Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Topic started by: oscar on February 04, 2016, 01:46:00 am

Title: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on February 04, 2016, 01:46:00 am
Prior discussion of this in-dev system is on the AARoads forum at http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16761.0  Links to the route files (some very rough) in the system are at http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?sys=usaca

Current status: I just finished updates of all the state's Interstate and US routes. As I munch through the state routes to update them, I can copy revised waypoints from the updated I- and US routes to synch them with the state routes. I've already done this with CA 299, a major route where I've done the kind of updating that will be done for other state routes.

First, though, two steps before I turn to revising the state routes, and getting them ready for review:

-- Replacing the placeholder files for some of the routes added to the draft system that was in CHM, including CA 59 and a bunch of business routes I found. The placeholders map to a short route in a Russian city, which is good to flag their "placeholder" status but creates other issues such as a map of usaca routes that reaches to the other side of the globe. So I'll replace them with real route files.

-- Figuring out how to deal with relinquishments, a discussion started at AARoads. This gives me headaches every time I dive into it, to work out a consistent approach on how to treat them. Complicating this is the disappearance, for some of the older relinquishments, of the continuation signage local jurisdictions were supposed to maintain on the roads they took over from CalTrans (the presence of such signage was something I thought might justify ignoring most of the relinquishments).

===============

Here's a partial summary including links. etc. for the sources I'm using for this system and for maintaining already-active Interstate and US routes in CA, besides the usual resources applicable to other U.S. and non-U.S. jurisdictions such as OSM and Google Maps Street View. This list can be moved into a replacement for the Sources and Links (http://cmap.m-plex.com/docs/sources.php) page on the CHM website.

Daniel Faigin's California Highways (http://www.cahighways.org/) hobbyist site

AARoads California Roads and Highways (http://www.aaroads.com/california/) pages

AARoads Interstate Business Route Guide (http://www.interstate-guide.com/business-routes/) (includes both California and other states)

California Streets and Highways Code sections 300-635 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635) (legislative route definitions, and authorized relinquishments to local governments)

Caltrans' California Log of Bridges on State Highways (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog2.htm) (2015, includes some of the information from the old paper-only highway logs)

Caltrans' California State Highways Logs for districts 1-12 (paper only, 2002 version which is the latest available)

Caltrans' Cal-NExUS (California Numbered Exit Uniform System) (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/calnexus/) freeway exit lists

Caltrans' State Highway System Signing Log (http://www.aaroads.com/california/california_state_hwy_system_signing_log_1991.pdf) (from 1991, seriously outdated, but may be latest and only complete list of business routes, so it's better than nothing -- as you might gather, Caltrans isn't real consistent about putting information online or keeping it current)

Caltrans' Transportation Concept Reports (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/corridor-mobility/index.html) (detailed route descriptions, though coverage is incomplete, and some reports are incomplete or outdated)

Coordinates from my handheld GPS receiver (will be used in rare instances where open-source online maps do not accurately show route ends or intersection locations)
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on March 28, 2016, 11:26:53 pm
My latest pull request should have (I'll need to double-check) replaced all the route set's "placeholder" files with real route files. That means the route set can be mapped, without having the map veer off into St. Petersburg, Russia.

This was one issue that had ruled out moving usaca from in-dev to preview status. But I wouldn't do that just yet. There are still major routes requiring reroutes or other significant work, as well as lesser routes needing various levels of polish-up. Also, I need to work out how to deal with route relinquishments, though I've already truncated the routes (like CA 14U and CA 54) that most clearly needed to be shortened. To my mind, usaca shouldn't graduate to preview status until it's ready for peer review, which it isn't.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on April 01, 2016, 01:16:12 pm
I'm still gradually updating the existing route files. But a note on my overhaul of the most "heavyweight" route file in usaca and maybe in all of TM, for the 700-mi+ and often curvy CA 1 coastal route:

Old file: 48.6K, with 735 waypoints (448 visible, 287 hidden)
Svelte new file: 24.6K, with 369 waypoints (330 visible, 39 hidden)

Once I get the new file uploaded (still trying to fix my GitHub setup), it will definitely lose the heavyweight route file title. New leader might be the main BC BC97 route file, at about 42K for a 1300-mi+ route (not counting the northern end which zigzags several times into and out of Yukon Territory).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: rschen7754 on April 03, 2016, 06:38:38 pm
Was CA 259 removed?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on April 03, 2016, 06:47:12 pm
Was CA 259 removed?

Yes, as unsigned except as "To CA 210" or "To I-215" (callbox codes and postmiles not enough for our purposes). I checked it out pretty thoroughly when I was out there in February, in hopes of hanging on to it, but no joy.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 29, 2016, 04:37:49 am
All the exit numbers that we currently have all the way up to 5 need to be reentered.  Exit numbering starts @ 2, not 1 since it's exit numbers continue from I-980 mileage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_24
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: NickCPDX on September 18, 2016, 11:15:23 pm
Any updates on this?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: rschen7754 on September 19, 2016, 01:29:28 am
While I'm thinking about it, I'm sure https://postmile.dot.ca.gov/ would be of some help.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on September 19, 2016, 06:23:01 am
While I'm thinking about it, I'm sure https://postmile.dot.ca.gov/ would be of some help.

I haven't yet used the Postmile Query Tool, but it seems to be a useful supplement to the old 2002 paper route logs, and the more recent online bridge logs (more up-to-date, but less complete, than the paper logs). It might be especially useful for any new or extended state routes, though lately Caltrans has been shedding mileage much more rapidly than adding new mileage.

Next step -- and possibly the main thing to be done before getting the system to "preview" status where users can at least tentatively map their travels -- is getting on top of all the recent partial route relinquishments, and developing an approach to dealing with them that minimizes chopping up routes into little pieces, so we can more or less settle what gets mapped in TM. That is a headache, especially since local jurisdictions that are supposed to maintain continuation signage when they take over relinquished route segments, often don't. Now that my own extensive travels are winding down for this year, I'll have more time to resume work on that.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on September 21, 2016, 02:11:02 am
While I'm thinking on this, I can understand why CA 259 got removed from the project, but if I may argue for its inclusion on the basis it has its own independent exit (Highland Ave), I would.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: bhemphill on September 21, 2016, 02:48:55 am
One thing that you could do for those relinquished sections would be to just have points on either end of the relinquishment.  I know it isn't conventional, but for those towns/cities that don't maintain the signage it keeps anyone from having to basically look at the mapping site for the route before or while they are traversing through to be able to say good enough for a clinch as long as they come out in the right place on the other end.  Then a traveler doesn't have to worry about if they missed a block or turn and you don't have to worry about if roads are cut off or turned into one ways.

It almost would be nice if there was the idea that Jeff had about being able to minus a road segment so that it wouldn't be mapped, or counted in stats.  Changing the file structure to have a - in front of a road segment would be easy.  Coming up with the code and logic on the back end to implement it is what would be the hard part.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on September 22, 2016, 02:39:19 am
One thing that you could do for those relinquished sections would be to just have points on either end of the relinquishment.  I know it isn't conventional, but for those towns/cities that don't maintain the signage it keeps anyone from having to basically look at the mapping site for the route before or while they are traversing through to be able to say good enough for a clinch as long as they come out in the right place on the other end.  Then a traveler doesn't have to worry about if they missed a block or turn and you don't have to worry about if roads are cut off or turned into one ways.

It almost would be nice if there was the idea that Jeff had about being able to minus a road segment so that it wouldn't be mapped, or counted in stats.  Changing the file structure to have a - in front of a road segment would be easy.  Coming up with the code and logic on the back end to implement it is what would be the hard part.
If I'm reading this right, you're suggesting using clinch points at the nearest major intersection outside the town the highway's relinquished in, and no clinch points at all within said town, only shape points as needed?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: bhemphill on September 22, 2016, 12:21:07 pm
One thing that you could do for those relinquished sections would be to just have points on either end of the relinquishment.  I know it isn't conventional, but for those towns/cities that don't maintain the signage it keeps anyone from having to basically look at the mapping site for the route before or while they are traversing through to be able to say good enough for a clinch as long as they come out in the right place on the other end.  Then a traveler doesn't have to worry about if they missed a block or turn and you don't have to worry about if roads are cut off or turned into one ways.

It almost would be nice if there was the idea that Jeff had about being able to minus a road segment so that it wouldn't be mapped, or counted in stats.  Changing the file structure to have a - in front of a road segment would be easy.  Coming up with the code and logic on the back end to implement it is what would be the hard part.
If I'm reading this right, you're suggesting using clinch points at the nearest major intersection outside the town the highway's relinquished in, and no clinch points at all within said town, only shape points as needed?

