Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Topic started by: Duke87 on August 11, 2019, 12:08:26 am

Title: OR: OR 350 is unsigned (larger discussion about unsigned routes)
Post by: Duke87 on August 11, 2019, 12:08:26 am
Per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Route_350), and also noted as such by a fellow traveler.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Bickendan on August 11, 2019, 03:53:25 am
So are 104S, 153, 154, 155, 222, 225, 250, 251, 255, 331, 351, 361, 370, 450, 451, 452, 453, 542, and likely others (86S, 332, 334, 335, 339, 410, 414) I haven't field checked yet. I've been in correspondence with ODOT about this, and they recommend NOT pulling them from TM.
The only routes I'm definitely going to be pulling is Bus 42 Coquille. Hist US 99 will also probably be removed.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: oscar on August 11, 2019, 10:03:47 am
So are 104S, 153, 154, 155, 222, 225, 250, 251, 255, 331, 351, 361, 370, 450, 451, 452, 453, 542, and likely others (86S, 332, 334, 335, 339, 410, 414) I haven't field checked yet. I've been in correspondence with ODOT about this, and they recommend NOT pulling them from TM.

Has ODOT told you why it doesn't maintain route markers on those highways?
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Duke87 on August 11, 2019, 08:47:36 pm
I've been in correspondence with ODOT about this, and they recommend NOT pulling them from TM.

On what grounds?

Surely if the route is not signed, per our standard policy it should not be included.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Bickendan on August 11, 2019, 10:29:46 pm
So are 104S, 153, 154, 155, 222, 225, 250, 251, 255, 331, 351, 361, 370, 450, 451, 452, 453, 542, and likely others (86S, 332, 334, 335, 339, 410, 414) I haven't field checked yet. I've been in correspondence with ODOT about this, and they recommend NOT pulling them from TM.

Has ODOT told you why it doesn't maintain route markers on those highways?

I've been in correspondence with ODOT about this, and they recommend NOT pulling them from TM. [/quote]

On what grounds?

Surely if the route is not signed, per our standard policy it should not be included.
[/quote]Their reply is in my Oregon Field Notes thread:
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3114.msg14543#msg14543
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: oscar on August 11, 2019, 11:36:42 pm
This seems to be the part pf the "field notes" thread most responsive to the question I posed above:

Quote from: Marie Kennedy of ODOT:

Quote
Omitting non-signed highways may be a mistake in Oregon.    ODOT owned highways have always had names like Jacksonville Hwy, but they didn’t always have numbers.   I believe about 20 years ago (it may be the 2002 year you referenced below) ODOT decided to number all the highways they owned.  Before this some were numbered, but a lot were not.   This act alone caused great distress to our maintenance crews as they were worried about the large amount of work and costs required to post route shields for all these routes.   A deal was struck that even though the routes would get numbers, they wouldn’t be required to have their route shields placed on the highways.   It had worked up until that point so it was not seen as problem.   Since I have had this job in three years, this is the second time it has come up and the first time someone outside of ODOT has mentioned it.  This would make remedying the problem lower on our priority list, especially considering the cost.

ISTM that under the old policy, ODOT numbered and signed its more important routes. Then it changed the policy to number less important routes, but decided it wasn't important enough to sign them to help the general public navigate its routes. Its maintenance staff felt that wasn't important enough either. If ODOT management and staff feel that way, why should we disagree with them?

Some DOTs, like California's, Maryland's and Hawaii's, seem to have route numbers for every scrap of pavement they maintain (or in Hawaii, its highways division rather than its airports and harbors divisions). But some of the lesser routes don't get route signs, because those routes are deemed unimportant to the traveling public. There are some cases that cause heartburn, like CA 259 and HI 95, but by and large our unsigned-routes policy does a good job of screening out unimportant routes (as well as some "numbered routes" shown in Google Maps, etc. that don't officially exist).

