Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Topic started by: yakra on November 05, 2017, 01:57:11 am

Title: Texas systems
Post by: yakra on November 05, 2017, 01:57:11 am
I also drove all of Park Road 46, with the standard square.  Are we currently not including such routes?
Currently not including them. They're considered their own system by TXDOT. It would be possible to add them (as their own discrete system would seem to make the most sense), but I haven't given the thought much more than a meh. It'd be a low priority, after the FM roads.

TXDOT system codes as listed here (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/default.aspx):

IH - Interstate Highway
        Active in usai.
        Label style: I-10, etc.

US - US Highway
        Active in usaus.
        Label style: US69, etc.

UA - US Highway Alternate
        Active in usausb.
        Label style: US90Alt, US90AltHal, etc.

SH - State Highway
        Active in usatx.
        Label style: TX6, etc.

SL/SS - State Highway Loops and Spurs
        Active in usatxl & usatxs. Considered one system by TXDOT; split into two for TM purposes.
        Label style: TXLp8, TXSpr557, etc.

BI - Off Interstate Business Route
        Active in usaib.
        Label style: I-20BL, I-20BLMid, I-20BS, etc.

BS - Off State Business Route
        Active as bannered routes in usatx.
        Label style: TX6Bus, TX6BusCol, etc.

BU - Off US Business Route
        Active in usausb.
        Label style: US59Bus, US59BusVic, etc.


BF - Off Farm or Ranch to Market Road Business Route
        These would be included as bannered routes in the respective usatxf and usatxr systems.
        Label style: FM42Bus, RM42Bus, etc.

UR - Urban Road
        These have been redesignated from the same-numbered FM or RM route.
        In the field, they're signed with an ordinary FM or RM shield; Joe Traveler will not be able to tell the difference.
        Active routes in the HB use FM42 and RM42 style labels for these intersections.
        The idea is to fold them into the usatxf or usatxr systems on a case-by-case basis.
        Label style: FM42, RM42, etc.

RR - Ranch Road
        Quoth the glossary (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/highway-designation/glossary.html): "Only one?Ranch Road 1; considered part of the Farm to Market Road system."
        Odd; I have to wonder whether that's in error. Could maybe complicate my plans to include it with the RM roads.

FM - Farm to Market Road
        These would be included as usatxf. In the long-range plans.
        Label style: FM51, etc.

RM - Ranch to Market Road
        These would be included as usatxr.In the long-range plans.
        Label style: RM12, etc.

PR - Park Road
        Signed. Could conceivably be their own system. Low priority, after usatxf & usatxr.
        Label style: Consistently labeled ParkRd42, etc. Could potentially change to PR42.

RE - Recreation Road
        I forget whether these are signed.
        Label style: RE255, etc.

PA - Principal Arterial State System
        Not signed AFAIK.
        Label style: Still haven't done anything about TX US281 NakDr (see below). PA1502 is signed; everything else would just use a truncated street name.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: michih on November 05, 2017, 03:02:45 am
BF - Off Farm or Ranch to Market Road Business Route
        These would be included as bannered routes in the respective usatxf or usatxr systems.

Do you suggest one or two systems?

RR - Ranch Road
        Quoth the glossary (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/highway-designation/glossary.html): "Only one?Ranch Road 1; considered part of the Farm to Market Road system."
        Odd; I have to wonder whether that's in error. Could maybe complicate my plans to include it with the RM roads.

I think it's only a "special" FM/RM route because it leads to the former ranch of a special person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranch_Road_1. I would put it to FM/RM system.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: yakra on November 05, 2017, 10:34:50 am
BF - Off Farm or Ranch to Market Road Business Route
        These would be included as bannered routes in the respective usatxf or usatxr systems.
Do you suggest one or two systems?
Two. I've edited my previous post to read "and", not "or".

RR - Ranch Road
        Quoth the glossary (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/highway-designation/glossary.html): "Only one?Ranch Road 1; considered part of the Farm to Market Road system."
        Odd; I have to wonder whether that's in error. Could maybe complicate my plans to include it with the RM roads.
I think it's only a "special" FM/RM route because it leads to the former ranch of a special person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranch_Road_1. I would put it to FM/RM system.
Exactly. The only question here was which of the two; TXDOT's (erroneous?) description leads to a bit of confusion. As a RANCH (to Market) road would seem to make the most sense, wouldn't it. Plus, there's already an FM 1 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fm/fm0001.htm) elsewhere.
In any case, it looks to be signed with a perfectly normal RM style shield, so into usatxr it goes. (Much like I'm doing with the Urban Roads.)
BOOM!
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: Duke87 on November 06, 2017, 06:54:07 pm
UR - Urban Road
        These have been redesignated from the same-numbered FM or RM route.
        In the field, they're signed with an ordinary FM or RM shield; Joe Traveler will not be able to tell the difference.
        Active routes in the HB use FM42 and RM42 style labels for these intersections.
        The idea is to fold them into the usatxf or usatxr systems on a case-by-case basis.