That is one way it could be implemented.  I kind of left the exactly how to implement it up to the system contributors, like you.  You could use the first intersection inside the limits if that was preferred.  Or you could be more exacting that the route ends at the city limits and use that as a point, I know more outside the box thinking since nobody can turn there but is how other states may have a state route start/end although it doesn't appear on the other side of town for them most of the time.

Then if you want to have shape points you could to be more traditional and make the route look like it goes through town purposefully.  If you wanted to be more out of box thinking however you could not have them, which may look strange if a line crosses town not seeming to follow any particular path.  It really isn't much different from some curvy/turning route through a town that doesn't use any/many shape points or intersection waypoints somewhere else that is already mapped visually though.  That could be confusing to a user though trying to figure out how to get across town too.

Just trying to throw an idea out there, maybe it is helpful maybe it isn't, but it may trigger that "Why didn't I think of that?" moment of some slightly different implementation/idea.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Jim on September 22, 2016, 01:10:37 pm
A feature that might be useful here would be to allow points in separate .wpt files that are "connected up" in a _con.csv entry to be used for starting and ending points of a segment in a user list.  I've always thought it would make sense to be able to say I traveled all of I-90 by listing a waypoint in Boston and an endpoint in Seattle.  That takes some work, both in resolving conflicting labels and in augmenting the code that marks segments as traveled for a user, but I think it's doable (next summer) if it's a priority.  However, to date the _con.csv has only been used to connect up a single route that crosses regions.  Here, we seem to be talking about bringing together discontiguous segments that have the same designation, and in some sense form a single route, albeit with gaps.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on September 22, 2016, 05:00:20 pm
While that would make sense for CA 1, I don't think it would for say, the Dakotas' 1804 and 1806, which are physically discontinuous as opposed to victims of relinquishments and signing apathy.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Jim on September 22, 2016, 05:42:04 pm
While that would make sense for CA 1, I don't think it would for say, the Dakotas' 1804 and 1806, which are physically discontinuous as opposed to victims of relinquishments and signing apathy.

Right - things like this are also pretty common and I would want those to remain separate routes.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: vdeane on October 11, 2016, 01:23:10 pm
I suppose the question if how is the continuation signage supposed to be maintained?  If it's supposed to be "CA X [direction]", then I would handle it like the town/city/county maintained portion of NY touring routes (and US routes and similar systems in other states) and just include them.  If TO banners are supposed to be used, then it becomes more complicated, and I would probably be inclined to break them up.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 30, 2016, 07:21:48 pm
New ramps from NB CA-905 to NB CA-125 opened today.


So, this should mean that CA-125 should be extended south from it's current end, plus all the points for CA-11, CA-905, & CA-125's interchange should all be centered together or however you see fit.  This also includes the one active route, Future I-905's file.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on November 30, 2016, 07:45:15 pm
Weird that the southbound ramps from CA 125 to CA (Fut I-) 905  won't be built until 2018.

I'll go ahead and make the changes soon. But I'll first try to get a better fix on the exact center of the 905/125/11 interchange once the SB connectors are completed, so I won't have to re-center in 2018.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on December 19, 2016, 09:51:43 pm
In addition to the CA 11/125/905 updates, I've just made a bunch of other changes to usaca routes, as another way to procrastinate on Christmas shopping. Many were to clear to-do list items on this forum and the old CHM forum. But I've also started on legislative relinquishments of state route segments to local governments.

The easiest ones were route-end truncations, at the west end of CA 2 in Santa Monica, east end of CA 74 in Palm Desert, south end of CA 144 in Santa Monica, and CA 170 south of the US 101/CA 134 inrerchange. In those cases, even though state law requires the jurisdiction taking over a relinquished segment to maintain signage pointing motorists to the continuation of the route, there is no (or almost no) such signage. Signage on Caltrans-maintained intersecting roads also ignores those (former) state route designations. The above truncations are just the ones I have traveled or confirmed on GMSV. I expect there will be others, given generally uneven compliance with the continuation-signage law.

Mid-route relinquishments cause more heartburn since they split routes (some into multiple pieces). I'm not sure how to handle those, though maybe bhemphill's suggestion could work for at least the shorter gaps. But I did split CA 111 into separate Calexico and Palm Springs segments, to reflect a long stretch of relinquished mileage from Cathedral City to Indio. Most of the relinquished segment has minimal continuation signage (only "Highway 111" street blades). But travelers need to make a turn in Indio onto Golf Center Parkway to follow the relinquished segment to the rest of CA 111, and there is no longer any signage indicating that. For many other mid-route relinqushments, travelers can simply continue on the same road to get from one non-relinquished segment to another, even with poor or no continuation signage. They can't do that here, so I'm comfortable with splitting at least this route.

BTW, CA 111's south end is defined legislatively at the Mexican border. But the Federales used eminent domain to take the south end from Caltrans, to facilitate expansion of the Calexico port of entry, and the HB reflects that small truncation.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on December 20, 2016, 12:09:19 am
Longtime contributors: Is "MEX/USA" still kosher a bit north of the actual boundary if the endpoint is a port of entry?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on December 20, 2016, 12:54:53 am
Longtime contributors: Is "MEX/USA" still kosher a bit north of the actual boundary if the endpoint is a port of entry?

That might confuse people into thinking you have to cross the border to clinch the route (if they're as fussy as me), even where the actual route end is north of the last U-turn before the border, as appears to be the case for the Calexico POE.

In that situation, is there a better label than "End" for an endpoint at the north port of entry boundary? (Same applies to CA 7's south endpoint, except its last U-turn opportunity is at the north POE boundary.)

BTW, the other California routes ending at ports of entry (I-5, CA 905, CA 188, CA 186) appear to end exactly at the border, so MEX/USA or BC/CA are correct for them.




Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: si404 on December 20, 2016, 03:02:44 am
In that situation, is there a better label than "End" for an endpoint at the north port of entry boundary?
MexBorChe for Mexico Border Check?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on December 20, 2016, 03:40:12 am
That might confuse people into thinking you have to cross the border to clinch the route (if they're as fussy as me)
Fair enough.

*Should* we call the actual route end north of the last U-turn before the border, though?
If I understand correctly, the southernmost (truncated) bits were just truncated due to a change in (ownership, maintenance, what-have-you) jurisdiction (Caltrans -> Los Federales). The "end is defined legislatively at the Mexican border" bit is the sticking point for me. Thinking of the countless cases of jurisdiction changes (state vs municipal for example) here...
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on March 06, 2017, 10:00:19 pm
While I'm still recovering from eye surgery (hope that'll be complete by the end of this month), I'm looking ahead to additional work needed to push this system to preview.

One task is to identify and remove additional unsigned routes. Candidates for that include CA 109, CA 17 Business (Scotts Valley), CA 99 Business (Chico), and CA 174 Business (Colfax). Any comments on those, or others I should be reviewing?

A second is to make the more obvious removals of relinquished mileage on existing routes. Right now, I would keep focusing on end-of-route relinquishments, rather than ones that would break a route in two or more (additional) pieces. Also, completely relinquished routes (as seems likely for CA 187, if it hasn't happened already), which I would treat as decommissioned even though there is a technical difference between "relinquished" and "decommissioned". To my mind, we can put this system into preview without first resolving how we handle mid-route relinquishments like several on CA 1. so long as I've cut back on what peer reviewers would be looking at.

Related to the above is taking a deep dive into cahighways.org and the Pacific Southwest board on the aaroads.com forum, to get caught up with the latest changes and older changes I missed.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 01, 2017, 12:55:32 am
One task is to identify and remove additional unsigned routes. Candidates for that include CA 109, CA 17 Business (Scotts Valley), CA 99 Business (Chico), and CA 174 Business (Colfax). Any comments on those, or others I should be reviewing?

A second is to make the more obvious removals of relinquished mileage on existing routes. Right now, I would keep focusing on end-of-route relinquishments, rather than ones that would break a route in two or more (additional) pieces. Also, completely relinquished routes (as seems likely for CA 187, if it hasn't happened already), which I would treat as decommissioned even though there is a technical difference between "relinquished" and "decommissioned". To my mind, we can put this system into preview without first resolving how we handle mid-route relinquishments like several on CA 1. so long as I've cut back on what peer reviewers would be looking at.

I did some of the above over the weekend. Based on that review, I'll be removing from the Highway Browser CA99Bus (Chico), CA109, CA110 (San Pedro), and CA187. The first has no signage on the CA 99 mainline, though some markers remain on the locally-maintained (former) business route, so it seems Caltrans is treating the business route as decommissioned. CA 109 and CA 110 (San Pedro) appear to be completely unsigned. Caltrans and the city of Los Angeles have agreed to terms of relinquishment for all of CA 187, and if the relinquishment hasn't happened already, it probably will very soon. Other routes that I had targeted for removal turned out to be at least minimally signed at their junctions with other routes.