I've argued for "rare" exceptions to that policy (and have made a few in my Arctic jurisdictions, while avoiding them elsewhere). Including a lot of unsigned routes in Oregon, especially an entirely unsigned ORH system, would be a whole 'nother story.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: US 89 on August 12, 2019, 01:13:30 am
Just throwing in my two cents here: clinching a state highway system should mean clinching all the routes, not just whatever routes the DOT thinks are important. Parking lot routes are annoying (looking at you, Utah) and are a whole other beast, but I don't see why an unsigned route with a well-defined beginning and end shouldn't be in TM.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Duke87 on August 12, 2019, 03:31:57 pm
The thing is that I don't see anything whatsoever special about Oregon's situation compared to any other jurisdiction. There are some routes in the state highway system that have numbers on paper but no shields in the field showing them - the same is true in a lot of other states, too, and in every other state where this is the case we omit routes that do not have shields posted in the field unless there is some odd or unusual circumstance that is deemed to warrant an exception.

If we decide we want to start including unsigned routes, I have no inherent objection, but it makes no sense to include them in Oregon and not include them in every other state that has them - which is the current situation.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Bickendan on August 12, 2019, 07:49:11 pm
The problem is that Oregon's show up on paper maps, including ODOT's.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: compdude787 on August 13, 2019, 09:24:02 pm
I really don't see any reason why Oregon should include unsigned routes. If I was in charge of Oregon, I'd delete them without hesitation.

I've explained why I believe this in the past when we were discussing adding the Oregon Highway system. I think it's unfair to ask people to clinch routes that are unsigned. It will make OR a much harder state to clinch because you'll have a harder time figuring out where these unsigned routes go. It's a lot harder than simply following signs and I can imagine it will be quite annoying to have to constantly pull over and look at a map to figure out where the route goes. A traveler shouldn't have to be expected to do that in order to clinch Oregon's routes.

I fully agree with the current policy of not including unsigned routes, and for the sake of consistency with every other state, these routes need to be deleted. Bickendan, if you're concerned about having to potentially re-create routes in the future should ODOT decide to sign them, (which I doubt will happen since they clearly have other priorities) just save the wpt files locally on your computer in case you ever have to re-add them.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: oscar on August 13, 2019, 10:08:06 pm
As for ODOT, you can tell them we're following the same rule for them as in all the adjacent states, Washington state and Idaho (compdude787) and California and Nevada (me).
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Jim on August 13, 2019, 10:15:58 pm
Separate from the TM issue, it seems like a really bad idea to print route numbers on a map that aren't signed in the field.  New York has the reference routes designated with a 9xx number followed by a letter, (almost) never signs them, but at least I have also not seem them on printed maps.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Duke87 on August 13, 2019, 10:33:30 pm
The problem is that Oregon's show up on paper maps, including ODOT's.

An interesting quirk, though not one necessarily unique to this case.

Unsigned routes in CT have shown up on commercial maps produced by multiple cartographers. In the case of Arrow maps, they would show up quite consistently.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: mapmikey on August 14, 2019, 06:31:02 am
Virginia also has unsigned primary routes that are shown on maps.

Is it possible to add a subset called unsigned routes if putting these unsigned routes onto the regular TM listing of state routes is objectionable...?
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: oscar on August 14, 2019, 07:49:44 am
Is it possible to add a subset called unsigned routes if putting these unsigned routes onto the regular TM listing of state routes is objectionable...?

If this is done at all -- I'm unconvinced there should be separate route sets -- it should be for "select" unsigned routes, so there is no expectation that we'll cover everything in the route inventory.

One nice side effect of the unsigned-routes policy is that it lets me ignore tiny stubs of what were/would have been larger routes, or other really short routes. What I have in mind are the multitude of short 4-digit military base access routes in Hawaii; the 0.03-mile remnant of the north end of CA 39, which is now just an overflow trailhead parking lot; and CA 244, and CA 710 at its junction with I-210, which are unsigned remnants of cancelled freeway projects. Also, California has unsigned U(nrelinquished) routes, and for Maryland many of its 800-series routes, which are bypassed old route segments the state would like to but can't dump on a local government.

Then there's Alaska, where the state maintains most roads of any significance, with hundreds that don't even get route numbers (just six-digit inventory numbers) let alone route number signage.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Duke87 on August 14, 2019, 08:11:12 pm
I don't think there is a reasonable expectation to include state maintained roads that don't even have route numbers (e.g. RI and MA have a lot of these). And I also don't think that in cases where the state maintains almost everything that it makes sense to map all these roads that only have N-digit inventory numbers (e.g. AK), or are otherwise clearly indexed separately from primary routes (e.g. WV).

