Recent Posts

91

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by Highway63 on April 11, 2024, 03:26:56 pm »

Typo in the IA Belle Plaine Lincoln Highway loop (LinHwyLpBel): 135th St->13thSt.

92

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by neroute2 on April 11, 2024, 01:48:36 pm »

National Road in Indiana (mostly US 40):
Ohio line
Main Street thru Richmond to presumably 5th Street (where old Automobile Blue Books have traffic turn)
Old National Road thru Dunreith-Ogden-Raysville
Old US 40 thru Indy
Example sign on US 40
35E/25W east of Putnamville
750S west of Manhattan
SR 340
Wabash Avenue in Terre Haute
Old US 40 in West Terre Haute
Illiana Drive near the state line

93

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by si404 on April 11, 2024, 01:42:13 pm »

Also the BC routes need to be moved to a cantr system as those are not in the United States.

Breaking up a connected route because there's an international border there seems dumb. Either we tolerate an International Route in a USA system, or the system becomes natr.

The BC routes also seem at first glance to be completely concurrent with canbc routes. To me, including such routes in a tourist route system is a waste of effort, both for whoever is developing the system, and also potential headaches for the maintainers of the concurrent routes. This is different from, say, the Lincoln Highway, which seems to include significant mileage not already in TM.

I understand, and accept this argument (though personally I'm unfussed about a plethora of concurrent routes) - it does make everything harder to maintain. However the route is not entirely concurrent with other routes: the south side of this route and the southeast corner of this route are not.

Plus, if we didn't include it, it would be the only multi-state All American Road (well, after I've got the Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway added to this system this evening) that we didn't include on TM (as far as possible to do so) as a single route. OK, the Beartooth Highway is in as US212, and the Newfound Gap Road Byway as US441, rather than under their names.

Also, the BC routes seem to be deemed part of an international Selkirk route system reaching into Idaho. Those Idaho routes not only are concurrent with Idaho state routes, but I've driven many of those concurrent routes, and never saw any signage indicating they were part of any scenic route system, Selkirk or otherwise. (Ditto the BC routes, though I haven't traveled them as extensively as the Idaho routes.)

You never saw the signs? I found, on Streetview, that these were pretty average in terms of signage - not tons of signs, but only maybe 1 or 2 junctions where it was hard to find signs.

Below are 5 for each of the three jurisdictions (all at different junctions).
BC: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
ID: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
WA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

94

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by neroute2 on April 11, 2024, 01:25:01 pm »

The National Road is signed west into East St. Louis. It turns off the route we have at West Collinsville Road in Troy. It follows the south frontage road of I-70, then IL 159 into Collinsville (where signage is wonky), then Clay/Main to Combs-Main-St. Louis and Collinsville Road into 9th-10th, then Broadway to the Eads Bridge.

The National Road uses IL 4 to Ellis Road-Highland Road-Broadway-IL 160 back to US 40.

The National Road has a spur in Greenville that loops on Main-Elm-College.

The National Road uses 3rd-Jefferson in Effingham.

The National Road uses Cumberland Road thru Jewett.

95

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by the_spui_ninja on April 11, 2024, 12:21:41 pm »

The LCT has a spur? into Weston MO (east end, west end?).

Yes, this is a spur. I've been to/through Weston numerous times on that.

As far as the link between Gregory and Ft. Pierre, I'd rather leave it on the current routing because the only evidence of the Lower Brule routing is the one sign that looks older than me, and that way we don't add any new mileage that doesn't have good signage to back it up.

Here's a (north-facing) sign that hasn't faded so badly. Another on BIA 10 at SD 47. There may be more at the north end of SD 273 but available imagery is too old.

Well I might have to check that out then. I'm going to Pierre next week so we'll see if I can find the time to go that way. Looked at streetview in Lower Brule though, and didn't find any signage.

96

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by shiggins on April 11, 2024, 12:16:46 pm »

For the East River Chamberlain to Pierre segment, Lewis & Clark follows the (BIA 4 cutoff to Ft. Thompson, where it then presumably follows SD 47 and SD 34 to Pierre to link up with the rest (never seen signs along that stretch, but it's pre-existing mileage so including a poorly signed route isn't the end of the world).