I've also edited some other files to address the most important Datacheck issues, such as duplicate labels, that would get in the way of TM mapping user travels. More work will need to be done, especially on the headachy issue of addressing the remaining relinquishments. But I think the system will be more or less in as good a shape as other systems that have gone into preview, and usaca can go there too, so users can start at least preliminarily mapping their travels.

One of the many remaining tasks will be to finish synching up state routes with each other and I- and US routes. I've synched up many of the major state routes, and some of the minor ones. Until the rest are done, TM might not automatically credit users for routes concurrent with the state routes in their list files. Also, as with any preview system, updates that may break your list file may be made without notice, so keep an eye on your error log.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 04, 2017, 09:09:19 pm
For those of you updating your list files for your California state route travels, CA 58 has a new expressway segment on a new alignment, a few miles from its east end. The east endpoint and the exit preceding it have new labels (for example, 241 -> I-15) since I was unable to confirm the exit numbers for them in the route file.

I'll be doing other cleanup on CA 58, and if time permits also CA 166, before moving the system to preview, so that we have a few more major west-east routes synched up with the major north-south routes I've already more or less finalized. More of that will need to be done for other routes, while usaca is in preview.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Jim on May 06, 2017, 04:54:18 pm
usaca is now in preview status!  I forgot the systemupdates.csv entry, but that's now in and will reflect in the next site update.  I expect I'll be running a site update tonight once I have a chance address some of the errors in my own list file that now show up with this system's promotion.  Thanks to all whose work got us to this point, and let the peer review begin!
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 06, 2017, 05:01:11 pm
As I assemble usaca additions to my list file (I notice some of you have already done that, and have claimed mileage on the system), I'm reminded that some minor and urban routes have not been re-done since they were first drafted many years ago, when things like waypoint spacing and labeling were done differently. In general, most of the major north-south and west-east routes have been redone, like the Interstates and US routes were re-done awhile ago, and should be in near-final form. Shorter and especially urban non-freeway routes (the ones which Caltrans seemingly yearns to remove from the state highway system), not so much.  Also, some unsigned routes remain, like the short CA 710 stub in Pasadena (which I forgot to include in my latest route removals) and CA 244 in Sacramento, and will need to be addressed later. There are some other routes that have almost no route signage, like CA 262 north of San Jose, which remain in the Highway Browser.

Comments at this stage are welcome, even if some of them will remind me of things I already know. A more systematic review can wait until I do some more work on the system. But in the meantime, you'll be able to map your California state route travels.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 06, 2017, 08:03:08 pm
While updating my list file, I caught a gruesome error on CA 140, where I accidentally truncated the route to end well west of Yosemite NP. The actual end is at the park boundary. I'll fixed the file accordingly, and will submit it in a pull request later today or tomorrow.

Also, quickie truncations of CA 83's north end, and CA 91's west end.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: compdude787 on May 06, 2017, 09:11:45 pm
usaca is now in preview status!

Awesome!!
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: bejacob on May 07, 2017, 02:04:35 pm
Glad to see this system in preview status even though my % clinched in CA drop from 62 to 31. ;) I don't mind adding over 2000 miles to my totals overnight.  ;D

Here are a couple things I noticed at first glance. By no means a comprehensive review even of just the routes I've traveled.

CA16: Broken concurrncy with I-5BLWoo between waypoints 59 and 63 (looks like I-5BLWoo could be missing a waypoint)
CA16: Seems to be a broken concurrency with I-5 near the Sacramento Airport. Looks like the problem is between waypoints 67 and 80
CA45: Waypoint 33 should probably be named CA20_E, not CA20_S (waypoint 43 is labeled CA20_W)
CA60: Broken concurrency with I-15 between waypoints #60 and #67 (named 53 and 58)
CA78: Broken concurrency between waypoints 39 and 44 (named CA79_N and CA79_S)
CA79: Broken concurrency with CA78 between waypoints 31 and 44 (see above)

That's all I can think of for the moment. I'll keep my eyes open for others.

Great job getting this system into preview.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: SSOWorld on May 07, 2017, 03:54:50 pm
Your exit labeling for CA99 in Sacramento is inconsistent with other routes.  It seems you used <Exit#>(Route#) where Route Number did not specify system (I, US ,CA)  For example you used  525B(50) instead of US50(525B).  Might want to check for consistency

DISCLAIMER: I was lazy to check if the standard was changed, though if that would be the case I'd have more errors than what the log shows me.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on May 07, 2017, 04:27:58 pm
Thanks for getting this system ready. I noticed a couple minor things from my maps:

CA1: Consider adding a shaping point in Cambria so it doesn't overlap with CA1Bus
CA1 & CA68: concurrency not showing in Monterey
CA16 & I-5BLWoo concurrency not showing in Woodland
CA49: CA4 & CA4Bus_E points are out of order, causing the sharp angle error
CA113 & I-80 concurrency not showing west of Davis
CA156 & US101 concurrency not showing north of Salinas
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 07, 2017, 07:07:05 pm
On the broken concurrencies -- like what's going on now in Oregon, that happens when one of the concurrent routes was redone and the other hasn't been redone yet. Those will be fixed before the system goes active. There are a few spots where a broken concurrency between an active route and a usaca preview route seems to be triggering Datacheck errors for the former, and those will be the first to be fixed. The others will take awhile.

On exit numbers, as SSOWorld noted some exits are in [exit number]([route number]) format, while others are in [route number]([exit number]) format. We were moving to the former, but I'm getting uneasy about it, and am inclined to move everything in California to the latter format (preserving the old waypoint labels only for routes in active systems like I- and US routes). One reason for my concern is that it creates a jarring difference between the labels where one route intersects another (label uses the route number of the cross road, followed by the exit number if needed -- sometimes the exit number is there but isn't needed, which will be cleanup when I redo the route) and where routes overlap and one or both routes have exit numbers (which, per the newer standard, label uses the exit number followed by the route number).

I'll put fixes for mapcat's comments on CA 1 in Cambria and CA49 in Angel Camp in my next update.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on May 07, 2017, 08:33:50 pm
On exit numbers, as SSOWorld noted some exits are in [exit number]([route number]) format, while others are in [route number]([exit number]) format. We were moving to the former, but I'm getting uneasy about it, and am inclined to move everything in California to the latter format (preserving the old waypoint labels only for routes in active systems like I- and US routes). One reason for my concern is that it creates a jarring difference between the labels where one route intersects another (label uses the route number of the cross road, followed by the exit number if needed -- sometimes the exit number is there but isn't needed, which will be cleanup when I redo the route) and where routes overlap and one or both routes have exit numbers (which, per the newer standard, label uses the exit number followed by the route number).

The CHM guidelines say "In multiplexes where the concurrency uses exit numbers from the other highway, put the highway number in parentheses. ... For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with a numbered, exit-numbered route, use the concurrent highway designation with the exit numbers in parentheses." Don't all of California's freeways have exit numbers now (or are in the process of getting them)? If exit numbers can be assumed to be universal, I don't think there's a situation where [route number](exit number) is needed anymore.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 07, 2017, 09:20:36 pm
On exit numbers, as SSOWorld noted some exits are in [exit number]([route number]) format, while others are in [route number]([exit number]) format. We were moving to the former, but I'm getting uneasy about it, and am inclined to move everything in California to the latter format (preserving the old waypoint labels only for routes in active systems like I- and US routes). One reason for my concern is that it creates a jarring difference between the labels where one route intersects another (label uses the route number of the cross road, followed by the exit number if needed -- sometimes the exit number is there but isn't needed, which will be cleanup when I redo the route) and where routes overlap and one or both routes have exit numbers (which, per the newer standard, label uses the exit number followed by the route number).

The CHM guidelines say "In multiplexes where the concurrency uses exit numbers from the other highway, put the highway number in parentheses. ... For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with a numbered, exit-numbered route, use the concurrent highway designation with the exit numbers in parentheses." Don't all of California's freeways have exit numbers now (or are in the process of getting them)? If exit numbers can be assumed to be universal, I don't think there's a situation where [route number](exit number) is needed anymore.