I support this approach. Precedent exists in usamts, where sections of Urban Routes that are signed as part of Secondary Routes are included in the system.

Quote
RE - Recreation Road
        I forget whether these are signed.

At least one is. (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0561292,-93.9830644,3a,15y,61.4h,90.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVSDcct7qzsqq2MAOaJCcHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: radison on February 06, 2018, 11:26:19 am
Been lurking and stumbled across this thread.  Hoping some of this might help:

RR - Ranch Road
        Quoth the glossary
 (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/highway-designation/glossary.html)

I believe RR 1 exists as well as RM 1.  Just would need to take that into consideration.

PA - Principal Arterial State System
        Not signed AFAIK.

PA 1604 is signed on a BGS in San Antonio.  However, I don't believe it is signed anywhere else except there.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: yakra on February 06, 2018, 01:57:41 pm
Quote
I believe RR 1 exists as well as RM 1.  Just would need to take that into consideration.
Just RR 1, no RM 1.
(Query (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/default.aspx) "Route Number" = 1, leaving "Type of Route" blank)

Quote
PA 1604 is signed on a BGS in San Antonio.  However, I don't believe it is signed anywhere else except there.
SL 1604 (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=tx.lp1604) is in San Antonio. Well signed of course. Did you mean SL 1604, or a different PA in San Antonio, or PA 1604 in Corpus Christi (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/pa/pa1604.htm)?

In any case, being for the most part a system not signed with standard route shields, the Principal Arterial State System would not be included.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: radison on February 06, 2018, 05:31:32 pm
Oops, completely thought I knew what I was talking about, but got it all wrong.. :)

I was thinking of the RM off of the top of my head, maybe I had the FM confused.  I apologize for that mistake.

PA 1502 is the one I was thinking of, Wurzbach Pkwy in San Antonio.  Its Exit 169 on I-35.
Personal opinion here: I don't even think anyone realizes these exist.  I wouldn't put too much, if any, time into this system.

I can tell you, having just been in Corpus Christi, PA 1604 is not signed whatsoever.

Guess I'll begin checking myself before I make posts on a whim :)
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: yakra on February 07, 2018, 02:10:44 pm
I was thinking of the RM off of the top of my head, maybe I had the FM confused.  I apologize for that mistake.
Ah yes. I wondered if that was the case too. :)

PA 1502 is the one I was thinking of, Wurzbach Pkwy in San Antonio.  Its Exit 169 on I-35.
Wow (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5434379,-98.3726115,3a,19.9y,56.67h,99.82t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sKs3-9iZZnR85h_nuLYtlUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) there (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5477267,-98.3656215,3a,15y,238.8h,100.22t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sdWQaNyXlvMblhvAjlSO2zA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) it (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.564012,-98.4826912,3a,38.7y,195.2h,94.02t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s3ao3qsbx_JUPqErEE0pl-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) is (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5464866,-98.4893602,3a,15.5y,22.83h,94.06t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sdbvWzogEH_M4tmSEbJaH4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41), signed plain as day from both I-35 and US281.
While Googling around I checked out the ramps US281 needs a point for Wurzback Pkwy. It should replace the NakDr point.
Meh, do I label it WurPkwy, or PA1502? I like WurPkwy. If no one realizes these exist...
Meh. Stupid truck routes.

Personal opinion here: I don't even think anyone realizes these exist.  I wouldn't put too much, if any, time into this system.
I agree. If these for the most part are unsigned, and PA 1502 is just a one-off (possibly even some sort of goof?), there's no point in making a system for just this one route.

