, they aren't signed as state roads or always named, but seem important.  Ones in question are:

1) Brooklyn-Queens expressway East connecting I-278 to Grand Central Parkway.  This was route maps suggested and taken my Uber from LaGuardia into Manhattan.  Seems this one could added easily enough as a named freeway.

2) Unnamed road (with an exit!) between Hutchinson River Pkwy and I-684 in Westchester County.  When I made trip for work years ago, we went this route following signs via I-684 to Connecticut.  I wasn't driving or I clearly would have followed I-287.  Without a name, unsure how it could be added, but this gap in my travels still bothers me and don't know when I'll be in the area again to travel the TM mapped route via I-287.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: yakra on April 22, 2022, 06:22:13 pm
I had posted below a few weeks ago in Other Discussion, but had no replies as of yet and wasn't sure that was right board.  Reposting here as this may be the better thread:
Posting on either board is fine IMO. I've merged the other post into this thread above (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3480.msg27346#msg27346) just to keep the discussion in one place. Sorry for the slow reply, I've been obsessively working on speed optimizations for site update program.

1) Brooklyn-Queens expressway East connecting I-278 to Grand Central Parkway.  This was route maps suggested and taken my Uber from LaGuardia into Manhattan.  Seems this one could added easily enough as a named freeway.
From what I can see in the shapefiles, "Brooklyn-Queens expressway East" does seem to be the legit name for it. Any of the locals here care to weigh in?
I'd suggest truncating the name to BQExpyE per the #3 rule here (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#truncate).

Exit numbering gives me a little heartburn. There are no numbering collisions, but still. I'd say it counts as >1 sequence.
If there is more than one exit number sequence for a highway and no concurrent route to explain it, suggest a proposal in the forum what parenthetical distinction should be used. All exit numbers in a sequence get the same parenthetical suffix. (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#noconc)
I suggest 43(278) for the one. And the other? Oy... 5(Gra) would fit with the other similar styles the manual does recommend for concurrencies. Keeping/changing this nomenclature got some discussion a while back, but IIRC no vote was taken on whether or not to update the manual.

2) Unnamed road (with an exit!) between Hutchinson River Pkwy and I-684 in Westchester County.  When I made trip for work years ago, we went this route following signs via I-684 to Connecticut.  I wasn't driving or I clearly would have followed I-287.  Without a name, unsure how it could be added, but this gap in my travels still bothers me and don't know when I'll be in the area again to travel the TM mapped route via I-287.
Also unsure what can be done without having a clear name.
Here's some info from a few different sources:
"I-684 - Hutchinson River Pkwy conn" per MilepointRoute2015 shapefiles
"Interstate 684" per SimplifiedStreetSegmentQrt shapefiles
"East Spur 684I (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/NYSDOT_Traffic_Data_Report_2014.pdf)"
"Hutchinson River Parkway to I 684 southbound – Westchester County (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf)"
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Duke87 on April 22, 2022, 07:34:42 pm
It's interesting to note that the "Brooklyn Queens Expressway East" has reference markers for I-278 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.761951,-73.8971945,3a,15y,40.12h,84.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZSCk0gF5ed-tA1zY0rPRiQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), which treat it as a sixth segment of such (note the second line). Staten Island is X6M1, Brooklyn is X2M2, Queens is X5M3, Manhattan is X4M4, The Bronx is X1M5, and the east BQE is X5M6.

There is maybe an argument to be made that this should be in usai as "I-278 (Jackson Heights, NY)" but I dunno.

If in usasf I agree with "BQExpyE". The name in question does not appear on any signs but has consistently appeared on maps over the years, at least.

Exit numbering gives me a little heartburn. There are no numbering collisions, but still. I'd say it counts as >1 sequence.
If there is more than one exit number sequence for a highway and no concurrent route to explain it, suggest a proposal in the forum what parenthetical distinction should be used. All exit numbers in a sequence get the same parenthetical suffix. (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#noconc)
I suggest 43(278) for the one. And the other? Oy... 5(Gra) would fit with the other similar styles the manual does recommend for concurrencies.

I think you can get away with 3 point labels:
I-278
43
GraCenPkwy

and that avoids any exit numbering problems. "Exit 5" gets 1PPI'ed in with the last of those 3, and since there is no exit number for the mainline default into the Grand Central Parkway that point doesn't need to be labeled with a number.



As for NY 984J (that's the reference route number for the Hutch-684 connector), well, the option of putting it in usai as "I-684 (Harrison, NY)" is also out there.