Until recently, exit numbers were rare in California (a byproduct of postmiles resetting at county lines, so there was postmile duplication for the longer freeways, and exit numbers couldn't be assigned on that basis). Now they are more common, but there are still many freeways that don't have them.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on May 07, 2017, 09:38:58 pm
Until recently, exit numbers were rare in California (a byproduct of postmiles resetting at county lines, so there was postmile duplication for the longer freeways, and exit numbers couldn't be assigned on that basis). Now they are more common, but there are still many freeways that don't have them.
I can't see the benefit of creating a I-123(456) waypoint for CA789 now, knowing that it will probably need to change to 456(123) when the non-concurrent exits on CA789 get exit numbers.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 07, 2017, 10:23:36 pm
Until recently, exit numbers were rare in California (a byproduct of postmiles resetting at county lines, so there was postmile duplication for the longer freeways, and exit numbers couldn't be assigned on that basis). Now they are more common, but there are still many freeways that don't have them.
I can't see the benefit of creating a I-123(456) waypoint for CA789 now, knowing that it will probably need to change to 456(123) when the non-concurrent exits on CA789 get exit numbers.

That assumes that the non-concurrent part of CA 789 is a freeway, that might some day get its own exit numbers. Usually it's not a freeway, and probably never will be. For example, CA 166, for which I cleaned up and synched the route file a few days ago, which is mostly a mountain two-lane, and its only concurrency with a freeway (US 101 in Santa Maria) got US101(nnn) waypoints for the several exits on that segment (two of them were previously labeled US101_N and US101_S rather than with their newly-signed exit numbers).

I think that the rule book was a directive from CHM webmaster Tim, that never got followed consistently. While the rulebook practice has its virtues (shorter waypoint names, mainly), especially for existing waypoints ISTM that it should be up to the team member.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 07, 2017, 11:20:12 pm
Regarding route overlap exit numbers, I've always preferred the I-123(456) format over the 456(123) format. The former's always felt... cleaner and clearer.

Hidden point request for California Street in San Francisco on CA 1. Never made it through the Presidio on CA 1 between Golden Gate Park and US 101.
CA 2's overlap on US 101 should use 101's exit numbers, not cross-streets; even if cross-streets were used, US101_N and US101_S are reversed.
CA 14 Trk being assigned to the I-5 Trk in Newhall Pass...?
CA 23's overlap on US 101 should use 101's exit numbers.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on May 07, 2017, 11:52:08 pm
That assumes that the non-concurrent part of CA 789 is a freeway, that might some day get its own exit numbers.
I thought that was the specific situation we were discussing.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 08, 2017, 09:00:25 am
CA-47: "SeaFwy_E" needs to be renamed as I-710.  See: http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2011
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on May 09, 2017, 11:58:52 am
Some observations from routes 1-50 (and 113). I'm by no means looking thru things exhaustively.

CA1: I-280 concurrency broken
CA12: I-80 concurrency broken (Heh. Anagrams!)
CA13: The only point I'd really nix from the non-freeway portion is ColAve. The rest are justifiable on Nearby Interchange grounds.
CA14TrkNew: Wait, is this for real?
CA16: I-80BL concurrency broken

CA41:
ElCamReal -> CamReal, on Leave-out-the-definite-article grounds. Or perhaps, helped out by the shape of the interchange, fold it into the US101 point due to 1PPI.
CA46_S -> CA46_W; CA46_N -> CA46_E

CA47: Recently truncated, I see, compared to what's on CHM (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?r=ca.ca047). Looks extra goofy along with CA103 now. But that's Caltrans's fault...
CA113: I-80 concurrency broken

-----

Don't know if other plexes, E.G. I-15/CA18, may be affected. These are just a few items that should show up on the HB when u=yakra. :)
There are enough broken plexes, from what I've seen combined with what others have reported, to make it worth a look-thru, IMO. Perhaps a look around in the HDX...

Labels on multiplex splits also may be worth a look-thru.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 09, 2017, 09:49:43 pm
As I suggested above, ignore broken concurrencies for now. They should gradually disappear as additional routes are finalized.

CA14TrkNew is an interesting story. It's a separate and non-parallel alignment of I-5, so truckers avoid the CA 14/I-210 clusterfork. Basically, it's signed as Truck Route I-5/CA 14, but since it isn't officially a separate Interstate route, I opted to label it as a CA 14 branch. Caltrans' route logs call it route 5S, but it isn't signed as such. Also, CA 14U, doesn't connect to the I-5 mainline except through the truck route  (yes, there are 14U markers in the field, an interesting story in itself).I'm open to suggestions about what to do with CA14Trk, including rename or deletion.

Directional suffixes like CA 46_S and _E confuse me, so it helps me for people to point out mismatches. There are more.

I think the story with CA 47 is that Caltrans has plans to extend it northward, and is legislatively authorized to do so (most of the legislative route is considered "unconstructed" due to the road in that corridor not meeting state highway standards), but I'll have to confirm that later.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 09, 2017, 11:48:38 pm
I believe I had drafted what you have as CA 14 Truck as I-5 Truck, and a separate CA 14 Truck connecting CA 14 to I-5 Truck back when I first drafted usaca.
Whether the proper CA 14 Truck is included or not is up to you (I'd include it), but I do think I-5 Truck should stay (preferably as I-5 Truck) because of the exit to CA 14U.

Which, on a related note, I need to ask: CA 259 was removed because it's completely unsigned as such, correct? It's an odd reason, considering it has its own independent exit between its termini with I-215 and CA 210, and as a connector route, is on par with Delta Hwy (Lane CR 1740, according to OSM), which is included in the Oregon set. I think it's a viable candidate for inclusion, despite lack of signage, for that reason. That, and because I've clinched it of course. (I don't think entering it into the set as the northernmost segment of the San Bernardino Freeway is useful, as then you'd have to include the entire SBd Freeway, though that would finally cover out the segment between US 101 and I-5...)
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 10, 2017, 06:39:36 am
I believe I had drafted what you have as CA 14 Truck as I-5 Truck, and a separate CA 14 Truck connecting CA 14 to I-5 Truck back when I first drafted usaca.
Whether the proper CA 14 Truck is included or not is up to you (I'd include it), but I do think I-5 Truck should stay (preferably as I-5 Truck) because of the exit to CA 14U.

What you had as CA 14 Truck is just a pair of ramps between the truck route alongside I-5 and the CA 14 mainline. Caltrans doesn't treat it as a separate route. I treat the ramps as just part of larger CA 14/I-5/truck route interchange.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: rschen7754 on May 12, 2017, 10:41:59 pm
CA 56 has a segment east of I-15 that probably shouldn't be there. The bridge logs don't have it (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd11.pdf) and the postmile query tool cuts off just east of the interchange (https://postmile.dot.ca.gov/PMQT/PostmileQueryTool.html?)

It's probably included in TM since legislatively the route goes all the way to 67, but I don't think that any part of the city-maintained part of Ted Williams Parkway was ever added to the state highway system.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 13, 2017, 07:33:24 am
CA 56 has a segment east of I-15 that probably shouldn't be there. The bridge logs don't have it (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd11.pdf) and the postmile query tool cuts off just east of the interchange (https://postmile.dot.ca.gov/PMQT/PostmileQueryTool.html?)

It's probably included in TM since legislatively the route goes all the way to 67, but I don't think that any part of the city-maintained part of Ted Williams Parkway was ever added to the state highway system.

Good catch. I'm on the road, will follow up when I get back home.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: michih on June 05, 2017, 03:48:21 pm
CA49 wpt file misses a line break in line 71. There are currently 2 wp in one line, see at the end of this list:

http://tm.teresco.org/logs/unusedaltlabels.log :)
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on June 05, 2017, 05:29:26 pm
CA49 wpt file misses a line break in line 71. There are currently 2 wp in one line, see at the end of this list:

http://tm.teresco.org/logs/unusedaltlabels.log :)

Thanx. I just got back home from Canada. Especially since CA 49 has another issue flagged earlier, I'll try to fix  both as soon as I've recovered from my trip.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Jim on June 05, 2017, 06:32:29 pm
CA49 wpt file misses a line break in line 71. There are currently 2 wp in one line, see at the end of this list:

http://tm.teresco.org/logs/unusedaltlabels.log :)

Thanx. I just got back home from Canada. Especially since CA 49 has another issue flagged earlier, I'll try to fix  both as soon as I've recovered from my trip.

It's an easy fix - I just made it.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on June 08, 2017, 09:05:16 pm
A pending update will fix the out-of-order points for CA 49 in Angels Camp, spotted by mapcat. Also, CA 56 will be truncated back to I-15 -- the freeway extends a little east of I-15, but not as a state highway. The long CA 20 should be in final form, hopefully removing one of the broken concurrencies with an active route that showed up as an active-routes Datacheck error.