Guess I'll begin checking myself before I make posts on a whim :)
Lol, I don't mean to cause embarrassment. Figured you were on to something, just wasn't sure what. :)
Welcome to the forum!
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: Duke87 on February 08, 2018, 09:43:45 pm
PA 1502 is the one I was thinking of, Wurzbach Pkwy in San Antonio.  Its Exit 169 on I-35.
Wow (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5434379,-98.3726115,3a,19.9y,56.67h,99.82t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sKs3-9iZZnR85h_nuLYtlUQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) there (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5477267,-98.3656215,3a,15y,238.8h,100.22t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sdWQaNyXlvMblhvAjlSO2zA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) it (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.564012,-98.4826912,3a,38.7y,195.2h,94.02t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s3ao3qsbx_JUPqErEE0pl-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) is (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5464866,-98.4893602,3a,15.5y,22.83h,94.06t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sdbvWzogEH_M4tmSEbJaH4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41), signed plain as day from both I-35 and US281.
While Googling around I checked out the ramps US281 needs a point for Wurzback Pkwy. It should replace the NakDr point.
Meh, do I label it WurPkwy, or PA1502? I like WurPkwy. If no one realizes these exist...
Meh. Stupid truck routes.

Via standalone shields too! (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5582951,-98.4981667,3a,15y,315.55h,88.1t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s5_pKzW7ZDoxHUvgHmU14EA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)

It's signed consistently enough that it's most likely deliberate. Even if it is a one off...

I would not use "PA1502" as a label though since the prefix "PA" is used for Pennsylvania state highways (none of those in Texas, but still). Perhaps "TXPA1502", mirroring how intersections with loops and spurs are labeled.

Given its consistent signage I would say it warrants potential inclusion in the future.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: yakra on October 23, 2018, 12:20:42 am
I would not use "PA1502" as a label though since the prefix "PA" is used for Pennsylvania state highways (none of those in Texas, but still). Perhaps "TXPA1502", mirroring how intersections with loops and spurs are labeled.
No big problem here in my opinion. A, B, and M roads are all across Europe, meaning different things. Both MT & DNK have SR### roads.
The same problem would apply (Puerto Rico) if choosing to standardize on PR42 instead of ParkRd42 style labels. In this case, I'd prefer PR42 if the plan is to eventually include the Park Roads as a clinchable system.

Given its consistent signage I would say it warrants potential inclusion in the future.
Naah. No sense creating a whole system for just a single signed route. At the east end, it's not freeway enough for usasf; west end, it's unclear where to even end the route, because signage.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: yakra on October 23, 2018, 03:58:20 am
Quote
RE - Recreation Road
        I forget whether these are signed.
At least one is. (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0561292,-93.9830644,3a,15y,61.4h,90.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVSDcct7qzsqq2MAOaJCcHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
All of them are. The rest:
2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6068332,-100.8663422,3a,15y,210.73h,87.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sPbISFPWoHI5d9-j3LXS1YA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) 3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6330371,-96.1660358,3a,42.1y,196.78h,85.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOEqPT2PqxSpcbo0zOViLyA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) 4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3624082,-96.6174544,3a,36y,153.11h,91.08t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sQMaTmEcjUeA0wwtLfyTFVQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!9m2!1b1!2i41) 6 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.9932847,-98.4551141,3a,28.3y,153.95h,89.84t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sZ0G7ZF1kth3cqDdY033N7Q!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!9m2!1b1!2i41) 7 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.4601727,-98.4194251,3a,15y,286.71h,88.72t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sIlk0LDgINM2Cwm8vgNzPrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) 8 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.4487196,-98.3588071,3a,16.7y,127.51h,89.07t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sEj-_d57x-zMroOhCxQYawQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) 9 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5730103,-99.6575373,3a,15y,77.56h,88.43t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sm-ph5h5Itt6aMYTRdCwnIA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) 10 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5178515,-99.6354496,3a,15y,111.65h,87.36t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sfvWvfAdRqE6kmkM54awoxA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) 11 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5009353,-99.7206525,3a,16.6y,296.35h,88.59t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sNXNPbF56s7hf2hZEZ09u1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)

Point labels on existing systems are inconsistent.
How to standardize on labeling these?
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: neroute2 on October 23, 2018, 01:12:03 pm
Naah. No sense creating a whole system for just a single signed route.
So add it to usatx?

At the east end, it's not freeway enough for usasf; west end, it's unclear where to even end the route, because signage.
http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html
Maintenance runs from Lockhill Selma Road to I-35.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: yakra on October 23, 2018, 02:51:21 pm
So add it to usatx?
Nope.

http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html
Maintenance runs from Lockhill Selma Road to I-35.
Statewide Planning Map hasn't been working for me for some time. :( Oh wait, I can use it in Chrome/Chromium. OK.
txdot-2015-roadways_tx shapefiles show the E end at Independence Ave. These are dated 2016-03-03; we can probably count the Planning Map (which does show PA 1502 all the way to I-35) as more up-to-date.
Still, though -- not freeway enough for usasf.