Really the main complaint I hear is against the exclusion of unsigned routes that are administratively part of the same system as routes we do include - with the argument being that excluding routes based purely on the lack of shields posted in the field is arbitrary and, in some cases, leads to needing to make subjective determinations as to what constitutes "signed". NJ, for example, now has enhanced mile markers with little route shields on them on almost all of its otherwise unsigned routes. And at least one route in NJ that we call unsigned also has shields on mast-arm mounted street sign blades. Sure, we have a longstanding policy that mile markers and street sign blades don't count as "signed", and to continue going based on that is to simply continue following established precedent, but these guidelines come from what Tim in CHM days deemed reasonable and are subjective.
We also do include unsigned interstates, and while there is a historical reason why this is the case, you can see where to the average user it would appear arbitrary to do that and not include unsigned routes in other systems.


More to the point, though, we have users who have an active interest in mapping their travels on unsigned highways. As well as would-be users who would create accounts here if we included unsigned highways, but have deemed this site not useful to them because in their eyes our route systems are incomplete. If we are interested in serving the roadgeek community at large, this is feedback that warrants consideration. "The customer is always right" and all that.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: mapcat on August 14, 2019, 09:56:56 pm
As maintainer of Kentucky, I will absolutely drop that state if I'm ever expected to add all the unsigned state routes to usaky or to a parallel unsigned system.

As a user who enjoys completing states, I have no need for a change that will make such a goal less attainable, and no interest in a change that will make the process more complicated. It's hard enough to clinch badly signed roads. I don't want to have to write out detailed instructions on which combination of streets constitutes some secret route in a random database in order to make my map look complete.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Duke87 on August 14, 2019, 10:40:11 pm
Does Kentucky have unsigned routes? I was under the impression that the reason Kentucky has all these crazy random 4-digit routes is because they compulsively sign everything.

At any rate, I can also appreciate that some users have no interest in unsigned routes and would not appreciate their stats showing as incomplete if they have not entered them. I know of no way to make everyone happy with this other than having a user option to toggle inclusion of unsigned routes, which would require some back end work to implement.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: mapcat on August 14, 2019, 10:59:45 pm
Does Kentucky have unsigned routes?
Yes, at least 400 of them. Around 150 are bridges.

Quote
At any rate, I can also appreciate that some users have no interest in unsigned routes and would not appreciate their stats showing as incomplete if they have not entered them. I know of no way to make everyone happy with this other than having a user option to toggle inclusion of unsigned routes, which would require some back end work to implement.
The toggle option, while potentially beneficial for users, still would not remove the added burden for contributors if some users expect unsigned routes to be included.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Bickendan on August 15, 2019, 12:06:59 am
Does Kentucky have unsigned routes?
Yes, at least 400 of them. Around 150 are bridges.

Quote
At any rate, I can also appreciate that some users have no interest in unsigned routes and would not appreciate their stats showing as incomplete if they have not entered them. I know of no way to make everyone happy with this other than having a user option to toggle inclusion of unsigned routes, which would require some back end work to implement.
The toggle option, while potentially beneficial for users, still would not remove the added burden for contributors if some users expect unsigned routes to be included.
Are these unsigned routes part of the same system of the signed routes -- ie, KY 99 is signed, but KY 100 is not?
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: mapcat on August 15, 2019, 12:12:59 am
Are these unsigned routes part of the same system of the signed routes -- ie, KY 99 is signed, but KY 100 is not?
Yes, Kentucky only has one state system.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 15, 2019, 12:16:26 am
A good chunk of the 6XXX routes are unsigned in KY.

So were the KY-9XXX routes (the parkways) until the left over segment of William H. Natcher Parkway that became I-165, which got it's KY-9007 designation finally signed.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Duke87 on August 15, 2019, 12:19:32 am
The toggle option, while potentially beneficial for users, still would not remove the added burden for contributors if some users expect unsigned routes to be included.

I can appreciate that some people might not want to go through the effort to map unsigned routes in jurisdictions they are otherwise responsible for.

Seems to me the easiest way to handle this is to... simply not place the burden on existing contributors if they don't want it. Let someone else who is willing to do the work take on the task, and if no one wants to do it right now it can wait until someone does.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: compdude787 on August 15, 2019, 01:17:10 am
As maintainer of Kentucky, I will absolutely drop that state if I'm ever expected to add all the unsigned state routes to usaky or to a parallel unsigned system.