One question about CA 49, which I'm still finalizing (but a partial update is pending) -- there is a lot of confusion about its routing in the I-80 area, especially in Mapnik/OSM. The pending update has CA 49 intersecting I-80 only at exit 119B, with no concurrency to exit 119C, as indicated by Caltrans' April 2017 bridge log for I-80. Those of you familiar with the area, please comment on whether I got the routing right.  EDIT: The CA 49 update in the I-80 area is in the HB. As I finished work on the rest of the file, I made another change to CA 49s routing in the I-80, which includes a short multiplex with I-80 between exits 119B and 119C. That revision will be in my next pull request, as well as the rest of my edits to the northern part of CA 49.

Also, a note on the next update, which will affect the west end of CA 178's Shoshone segment, for the four users (besides me) who've clinched the route. The west endpoint is currently labeled DeaValNP. The next update will relabel that point End, and add a new DeaValNP point at the park boundary. This is a case where the state highway was there first, then the park expanded, including part of the state highway but not taking it away from Caltrans.

EDIT: One more -- the CA 168 route file will have relabels at both its west and east ends, some other exit numbers near its west end, and some intermediate waypoints. Online mapping is particularly confusing on road names, so I had to use GMSV to sort out name conflicts. That updated route file is also in my queue, for later today.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on June 09, 2017, 10:03:41 pm
I humbly and respectfully request a point for CA20 @5thSt in Colusa, to match CA45, which has a point at that location (I turned around at that spot after seeing the court house).

Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on June 09, 2017, 10:17:25 pm
I humbly and respectfully request a point for CA20 @5thSt in Colusa, to match CA45, which has a point at that location (I turned around at that spot after seeing the court house).

Done in my local copy.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: rschen7754 on June 18, 2017, 06:00:35 pm
The widening of SR 76 to a four-lane expressway from Gird Road to I-15 is now complete: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-highway-construction-20170515-story.html

The GirdRd point needs to be moved a bit further south and some other points may need to be reevaluated.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: dfilpus on June 29, 2017, 10:58:54 pm
CA 180 is signed (not not state maintained) through the Grant Grove section of King's Canyon National Park. It does end where the road enters the Cedar Grove section of the park.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on June 29, 2017, 11:19:32 pm
CA 180 is signed (not not state maintained) through the Grant Grove section of King's Canyon National Park. It does end where the road enters the Cedar Grove section of the park.

Yeah, I saw the signs, which caused me heartburn when I reluctantly decided to split the route at Grant Grove. The legislative definition is not as clear as for CA 120, but Caltrans' view is that CA 180 officially ends at one side of Grant Grove, and resumes (along with its postmiles, which are absent from Grant Grove) on the other side before its final end at Cedar Grove.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on June 30, 2017, 02:01:21 am
Quote
resumes (along with its postmiles, which are absent from Grant Grove)
I would ask about yadda yadda, but...
Postmiles reset at county lines, right?
There is a county change involved on the gap between the Fresno and Cedar Grove sections, right?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on June 30, 2017, 12:14:30 pm
Quote
resumes (along with its postmiles, which are absent from Grant Grove)
I would ask about yadda yadda, but...
Postmiles reset at county lines, right?
There is a county change involved on the gap between the Fresno and Cedar Grove sections, right?

Yes. There's also some zigzagging along a county line just west of the Grant Grove segment of the park, but IIRC Caltrans overlooks that to keep the postmiles in sequence.

If you're asking whether the postmiles in the Cedar Grove section say something about whether the non-postmiled road through Grant Grove is counted as part of CA 180 ... good question to which I don't yet have an answer. But I plan to be back up there in a few days, and will try to nail that down.

Also while I'm out here, I'll have to look at the backs of some route markers, to see if there are any stickers indicating who posted the markers and when, like I've seen in other states. The CA 180 markers within the national park look authentic from the front (unlike the obviously fake markers in Yosemite NP), but there are no stickers on the back.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on June 30, 2017, 02:40:20 pm
I assume authentic = CalTrans & fake = NPS?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on June 30, 2017, 10:52:10 pm
I assume authentic = CalTrans & fake = NPS?

Yes. But the NPS ones (unless they did the 180 markers in Grant Grove) look obviously fake.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: dfilpus on July 02, 2017, 02:45:36 pm
CA 180 is signed (not not state maintained) through the Grant Grove section of King's Canyon National Park. It does end where the road enters the Cedar Grove section of the park.

Yeah, I saw the signs, which caused me heartburn when I reluctantly decided to split the route at Grant Grove. The legislative definition is not as clear as for CA 120, but Caltrans' view is that CA 180 officially ends at one side of Grant Grove, and resumes (along with its postmiles, which are absent from Grant Grove) on the other side before its final end at Cedar Grove.

The problem is that it appears that this road is not being included in usanp because it is signed. It should be in one of the systems, either usaca or usanp, but not both.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on July 03, 2017, 12:03:45 am
I had originally put two Kings Canyon Road segments in usanp, one in Grant Grove (between the two CA 180 segments) and one in Cedar Grove (at the east end of the eastern CA 180 segment). The Grant Grove segment needs to be restored to usanp. Its route file ca.kincanrd_gra.wpt seems to be still in the master, so it's just a matter of editing the usanp .csv file to add back in that file, and make clear that there are separate Grant Grove and Cedar Grove segments of that road in usanp.

Also, the north endpoint of Generals Highway (part of which is in Kings Canyon NP) is incorrectly labeled CA180, and needs to be changed to KinCanRd.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on July 04, 2017, 11:22:40 pm
No underscores in filenames though. Just concatenate the abbrev to what would otherwise be the root.
EG, fl.fltpkmia.wpt, and not fl.fltpk_mia.wpt.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on July 07, 2017, 11:37:51 am
If you're asking whether the postmiles in the Cedar Grove section say something about whether the non-postmiled road through Grant Grove is counted as part of CA 180 ... good question to which I don't yet have an answer. But I plan to be back up there in a few days, and will try to nail that down.

I couldn't find postmiles near the boundaries of the Grant Grove section of the national park. But I've done the next best thing, using the Caltrans Postmile Query Tool (https://postmile.dot.ca.gov/PMQT/PostmileQueryTool.html) (something I need to use more often). Clicking on various parts of Kings Canyon Rd, within Grant Grove, it takes you to the nearest postmile location outside the park. It shows the last postmile before entering the park from the west is TUL 110.553 (in Tulare County). The first postmile exiting the park to the north (on the way to the park's Cedar Grove unit) is FRE 112.09 (in Fresno County). The section of the road within Grant Grove is about four miles long, so it looks like the brief exit of CA 180 from Fresno County to Tulare County and back again might interrupt the postmile sequence.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on July 10, 2017, 09:22:33 am
Submitted update to CA 3, which extends it north a few miles to the eastern city limit of Montague. This is from my filed-check and clinch of the route on my way out of California into Oregon (but I'll be back for more later this month).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on July 27, 2017, 09:53:46 pm
Most relevant to the active usaib and usausb systems, but also affecting some usaca routes: I've noticed that some of the on-freeway business route signage I remember in northern California seems to have been removed. This may be a district-by-district thing, mainly in Caltrans districts 1 and 2, but maybe also part of district 3 (signage for I-5BL Woodland seems to still be there, at least on I-5 SB). The ones I have in mind are the I-5BLs in Red Bluff, Dunsmuir, Weed, and Yreka, and the US 101 business routes in Ukiah, Rio Dell, and McKinleyville, though there might be others with removed signage I didn't notice.

Some of the GMSV imagery is about a decade old, and so is pretty useless. But I'll be flying back to Sacramento next week to resume my mega-cross country road trip. This half of the trip will be more relaxed than the first part, so I'll have time to do more complete field checks of business routes (as well as of other usaca routes) to try to nail this down.

Also, as I go through files for revisions, one change I'll be making throughout will be to relabel numbered/lettered county roads. The major ones are called "County Highways" (per a state law authorizing county highway systems), signed with blue pentagon shields. Most of them have labels beginning with CH. Then there are lesser county roads, which usually have no route markers and are signed on street blades or otherwise as "Road ___". Many of them have labels starting with CR (as do a few CHs which I relabeled in error). As I come across them, I'll be changing CR___ labels, generally to either Rd___ or CH____.

I'll be doing fixes on a few usaca routes (mainly to fix NMPs/broken concurrences and otherwise finalize), so  far including CA 12, CA 16, CA 32, CA 36, CA 44, CA 72 (west end truncated to Pico Rivera eastern city limit), CA 113, CA 116, CA 121, CA 169 (Weitchpec segment -- an long and unpleasant one-lane highway I clinched last week), CA 188, CA 211, CA 254, CA 255, and CA 299, before I return to California. Much work will remain to be done after my return home, and the eye surgery and recovery to follow.