While the west end does end at Lockhill-Selma, signage drops off sometime before that, thus complicating how to treat it for TM purposes.

IMO this one oddball route is best left out, for the sake of simplicity & sanity.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: neroute2 on October 23, 2018, 03:28:45 pm
We need an oddball set for stuff like this and Charlotte Route 4. Or just put it in usasf; there are other partial freeways like GW Parkway in there.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: Jim on October 23, 2018, 03:46:13 pm
I wouldn't mind combining usasf and usansf into a usasr, United States Select Routes, and do similar to their cousins in Canada and Europe.  One could say it opens new cans of worms about what is worthy of inclusion, but we do already have that to some extent with the existing systems.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: michih on October 23, 2018, 04:11:23 pm
@Jim, I agree but there is no Select Numbered Freeway system in Canada nor Europe.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: yakra on October 23, 2018, 06:58:53 pm
Quote
I wouldn't mind combining usasf and usansf into a usasr
I wouldn't factor usansf too heavily into such a decision. I prefer to keep it in its current status as a moribund system intended to eventually delete once its routes are shipped out to their respective state systems. Once usaar, usaga, usala, usaps, are promoted preview->active, there'd be a total of 5 routes left, 4 in AL (froggie now has usaal in development) and 1 in MS. Relatively speaking, usansf isn't much longer for this world.

Quote
One could say it opens new cans of worms about what is worthy of inclusion
Yup. I'll say that. :) Hence I hesitate to relax criteria for inclusion from what they already are. That said, though...

Or just put it in usasf; there are other partial freeways like GW Parkway in there.
To quibble on a technicality: VA GeoWasPkwy (the one in the usasf set) Ends at Marina Drive, so the non-freeway portion isn't included in usasf. VA GWMemPkwyCry (the one in the usanp set) goes south of there.
Nonetheless, the point stands: there are other partial freeways in usasf.
TX PA1502 would bend the rules of being a freeway about as much as... the at-grade portion is a bit longer than IN VetMemPkwy, a bit shorter than TN SamCooBlvd. On the downside, there's also a number of private business entrances.
The problem of the disappearing signage (along with a longer section of at-grade hijinks) at the west end is still an issue.
Title: Re: Texas systems
Post by: yakra on April 13, 2019, 12:12:56 pm
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2732 will add Texas Recreation Roads (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2980) as a devel system.
I decided to us TXDOT nomenclature and go with "RE42" style route names & labels.



I took a closer look at Park Roads, and that system doesn't look too practicable.
Some, such as PR46 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/pr/pr0046.htm) which Jim mentioned, are pretty straightforward.
Some, such as PR1 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/pr/pr0001.htm), go along multiple roads in a given park or parks, so we'd have to split them up into multiple segments. Helpfully for these purposes, shapefiles have these segments listed with letter suffixes, which are sometimes even (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1107545,-97.2931595,3a,58.9y,96.89h,84.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj3m_DnE956tDDGkedS8x9A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1093658,-97.2490493,3a,39.3y,103.32h,87.89t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sNs4-xK_-9iSNqw2ppzPewQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!9m2!1b1!2i41). So far so good?
From here, things quickly descend into chaos. Just take a look at PR29, which includes "the drives in Garner State Park". There are 21 segments in the shapefiles; we'd effectively have to clinch the entire park.
• Some segments (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6047657,-99.7363779,3a,37.9y,178.89h,80.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb6AN1aU3vIEHMp_M8icDqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) are gated and don't look too accessible. This example is unsigned, but what if...
• How do we sort out what is and what's not signed? The Google car doesn't seem to make it inside the parks all that often.
• PR29A (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5892953,-99.7471592,3a,15y,85.31h,86.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spuaGEYjj52TzsS2XVBAmiw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DpuaGEYjj52TzsS2XVBAmiw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D173.02205%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) & PR29R (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6047386,-99.7442026,3a,15y,304.96h,89.59t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sX0Dd9pmPDP_kvFSddPFIRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) are both signed as vanilla PR29. This could complicate things depending on the situation within the park itself.
Taken all together, I don't really want to touch the Park Roads with a ten-foot pole right now.