As a user who enjoys completing states, I have no need for a change that will make such a goal less attainable, and no interest in a change that will make the process more complicated. It's hard enough to clinch badly signed roads. I don't want to have to write out detailed instructions on which combination of streets constitutes some secret route in a random database in order to make my map look complete.

Well said, I totally agree with this!!
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: si404 on August 15, 2019, 06:09:13 am
As maintainer of Kentucky, I will absolutely drop that state if I'm ever expected to add all the unsigned state routes
As maintainer of England, I will absolutely drop that region if I'm ever expected to *remove* all the unsigned routes.

For a start, finding which ones are unsigned (especially as many urban routes are merely badly signed) is a massive chore. Secondly once it's done, any native wishing to add their clinched routes will either not bother due to missing routes, or complain about missing routes. So all the effort checking routes are signed means either more work dealing with complaints, or the work on the signed routes is less used than it otherwise would be.

I can understand why you'd be annoyed if you had to include signed routes, and I have no intent of making KY follow ENG's foibles but rather making the point that one size doesn't fit all.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: mapcat on August 15, 2019, 11:31:16 am
I can understand why you'd be annoyed if you had to include signed routes, and I have no intent of making KY follow ENG's foibles but rather making the point that one size doesn't fit all.
It's a fair point, to be sure. Users will have different expectations in different macro-regions (aren't most countries outside northern North America a little less OCD about signage?). But if we were to overturn the general guidance in the U.S. that unsigned routes are ignored, and adopt the "one size doesn't fit all" principle on a state-by-state basis, it seems that users could legitimately argue that just about any state-maintained highway ought to be included. I would prefer not to spend time regularly responding to those arguments.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Bickendan on August 15, 2019, 06:55:32 pm
I can understand why you'd be annoyed if you had to include signed routes, and I have no intent of making KY follow ENG's foibles but rather making the point that one size doesn't fit all.
It's a fair point, to be sure. Users will have different expectations in different macro-regions (aren't most countries outside northern North America a little less OCD about signage?). But if we were to overturn the general guidance in the U.S. that unsigned routes are ignored, and adopt the "one size doesn't fit all" principle on a state-by-state basis, it seems that users could legitimately argue that just about any state-maintained highway ought to be included. I would prefer not to spend time regularly responding to those arguments.

On that note, this is where the Oregon sets stand:
·The set was drafted 2005-2006 in CHM with the data set largely as is, under the understanding that ODOT had numbered all the Highways to be Routes (with two exceptions, 372 and 420, which were not included in CHM and are not part of TM).
·Subsequent field checks have shown a handful of these new routes to be minimally signed, the rest not.
·However, while it may be easy to miss the turn off onto an unsigned route if not careful, once on the route, it's easy to follow. Exception: Finding the end point of OR 241 was a pain.
·ODOT shows non-signed routes on its official map as signed, notably, 255, 542, and the catalyst of this conversation, 350. I'm including 334, 413, and 402 on this list, as I've not had a chance to field check them. Others aren't signed on the map, presumably to size restrictions (ie, 250, 251, 331, 350, etc, and signed routes like 52 and Spur US 95). https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Documents/Map_Official_State_Front.pdf
·The ODOT GIS shows that the routes on the official map without shields do to presumptive size issues are signed, with an additional wrinkle of OR 201S/452/HWY 489 in Adrian.
·Knowledge of the underlying Highway system is pervasive enough in the cartography field that an ORH or two has been mapped since the 1990s, notably, HWY 2 and 2W in the Thomas Brothers atlases of the Portland metro area. The Highways have been well mapped by online maps since then. On the paper maps front, aside from ODOT's, the system as a whole, noting size restrictions as with the ODOT map, have been signed.
·As it currently stands, the Oregon sets comprises of 170 routes at 7550 miles. I don't think it's that daunting of a system to clinch, or to maintain. The inclusion of the unsigned Routes, or even of a complete Highway set (which would put Oregon at about 300 routes and an estimated aggregate 7620 miles because of overlap), wouldn't change that. Yes, changes would require altering two files if ORH were included, but compared to a system like Kentucky's 2942 highways at 26,200 miles, I can fully understand why adding unsigned routes to TM there would cause heartburn.
·Summary: The unsigned Routes have been in CHM and TM since 2005/6, under the understanding that the Oregon Transportation Commission had signed the underlying Highways (with a few exceptions), and that these Routes are signed on the official maps and GIS, if not in the field. A cursory poll of several unsigned Routes in TM shows that they are being clinched by users.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: compdude787 on August 16, 2019, 04:02:27 pm
I'm having a hard time understanding how an unsigned route could be easy to follow if there's no signs for it. Also the only reason why some people have clinched some of those unsigned routes is simply because they noticed that they were there after the fact, and may not have realized they were state routes while driving on them. That was the case for me when I clinched OR 182 several years back.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: si404 on August 17, 2019, 03:23:30 am
If they are on Sat Navs or maps, they can be easy to follow via that. Unshielded routes (they might even have 'To' shields) probably aren't want to TOTSO (so that makes them easy once on) and don't tend to be long either. Are they as easy as routes with shields everywhere - no, but why does travel mapping need to be no more difficult than following a breadcrumb trail of signs?