The routes that were already finalized include at least: 1, 3 (pending addition of waypoint to concurrence with CA 299 in Weaverville), 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 24, 35, 41, 46, 47, 49 (with pending CR label fixes), 58, 62, 70, 74, 78, 79, 86, 88 (with pending label fix), 89 (both segments), 99 and its business routes, 111 (both segments), 115, 120 (both segments), 138, 140, 144, 154, 158. 165, 166, 167, 168 (both segments), 170, 173 (both segments), 177, 178 (Shoshone segment), 180 (both segments), 182, 190 (both segments), 202, 203, 207, 227, 236, 237, 253, 266, 270, 330, and 905. Some label fixes and other updates may be needed. But for the most part their waypoint coordinates are settled, and I'll use coordinates from those routes and the long-finalized Interstate and US main and business routes to update the remaining state routes and synch them up with already-finalized routes.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on August 03, 2017, 10:11:30 am
Suggestions as I'm going through my .list...
CA 2: Revert cross street labels on the US 101 overlap back to the US 101 exit numbers
CA 23: Same
CA 99: Revert all overlap exits to the route(exit) format for consistency and clarity
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on August 03, 2017, 01:14:00 pm
Suggestions as I'm going through my .list...
CA 2: Revert cross street labels on the US 101 overlap back to the US 101 exit numbers
CA 23: Same
CA 99: Revert all overlap exits to the route(exit) format for consistency and clarity

The CA 99 suggestion is what I intend to do (also for I- and US- routes). But there's been some pushback on not following Tim's exit#(route#) edict, so not yet.

I'm avoiding the LA and SF metro areas in my current travels, and probably will do them last when I update the usaca routes. LA, especially, has a lot of headachy relinquishments, and seems to be the area where Caltrans is trying to move surface streets out of the state system, so state routes in that region will be a bit of a moving target.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on August 03, 2017, 04:01:24 pm
What, you mean CA 42? :bigass:
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on August 04, 2017, 01:35:46 am
The CA 99 suggestion is what I intend to do (also for I- and US- routes). But there's been some pushback on not following Tim's exit#(route#) edict, so not yet.

AFAIK, the exit-numbers-on-concurrencies situation has stayed the same since the end of CHM, with the exception that we've moved to allow US Routes to optionally use their own exit numbers where appropriate (which may not apply in these cases?)
I'll not rehash the guidelines again right here just yet, at risk of inadvertently causing more confusion than I might clear up. (Seems there's always been some trouble understanding it.

Oscar, can you point me to some examples in the HB of routes concurrent with CA99 where this could come into play & maybe cause some confusion?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on August 13, 2017, 06:27:30 pm
The CA 99 suggestion is what I intend to do (also for I- and US- routes). But there's been some pushback on not following Tim's exit#(route#) edict, so not yet.

AFAIK, the exit-numbers-on-concurrencies situation has stayed the same since the end of CHM, with the exception that we've moved to allow US Routes to optionally use their own exit numbers where appropriate (which may not apply in these cases?)
I'll not rehash the guidelines again right here just yet, at risk of inadvertently causing more confusion than I might clear up. (Seems there's always been some trouble understanding it.

Oscar, can you point me to some examples in the HB of routes concurrent with CA99 where this could come into play & maybe cause some confusion?

CA 99's southern junction with I-5 follows route number (exit number) format, while its overlaps with I-5 and US50/I-80BL/I-305 in Sacramento are in exit number(route number) format.  I wouldn't call those "confusing", but they are inconsistenet formats within a single route file.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on August 13, 2017, 07:08:02 pm
Just used some downtime (while still in California) for a pull request covering a batch of usaca changes. Some are minor label and point tweaks, including one to ca.i080 to match with updates to CA 193. Here are the more significant other changes.

CA65Ros -- finally updated file to reflect major relocation (bypass of Lincoln) from a few years ago, between exit 314 (Lincoln Blvd.) to *OldCA65 near Wheatland. No indication that the old route has become a business route. Also, 334 => CA70 (merge at northern end of this segment has no exit number, neither signed in the field nor assigned by Caltrans).

CA70BusOro -- north end changed to reflect signage (and an old Caltrans route log) indicating the business route follows Nelson Ave. rather than Garden Dr. back to CA 70.

CA84Rio -- north end truncated to southern city limit of West Sacramento; ferry crossing points north of Rio Vista to Ryer Island renamed. I am disinclined to split that route, and CA 220 (also serving Ryer Island), at their very short ferry crossings, both of which are free and take just a few minutes, even though we normally split routes at ferry crossings. AFAIK, those are the only two ferry crossings on the state highway system, both served by Caltrans-operated vessels.

CA160 -- south end extended one exit to new junction with the relocated CA 4; 1C => 1B (no signed exit number, but Caltrans has assigned 1B as its exit number); otherwise finalized, except for the part within Sacramento south of the American River.

I will likely later split this route in two, with the southern Rio Vista segment ending at Sacramento's southern city limit (SacLim) and the North Sacramento Freeway in its own segment. The relinquished segment within Sacramento has no Caltrans signage referring to it as part of CA 160 (indeed, there is an End CA 160 sign at Sacramento's southern city limit), nor is there locally-maintained continuation signage as required by state law (this in Caltrans' backyard! such state law requirements for relinquished route segments seem to be widely ignored). The old CA 160 route through Sacramento requires motorists to make two turns (northbound) or four (southbound), with no clues on how to make those turns to continue on CA 160. I'm reluctant to split routes for relinquishments, but this seems a particularly good case for a route split.

CA162Oro -- finalized, with tweaks to both endpoints (western one renamed and moved a little to MenNFLim, at the forest's eastern boundary; eastern one renamed to intersecting road ForCrkRd, rather than the unsiged continuation of Oroville-Quincy Highway).

CA168Bis -- west end moved about a half-mile east and renamed, to reflect the End sign and pavement change at the Sabrina Campground entrance short of road's end at the boat launch on Lake Sabrina. EDIT: This change isn't yet in the HB, will be added in my next route file update.

CA193 -- finalized, with the west end truncated at Lincoln's east city limit; also, some waypoints for junctions with CA 49 have been relabeled. This one I'm also inclined to split in two, with no signage directing motorists to follow I-80 and CA 49 between CA 193's Lincoln and Georgetown segments. I'm generally OK with implied multiplexes over just one route, but not ones like this requiring motorists to make the connection over two or more routes with no help from signs.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on August 14, 2017, 01:40:37 am
Quote
I am disinclined to split that route, and CA 220 (also serving Ryer Island), at their very short ferry crossings, both of which are free and take just a few minutes, even though we normally split routes at ferry crossings.
Should probably still be done, though... :\
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on August 14, 2017, 03:51:47 am
(Obsolete and perhaps irrelevant) precedence came from the Mackenzie ice crossings in NWT. NT 3's has been replaced by the Deh Cho Bridge, but NT 8 still has two across the Peel and Mackenzie rivers.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on August 14, 2017, 11:38:55 am
(Obsolete and perhaps irrelevant) precedence came from the Mackenzie ice crossings in NWT. NT 3's has been replaced by the Deh Cho Bridge, but NT 8 still has two across the Peel and Mackenzie rivers.

The ice bridges were important to Tim, which meant you could drive across the rivers on NT 8 in the winter (even if by ferries most of the rest of the year).

I propose departing from Tim's rule, to allow team members discretion to not break up routes for short ferry crossings (as I think has already been done here and there in other US states, somehow slipping past Tim). That would not apply in Alaska, where the ferry trips linking AK 7 segments take at least two hours. It could be applied to YT 6, though I think combining its two segments would be more work than it's worth, considering that I'm the only user to have driven that route.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on August 14, 2017, 04:20:26 pm
This could warrant its own discussion, but if not merging routes via short ferry crossings, it could be worth starting a ferry system then.
That would be notably AK 7 and the Marine Highway, the Washington SR ferries and 'SR 407', and US 10 across Lake Michigan, off the top of my head. Internationally, a case could be made for Dover-Calais...?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on August 14, 2017, 07:40:57 pm
Quote
The ice bridges were important to Tim, which meant you could drive across the rivers on NT 8 in the winter (even if by ferries most of the rest of the year).
Hm. If I were starting that system from scratch, I might look into breaking such routes. Just commenting though; this has been a done deal AFAIC, and isn't worth revisiting.

As for ferries, my opinion is that we should stick with the guideline about breaking up routes with ferries, at least when drafting new systems.
Quote
(as I think has already been done here and there in other US states, somehow slipping past Tim)
All I'm aware of personally are CT148 and CT160, both of which predate the split-up-ferry-routes dictum, I believe.
Despite my previous comment, at the same time I've never been in a hurry to break these up. Looking at these now, both of their ferry segments are clinched by 2/3 of their travelers. I don't feel like breaking .list files. Still in no hurry. :)

Perhaps a "Break them for new routes, but OK to grandfather existing routes in" rule of thumb?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on August 14, 2017, 10:39:25 pm
This could warrant its own discussion, but if not merging routes via short ferry crossings, it could be worth starting a ferry system then.
That would be notably AK 7 and the Marine Highway, the Washington SR ferries and 'SR 407', and US 10 across Lake Michigan, off the top of my head. Internationally, a case could be made for Dover-Calais...?