Otherwise, yeah, it has neither a signed name nor a common name. If putting this in usasf I'd... frankly I'd just put it in as NY984J, since that's as real as any other of the names you pulled up but likely to be recognized by more people (I certainly know it as "984J" but had no idea any of those other names existed!)
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: yakra on April 22, 2022, 08:03:52 pm
I think you can get away with 3 point labels:
I-278
43
GraCenPkwy

and that avoids any exit numbering problems. "Exit 5" gets 1PPI'ed in with the last of those 3, and since there is no exit number for the mainline default into the Grand Central Parkway that point doesn't need to be labeled with a number.
Agree re 1PPI, and the conclusions resulting from it. Phew. *wipes sweat from brow* (For realz. Just lugged 2 heavy bags back from the supermarket.)
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: cl94 on April 22, 2022, 10:25:45 pm
The BQE...yeah, "BQE East" is at least a name that is semi-official and known. I'd be for throwing that in usai given that NY considers it to be part of I-278, similar to Maryland and the 895 spurs.

As for NY 984J (that's the reference route number for the Hutch-684 connector), well, the option of putting it in usai as "I-684 (Harrison, NY)" is also out there.

Otherwise, yeah, it has neither a signed name nor a common name. If putting this in usasf I'd... frankly I'd just put it in as NY984J, since that's as real as any other of the names you pulled up but likely to be recognized by more people (I certainly know it as "984J" but had no idea any of those other names existed!)

984J is a fun one because that was, at one point, marked as "Interstate 984J" on mile markers.

I'd use "NY984J" or "I-684 (Harrison)" for this. It is worth noting that 984J is signed NB as I-684 (no "to") (https://goo.gl/maps/WEgaxB1KQTenKh9v5), so you could throw it in usai based on signage. It isn't quite an I-895A/B situation, but it functions as such. I'd include it in the system regardless because it is not only what 684 defaults onto, but also has an intermediate interchange, though I have no preference as to where it ends up.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: mapmikey on April 24, 2022, 07:14:26 pm
Is there a reason the I-76 Connector (unposted NJ 76C) between I-76/676 and NJ 168 is not in this system?
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Duke87 on April 24, 2022, 08:38:36 pm
Is there a reason the I-76 Connector (unposted NJ 76C) between I-76/676 and NJ 168 is not in this system?

What does or doesn't make it into usasf is subjective and arbitrary, especially since no specific criteria for inclusion are in force. The initial drafting back in the CHM days omitted anything under 5 miles long, but this isn't a rule anymore. And while the system name implies a requirement that the road actually be a freeway (i.e. no at-grades, no driveways), nonzero exceptions have been made to even this.

Nonetheless, it is "Select" freeways (no implication the system is comprehensive, just a grab bag of stuff that was deemed noteworthy), and while there is no hard cutoff it is qualitatively true that normally very short ones are not included. So that would be the most reasony reason why NJ 76C isn't in there, and is the same reason why the two NY examples discussed just above aren't already.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: the_spui_ninja on April 25, 2022, 12:46:47 pm
CO 6th Avenue (Denver)
CO Academy Boulevard (Colorado Springs)
...
ND 810 (Bismarck Expressway)
Since this popped up again, should I add any of these? Academy Blvd has already been in and out of the HB and has at-grade intersections at CO 115 and I-25. 6th Ave would be only about a 1/4 mile long extension of the US 6 freeway, and the non I-194 portion of ND 810 is only about a mile or so long (it would help if ND signed both routes, but whatever).
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Duke87 on April 25, 2022, 08:37:10 pm
I wouldn't for any of those. The intersections kill Academy, and the other two are insufficiently significant IMO - both very short, neither fills a gap in the network.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: cl94 on April 25, 2022, 09:42:58 pm
I'd put Nicolls Road or William Floyd Parkway (both NY) in before Academy Blvd. Both of those at least have multiple full grade separations, with Nicolls having close to 5 miles of uninterrupted freeway in the middle. Of course, at least one of those would have been in the system if other things were built, but that gets into fictional territory.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: the_spui_ninja on April 27, 2022, 01:57:53 pm
I wouldn't for any of those. The intersections kill Academy, and the other two are insufficiently significant IMO - both very short, neither fills a gap in the network.
Cool, that's what I was leaning towards. I think ND 810 is more borderline, since the Bismarck Expressway as a whole is a major route, but I won't be heartbroken if it's left out.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: cl94 on April 27, 2022, 02:40:48 pm
I think ND 810 is more borderline, since the Bismarck Expressway as a whole is a major route, but I won't be heartbroken if it's left out.