You'll hate trying to clinch routes in much of Europe, where road numbers are typically seen as unimportant for navigation on direction signage and so half the time don't appear at junctions. The UK is seen as a European country that signs road numbers lots, but a recent random sample by a Dutch roadgeek of loads of junctions found that the road numbers (where numbered routes meet) only get signed at a junction about 75-80% on average.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Duke87 on August 17, 2019, 02:33:12 pm
If they are on Sat Navs or maps, they can be easy to follow via that. Unshielded routes (they might even have 'To' shields) probably aren't want to TOTSO (so that makes them easy once on) and don't tend to be long either. Are they as easy as routes with shields everywhere - no, but why does travel mapping need to be no more difficult than following a breadcrumb trail of signs?

Signs and traffic signals being to state spec, if you know what state spec looks like and can recognize it, can also be a hint. A few states will even have reference markers showing the otherwise unsigned route number.

You'll hate trying to clinch routes in much of Europe, where road numbers are typically seen as unimportant for navigation on direction signage and so half the time don't appear at junctions. The UK is seen as a European country that signs road numbers lots, but a recent random sample by a Dutch roadgeek of loads of junctions found that the road numbers (where numbered routes meet) only get signed at a junction about 75-80% on average.

So the Netherlands are like Rhode Island.

Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: julmac on August 18, 2019, 01:15:47 am
Would firming up a table of rules or best practices help with this discussion? Something like this (for a state / provincial systems):


Case 3 routes (unsigned / inventoried / state jurisdiction) definitely seem less worthy of inclusion then Case 2 routes (signed / inventoried / local jurisdiction). This could also be taken further to differentiate between "intentionally unsigned" routes and "unintentionally unsigned" (including minimally or poorly signed) routes.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Duke87 on August 18, 2019, 06:14:00 pm
It would help I'd think, yes.

I think it's important to consider the administrative nuances as well - for the purposes of this discussion we're focusing on unsigned routes which are part of an existing system TM already has, not a separate system that TM does not already have.

Take New York for example. New York has an administrative distinction between "Touring Routes" (numbered 1-899) and "Reference Routes" (numbered 900-999 with letter suffixes).

Touring Routes are intended for navigational use by the motoring public, and are all signed (possibly except NY 495, which is only erroneously signed as I-495... but details).  Reference Routes, on the other hand, are not intended for navigational use by the motoring public, and with only a few occasional weird exceptions (which are usually errors) are never signed except on reference markers. Since it is clearly a separate system, I do not advocate going and including NY reference routes.

On the other hand, across the river in New Jersey, the situation more resembles Oregon's - there is only one state highway system, with no administrative distinction between signed and unsigned routes. The handful of NJ state routes that are unsigned are not by any broad policy explicitly supposed to be unsigned - they simply are not signed because the state has never bothered putting shields up, and for any given route this could change on the whim of a DOT engineer without any established rules being broken. These are the sorts of routes that we'd want to consider adding.
In cases like this I'd be fine with making "New Jersey Unsigned State Highways" (usanju) a separate system so that users who don't care about unsigned highways can continue ignoring them, but this would be a distinction we're creating - the state does not consider them to be a separate system.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: oscar on August 18, 2019, 08:13:05 pm
On the other hand, across the river in New Jersey, the situation more resembles Oregon's - there is only one state highway system, with no administrative distinction between signed and unsigned routes.