I'm very much interested in expanding into ferries, but there seems to be greater interest in first expanding into rail, and I'm OK with that priority.

In any case, I think a separate ferry system is more appropriate for longer routes such as on the Alaska Marine Highway system, than for the itty-bitty ferry routes on CA 84 and CA 220.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: michih on August 15, 2017, 03:15:42 am
I'm very much interested in expanding into ferries, but there seems to be greater interest in first expanding into rail, and I'm OK with that priority.
In any case, I think a separate ferry system is more appropriate for longer routes such as on the Alaska Marine Highway system, than for the itty-bitty ferry routes on CA 84 and CA 220.

Me too. I'm not interested in rail at all but in ferries! Short river ferries and longer sea crossings. However, I don't know how we should draft long routes...

Generally, I think (new) routes should ALWAYS be split if they are interrupted by ferries. No minimum lengths etc. :)
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: si404 on August 15, 2017, 05:07:18 am
There's no reason why expansion to ferries cannot happen now. If there's momentum behind it (there wasn't really for rail), then we might get it out of alpha!
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on August 15, 2017, 05:54:59 am
Might as well -- they're a logical extension to highways. 
My only desire for rail is that I could offload the highways closest to train lines I've been on (NYC- Vermont; Budapest - pressure) from my .list.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on August 24, 2017, 10:01:30 am
Most relevant to the active usaib and usausb systems, but also affecting some usaca routes: I've noticed that some of the on-freeway business route signage I remember in northern California seems to have been removed. This may be a district-by-district thing, mainly in Caltrans districts 1 and 2, but maybe also part of district 3 (signage for I-5BL Woodland seems to still be there, at least on I-5 SB). The ones I have in mind are the I-5BLs in Red Bluff, Dunsmuir, Weed, and Yreka, and the US 101 business routes in Ukiah, Rio Dell, and McKinleyville, though there might be others with removed signage I didn't notice.

Some followup, now that I've left California -- I found signage for most of the I-/US business routes I thought might be decommissioned. So my concern about mass decommissioning of business routes in northern California proved unfounded.

The only possibly decommissioned routes left on my list are I-5BLWilliams (no BL signage at its junctions with I-5 and CA 20), US101BusUkiah (no signage on US 101, but didn't check its junction with CA 253), and also CA99BusModesto (no signage on CA 99, but still need to check other locations). I'm not pulling the trigger on any of these just yet, pending further review.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on August 24, 2017, 01:58:47 pm
For business/bannered routes with questionable/spotty signage that are already in the system, my standards are pretty low for allowing them to soldier on until more info comes in. See US1BusWar (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1971), NE 2 Bus Grand Island (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=2190), (or even the questionable truck routes in NY, PA, and elsewhere...)
Sounds as if your philosophy may be similar.

Makes me thankful for how TXDOT is well organized, and for the most part pretty consistent on signage , with their business routes.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on August 24, 2017, 07:28:00 pm
Since the OR 39 thread in the update forum affects CA 161, I'll mention it here as well:
ODOT isn't clear where the border actually falls short of sending a survey crew out there. Until we have definitive border definition, I don't believe anything should be done with the end points for CA 139 and OR 39 (CA 161's end point is unaffected here), nor should OR CA161 (essentially the westbound lane of State Line Rd on the eastern segment) be nuked.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on August 25, 2017, 03:03:03 am
Yup. We can't definitively prove that it's broke. :)
...Yet?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on August 30, 2017, 08:30:34 pm
Not changing CA161 just yet, but here are the major items in the update package for which I'll shortly submit a pull request.

Endpoint and other label fixes

CA 70 and CA 70 (Business): north endpoint now CA70(48B), with exit 48 split in two to reflect that the business route ends at the north half-diamond interchange rather than midway between the north and south half-diamonds.

CA 151: west endpoint moved south from CHA18_N to DamVisCen point at south edge of Shasta Dam visitor center parking lot, where I saw postmile 0.00; CHA18_S => CHA18

CA 162 (Covelo): FH7 => ShoCrkRd (no FH7 signage at CA 162 end; anyway, I prefer intersecting roads/boundaries over continuation road names/numbers, the former better defines where the CA route ends)

CA 168Bis (Bishop): west end truncated to SabCamp

CA 169 (Klamath Glen): east end renamed TerRifRd

CA 191: north end renamed PeaRd

Unsigned routes deleted

CA 222 (Ukiah, to closed state hospital converted to a monastery)

CA 244 (Auburn Blvd. connector in Sacramento)

CA 283 (concurrent with part of US101Bus Rio Dell, which itself hangs on by a thread with just one route marker)

CA 710 (short stub in Pasadena, which South Pasadena residents are aggressively trying to keep disconnected from I-710)

Route splits

CA 84 (Rio Vista): truncated at Ryer Island ferry crossing, with rest of route moved to new ca.ca084rye (Ryer Island)

CA 160: relinquished segment in Sacramento removed, with northern remaining segment now ca.ca160 (North Sacramento), and southern segment now ca.ca160rio (Rio Vista); much of relinquished segment will be covered by well-signed US 40 Historic (Sacramento) route

CA 193: now separate segments, western segment ca.ca193 (Lincoln) and eastern segment ca.ca193geo (Georgetown), with unsigned connection over I-80 and CA 49 removed

CA 220:  split at Ryer Island ferry crossing, with western segment now ca.ca220rye (Ryer Island) and eastern segment now ca.ca220 (Ryer)

@si404 -- new AmeRiv point at south end of CA 160 North Sacramento segment should be added, at least as hidden point, to US 40 Historic (Sacramento) file, to keep the two files synched.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on August 30, 2017, 10:25:51 pm
Unsigned routes deleted

CA 244 (Auburn Blvd. connector in Sacramento)

CA 710 (short stub in Pasadena, which South Pasadena residents are aggressively trying to keep disconnected from I-710)

Could these be considered for inclusion in usasf? Each is a freeway, and has been clinched by several users. Not sure about a name for 244, though.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on August 30, 2017, 10:29:26 pm
Unsigned routes deleted

CA 244 (Auburn Blvd. connector in Sacramento)

CA 710 (short stub in Pasadena, which South Pasadena residents are aggressively trying to keep disconnected from I-710)

Could these be considered for inclusion in usasf? Each is a freeway, and has been clinched by several users. Not sure about a name for 244, though.
CA 259 too :(
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on August 30, 2017, 10:37:05 pm
Unsigned routes deleted

CA 244 (Auburn Blvd. connector in Sacramento)

CA 710 (short stub in Pasadena, which South Pasadena residents are aggressively trying to keep disconnected from I-710)

Could these be considered for inclusion in usasf? Each is a freeway, and has been clinched by several users. Not sure about a name for 244, though.

Not sure about whether CA 710 has a name either.

I'm not crazy about either one of these really short routes. The Westside Parkway west of Bakersfield (possible replacement for part of CA 58) would be a much better candidate.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on August 31, 2017, 10:32:37 am
I'm not crazy about either one of these really short routes. The Westside Parkway west of Bakersfield (possible replacement for part of CA 58) would be a much better candidate.
Well, when they were in the HB, some users cared enough about them to include them in their .lists, just like they do short signed routes. All three (including CA 259) have exits, which points to them being more than glorified ramps.

OSM calls erstwhile CA 710 part of the Long Beach Fwy, but it doesn't seem likely that it will ever connect to the rest of that route. I didn't see any signage other than "To" something when I was on it a few weeks ago.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: si404 on August 31, 2017, 11:42:52 am
My partial clinch of CA710 was on foot on the roads either side (I worked so hard in the hot early morning September sun for that mile and now all I have to show for it is some crappy photos of diggers and rubble :()

There isn't any 'To' signage northbound - the Freeway Entrance signs heading north are 'EAST I-210' and 'WEST CA134' respectively (ignoring that the first ramp can go west on I-210 and the second ramp can go anywhere - and direction signs show this)

There isn't any signage southbound on the road other than some little gore ones for Del Mar Blvd, and the 'California <s>Blvd</s> END FWY' sign, though To CA110 signs exist on CA134 and I-210.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on August 31, 2017, 12:36:50 pm
There isn't any 'To' signage northbound - the Freeway Entrance signs heading north are 'EAST I-210' and 'WEST CA134' respectively (ignoring that the first ramp can go west on I-210 and the second ramp can go anywhere - and direction signs show this)
OK, that's what I remember too...assumed the TO had been removed in error or by someone walking by wanting a souvenir. :)
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on August 31, 2017, 03:26:04 pm
I was one of the drivers claiming CA 710, and CA 259, mileage before I decided to take them out of the HB. With CA 222, I didn't bother, since I knew it was doomed the moment I clinched it. That really looks like a route Caltrans would like to remove from its inventory, but the legislature and/or the city of Ukiah won't let that happen, preferring the state maintain it for the non-monastery users along the way.