Freeway portion of the Bismarck Expressway is 2.2 miles with an intermediate interchange. I don't have a horse in this race, but it's definitely more of a "hmmm..." than the others. It comes a mile short of ND 1804, which does have a point at 810, so there is almost a graph connection.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: mjcordone on April 28, 2022, 08:45:37 pm
In my opinion, the two Arizona roads mentioned at the start of this thread (Northern Parkway and Fain Road) should be included, but for different reasons. Fain Road, a freeway around the east side of the Prescott area, is actually AZ State Route 89A Spur. Northern Parkway, an east-west freeway through the west side of the Phoenix area, is being extended to AZ 101 and will probably eventually become a state route.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Duke87 on April 28, 2022, 09:09:43 pm
I have Northern Parkway drafted but I'm waiting for the currently under construction extension to El Mirage to open before I put it up. So that will be added, sit tight.

Fain Road is disqualified by its at-grade intersection with Sara Jane Lane - not a freeway because of that.
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: IMGoph on July 16, 2022, 09:15:05 am
It's interesting to note that the "Brooklyn Queens Expressway East" has reference markers for I-278 (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.761951,-73.8971945,3a,15y,40.12h,84.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZSCk0gF5ed-tA1zY0rPRiQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), which treat it as a sixth segment of such (note the second line). Staten Island is X6M1, Brooklyn is X2M2, Queens is X5M3, Manhattan is X4M4, The Bronx is X1M5, and the east BQE is X5M6.

There is maybe an argument to be made that this should be in usai as "I-278 (Jackson Heights, NY)" but I dunno.

If in usasf I agree with "BQExpyE". The name in question does not appear on any signs but has consistently appeared on maps over the years, at least.

Exit numbering gives me a little heartburn. There are no numbering collisions, but still. I'd say it counts as >1 sequence.
If there is more than one exit number sequence for a highway and no concurrent route to explain it, suggest a proposal in the forum what parenthetical distinction should be used. All exit numbers in a sequence get the same parenthetical suffix. (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#noconc)
I suggest 43(278) for the one. And the other? Oy... 5(Gra) would fit with the other similar styles the manual does recommend for concurrencies.

I think you can get away with 3 point labels:
I-278
43
GraCenPkwy

and that avoids any exit numbering problems. "Exit 5" gets 1PPI'ed in with the last of those 3, and since there is no exit number for the mainline default into the Grand Central Parkway that point doesn't need to be labeled with a number.



As for NY 984J (that's the reference route number for the Hutch-684 connector), well, the option of putting it in usai as "I-684 (Harrison, NY)" is also out there.

Otherwise, yeah, it has neither a signed name nor a common name. If putting this in usasf I'd... frankly I'd just put it in as NY984J, since that's as real as any other of the names you pulled up but likely to be recognized by more people (I certainly know it as "984J" but had no idea any of those other names existed!)

Has there been any progress to get that BQE-East bit on the east side of St. Michael's Cemetery added in? It's a weird gap in the data, and I'd love to be able to show it connecting existing clinched segments.
Title: GA: Interstate 50
Post by: IMGoph on July 20, 2022, 09:55:43 pm
Maybe we can get the Jekyll Island Causeway added to the usasf system as Interstate 50, on a lark: https://web.archive.org/web/20171016221018/http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN_Minutes_5-5-06.pdf

 ;)
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: rickmastfan67 on September 26, 2023, 04:37:40 am
For the record, PA Highland Park Bridge is officially out of the running to be added to usasf (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5738.msg2728938#msg2728938).

Those new traffic lights are now visible in StreetView.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/d7xboAFa8jKuXcvZA
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: Markkos1992 on October 18, 2023, 06:24:31 am
Someone in the 6-lane thread noted the lack of Jamboree Rd being included from the 6lane.list file.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33329.msg2876948#msg2876948)
Title: Re: freeways missing from usasf
Post by: oscar on October 19, 2023, 01:04:44 am
Someone in the 6-lane thread noted the lack of Jamboree Rd being included from the 6lane.list file.  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33329.msg2876948#msg2876948)

I posted on AARoads a response -- basically, underwhelmed about adding a two-mile county freeway to TM just for our 6lane side project. Any disagreement on that, I can reconsider once I'm back home by the end of this month from the other end of California.