Except Oregon has two separate but overlapping systems -- the main one with a mix of signed and unsigned routes, and the unsigned ORH system which seems to resemble New York reference routes.

As for parallel "unsigned routes" systems, it's not just some users who might be indifferent. Whatever team member is responsible for the main system in a state might be unhappy about creating a parallel unsigned route system, or even with having to coordinate with someone else who wants to create such a system (for example, having to create and maintain waypoints in signed route files for intersections with unsigned routes). This might be especially an issue for team members not on GitHub, which we encountered when usaush was developed in their states. So you might have unsigned route sets in some states but not others.

In most of my jurisdictions, the unsigned routes are small and usually unimportant, and in some cases (like unsigned California business routes) no longer really exist anyway since the localities that insisted on and maintained the routes and their signage have since abandoned the signage. My Arctic systems have some important routes with route numbers but no route signage (not yet, or route number signs briefly existed until they were repeatedly vandalized), which we've treated as exceptions to go into existing systems. There are also important routes with no assigned route numbers (except internal inventory numbers), which we've omitted unless they qualified for one of our "select" named routes systems such as usanp, usasf, or cannf.

I am completely comfortable with the status quo in my jurisdictions.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: Duke87 on August 18, 2019, 09:14:16 pm
As for parallel "unsigned routes" systems, it's not just some users who might be indifferent. Whatever team member is responsible for the main system in a state might be unhappy about creating a parallel unsigned route system, or even with having to coordinate with someone else who wants to create such a system (for example, having to create and maintain waypoints in signed route files for intersections with unsigned routes). This might be especially an issue for team members not on GitHub, which we encountered when usaush was developed in their states. So you might have unsigned route sets in some states but not others.

Seems to me GitHub should be able to handle the coordination aspect just fine. We don't have issues with multiple users editing files like updates.csv, after all.

If I wanted to go through and draft unsigned highways in a state that was not otherwise mine, I would go in and make the edits myself to any files in the main system that need intersections added or relabeled to accommodate this. The state's maintainer would not need to lift a finger if they didn't want this task - and so long as they remember to update their fork before making edits this should not cause problems.

I can see where this might cause file conflicts if someone is not using GitHub, but it should not be difficult to identify which jurisdictions are affected and either not touch them for now or figure out how to more carefully navigate them.


As far as the inconsequentiality of many unsigned routes goes... well, yes, that is another can of worms. Maryland has unsigned routes that are half of a one way pair with an otherwise signed route. Utah has unsigned route numbers for certain state-maintained parking lots, and a couple dedicated road test courses which are not open to the general public outside of their use for such. Naturally, this is going to be a cleaner rabbit hole to go down in some states than in others.




Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned
Post by: si404 on August 19, 2019, 02:35:35 am
So the Netherlands are like Rhode Island.
I don't know what the figures are like for the Netherlands, but probably about the same (if not slightly better) than the UK. Dutch roadgeek, British and Northern Irish roads.

I presume RI are bad in North America for route signage. The UK (and the Netherlands) are good for Europe for route signage.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned (larger discussion about unsigned routes)
Post by: Markkos1992 on May 25, 2021, 09:00:40 am
Does this post help address this topic in any way?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21742.msg2618555#msg2618555
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned (larger discussion about unsigned routes)
Post by: Bickendan on May 25, 2021, 08:28:46 pm
Does this post help address this topic in any way?

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21742.msg2618555#msg2618555
Serves as a reminder to upload 127 and convert Delta Highway to 132. I need to grab a fresh copy of the .csvs though, as the ones I have I was running an experiment with regarding highway names.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned (larger discussion about unsigned routes)
Post by: Jim on July 03, 2021, 10:43:24 am
The DelHwy -> OR 132 conversion is in GitHub.  Could someone could give a sanity check to the CSV updates and updates entries that I included?

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/8e70410ab53ca772274c8c319e1afb6d4bc2b578

and

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/f2e7ce386f62ffdb4516c11772cf9cf13ec640a8
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned (larger discussion about unsigned routes)
Post by: yakra on July 03, 2021, 12:10:48 pm
Looks good per a quick eyeball scan.
Title: Re: OR: OR 350 is unsigned (larger discussion about unsigned routes)
Post by: compdude787 on July 04, 2021, 01:20:20 am
Looks good to me; I also noticed that he fixed the NMP I posted about in this thread: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4012.msg24588#new