I found some signs along SD 47 and SD 34, confirming that the route you stated is correct:
SD 47 northbound in Fort Thompson
SD 34 eastbound/SD 47 southbound approaching Fort Thompson
SD 34 eastbound approaching SD 47

Also, I'd like to vote in favor of keeping this system around.

97

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by neroute2 on April 11, 2024, 11:31:05 am »

For the East River Chamberlain to Pierre segment, Lewis & Clark follows the (BIA 4 cutoff to Ft. Thompson, where it then presumably follows SD 47 and SD 34 to Pierre to link up with the rest (never seen signs along that stretch, but it's pre-existing mileage so including a poorly signed route isn't the end of the world).

That explains the missing signage

As far as the link between Gregory and Ft. Pierre, I'd rather leave it on the current routing because the only evidence of the Lower Brule routing is the one sign that looks older than me, and that way we don't add any new mileage that doesn't have good signage to back it up.

Here's a (north-facing) sign that hasn't faded so badly. Another on BIA 10 at SD 47. There may be more at the north end of SD 273 but available imagery is too old.

98

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by neroute2 on April 11, 2024, 11:23:34 am »

The LCT has a spur? into Weston MO (east end, west end?).

99

In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: usatr: United States select tourist routes

« Last post by the_spui_ninja on April 11, 2024, 11:14:58 am »

LCT has a connector on US 12 in Mobridge (east end, west end).

There is also one at Pierre (west end). Signage on the northbank between Pierre and Chamberlain is very sparse, and this sign implies it's not there, but there is this.

The LCT stays with SD 52 west of Yankton.

I can't find any LCT shields on I-29 south of SD 50, but there is this sign for a wayside exhibit.

LCT has a connector at Washburn (west end, east end).

There is also one on ND 810 in Bismarck (west end, east end). Finally this freeway gets added

LCTKen does not pass thru Kennebec. Instead it uses SD 47 north from Reliance to BIA 10, and presumably goes via Lower Brule to SD 1806.



The Yellowstone Trail also has signs in SD, but I haven't looked into how common they are.

For the East River Chamberlain to Pierre segment, Lewis & Clark follows the (BIA 4 cutoff to Ft. Thompson, where it then presumably follows SD 47 and SD 34 to Pierre to link up with the rest (never seen signs along that stretch, but it's pre-existing mileage so including a poorly signed route isn't the end of the world).

As far as the link between Gregory and Ft. Pierre, I'd rather leave it on the current routing because the only evidence of the Lower Brule routing is the one sign that looks older than me, and that way we don't add any new mileage that doesn't have good signage to back it up. Still think it should be "Lewis & Clark Auto Trail (East River)" (SD LCTrl) and "Lewis & Clark Auto Trail (West River)" (SD LCTrlWRi), that way the cities can be used for the connectors/spurs.

Found a sign in Montana! See below for more on badly signed official routings that are concurrent with existing mileage.

Si, I can handle the ND/MT/WY/CO issues that pop up on these routes, it'll give me something to do lol. If you want to keep em in those states, that's fine with me too.

To me, including such routes in a tourist route system is a waste of effort, both for whoever is developing the system, and also potential headaches for the maintainers of the concurrent routes.

I guess I'm fine with maintaining completely concurrent tourist routes, I have to deal with so many concurrencies anyway so what's one more? If there's a national tourist route with easily accessible maps, but one state/province doesn't sign it very well if at all (*cough* MONTANA *cough*) I'd include the legs in that state/province (so there's a cohesive national route) as long as they were concurrent with pre-existing mileage (that's just me though). This is kinda like US 87 in Colorado, which doesn't officially exist per CDOT but we have it in there anyway to link the national route together.

I guess on that note I'm gonna draft up the many Lewis and Clark routes in Montana now, sounds like fun!

100

Updates to Highway Data / Re: MS US 61 Business (Vicksburg)

« Last post by Markkos1992 on April 11, 2024, 10:35:29 am »

Yeah, I do not think anyone is convincing froggie to add this route, the US 61 and US 84 BUS routes in Natchez, or to extend US 98 back to Natchez based on official sources even with signage indicating they still exist.