I didn't clinch CA 244 (which really is a glorified set of ramps), even during multiple trips on I-80 east of Sacramento, because I didn't even know it was there until I belatedly spotted it in a Caltrans bridge log. That route file was inherited from Bickendan, and I hadn't done any work on the file (concentrating on the longer routes most in need of finalization, so I could synch other routes to them).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Duke87 on September 04, 2017, 12:40:45 pm
I had also claimed CA 710. In my case, though, I only claimed it once I noticed it was in the HB. I drove it unaware it even had a number, I was there to check out the freeway stub.

I fully agree with the decision to nix it from usaca since it is indeed unsigned.

I could get behind putting it in usasf.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on October 07, 2017, 01:35:24 am
I just pulled in several route file updates, in southern California mainly in the area east of Los Angeles and between CA 91 and CA 210. Most of the changes are to streamline the route files and re-synch them with intersecting routes. But some routes have new and/or relabeled endpoints, or major mid-route changes, which will affect list files:

CA 60 and CA 71 -- relabeled endpoints, to fix incorrect or unsigned exit numbers

CA 66 -- state legislature truncated east end to I-215

CA 79 -- reroute between San Jacinto and Beaumont

Both CA 66 and CA 79 also have mid-route segments relinquished to local maintenance (and removed from the legislative route definitions), which I am more reluctant to remove from the route files than end-of-route relinquishments that I can just treat as truncations. Those local governments are required to maintain continuation signage, but such requirements seem to be generally treated as a joke. I would nevertheless keep in the route files the relinquished CA 66 segment, and one of the two relinquished CA 79 segments.

For CA 66, and CA 79 in Temecula, I-15's junctions with the relinquished segments still refer to them as part of their respective state routes. The relinquished segment of CA 66 (roughly between TowAve in Pomona and PepAve in Rialto) has no green-spade CA 66 signage on the route itself, but there is a lot of official and unofficial old US 66 signage to guide travelers, and there are no turns to lead travelers astray. The relinquished parts of CA 79 in Temecula between temporary points TemLim(ELim) and TemLim(NLim), and the implied concurrence with I-15, are also fairly easy to follow, despite the missing continuation signage within Temecula city limits other than on the implied concurrence with I-15.

CA 79 in San Jacinto, between MenAve(SanJacSLim) and End(SanJacOldNLim), is another story. Travelers need to make three turns to follow the relinquished segment to the rest of CA 79, and there is no signage at two of those turns (between Ramona Blvd. and State St., and State St. and Ramona Expy) to guide travelers. I was thoroughly confused when I tried to do that in winter 2016, and only after multiple time-wasting passes through San Jacinto was I able to accidentally clinch the relinquished segment. I would break CA 79 in two in San Jacinto: a main segment from Hemet south to I-8 via Temecula and Julian, and a northern segment between San Jacinto and I-10 in Beaumont, with MenAve(SanJacSLim) => MenAve and End(SanJacOldNLim) => End.

EDIT: Another batch of updates to be pulled in, mainly state freeway routes in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. One of those routes, CA 2, includes a mid-route relinquishment I haven't figured out how to handle, so I just polished up the rest of the route in the meantime. This is the section from I-405 east via Beverly Hills to the West Hollywood city limit near La Brea Ave.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on October 16, 2017, 05:46:56 pm
Two more batches of updated files have been, or are being, pulled in. This should complete my updates for Caltrans District 11 (San Diego and Imperial Counties), though some other parts of the state are covered as well.

A few changes that won't necessarily be reflected in users' error logs:

-- For CA 94, the exit for CA 15, and the two adjacent exits, were misnumbered. So 2A, 2B, and 2C are now 1D, 2A, and 2B.

-- For CA 163, 11 -> I-15 (no exit number for that merge). Also, south end of route extended one block, from AshSt (still used as a waypoint) to ASt. The southbound lanes clearly end at AshSt. However, the northbound lanes start at ASt, as confirmed by both the route log and Caltrans' online Postmile Query Tool.

Some CA 163 exit numbers are assigned to different exits for each direction, such as southbound 1A for Ash Street (waypoint AshSt) and northbound 1A for I-5 (waypoint 1A). There's similarly dodgy exit numbering elsewhere in San Diego. The route file as originally drafted reasonably resolves those conflicts, so I left those waypoint labels alone.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on November 11, 2017, 03:29:02 pm
I'm throwing out for comment an odd situation in the Oakland area. CA 260, which is basically just the Posey and Webster Street underwater tubes between Oakland and Alameda, is signed but only as part of CA 61. CA 112, which connects CA 61 south of the Oakland airport to I-880 and points west, has one CA 112 sign but is also signed as part of CA 61. 

Right now, we have separate route files for CA 112 and CA 260, plus a CA 61 route file for the highway connecting the two (plus some relinquished mileage at the south end of CA 260) which also includes CA 112 and CA 260. I would retain the separate CA 260 route file, and also the CA 61 concurrence with CA 112, to avoid user confusion and also to reflect the presence of both CA 61 and CA 112 signs on CA 112.

But there is a relinquishment gap between CA 260 and the non-concurrent part of CA 61. The legislative route definition of CA 260 truncated that route's south end about eight blocks in Alameda to Atlantic Ave. (the legislature required the city to maintain continuation signage, but as is common that requirement seems to have been treated as a joke). But the END sign for CA 61 at the Central/Webster intersection in Alameda, and Caltrans' route log, make it clear CA 61 does not extend north of that intersection, notwithstanding the CA 61 signage on CA 260. (Actually, the legislative definition for CA 61 has it authorized to cross downtown Oakland to I-580, and also extend well south of CA 112, but those highway segments were never built and probably never will be.)

So I would split the CA 61 route file in two, using the existing filename for most of the route passing by the Oakland airport, but adding ca.ca061pos.wpt (Posey/Webster Tubes) concurrent with and duplicating the CA 260 file.

UPDATE: Pull request #1711 submitted for above changes to CA 61, as well as other route file updates.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on November 20, 2017, 07:50:33 pm
I'm continuing my cleanup of usaca routes, including synching them up with the increasing number of finalized routes. I'm down to about 30 routes left, most of them short but including some urban routes with relinquishment issues. I hope to take care of the rest by year's end, to get usaca ready for peer review (in addition to the comments received so far).

In my latest (pending) pull request, I've deleted the completely unsigned CA 25 business route in Hollister. The partially-overlapping CA 156 business route remains, since it appears to be only poorly signed (in a state like California, you can't be too picky about route signage quality).

I also removed from CA 130 to Mt. Hamilton the relinquished segment within San Jose city limits. The relinquished route has no continuation or other route signage, on the route itself or on connecting Interstates. This leaves CA 130 disconnected from the rest of the state highway system.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: SSOWorld on November 20, 2017, 08:27:24 pm
I have found that CA authorities - state and local - don't maintain business routes whatsoever.  Even Interstate business routes.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on November 20, 2017, 08:55:04 pm
I have found that CA authorities - state and local - don't maintain business routes whatsoever.  Even Interstate business routes.

Let's just say that maintenance is "uneven". But I've not spotted many candidates for deletion from the HB, since there usually is at least a little remnant signage to justify keeping them in the HB. Business routes often fade away as local authorities who maintain most BRs in California lose interest, but it takes awhile.

New BRs seem to be rare, though. For example, the relatively new CA 65 bypass of Lincoln has no business route on the bypassed road, and apparently Lincoln officials didn't ask for one. I've argued on the aaroads forum that they have been largely replaced by passenger-operated smartphones, and logo signage, to help drivers find downtown and other traveler services on their own.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on November 20, 2017, 09:53:14 pm
Quote
I also removed from CA 130 to Mt. Hamilton the relinquished segment within San Jose city limits. The relinquished route has no continuation or other route signage, on the route itself or on connecting Interstates. This leaves CA 130 disconnected from the rest of the state highway system.
Nice! That means I've clinched it!  ;D
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on November 21, 2017, 11:28:34 pm
Staying with San Jose, the next batch of route file updates will include CA 82. The part of that route within San Jose, between I-880 and US 101, was relinquished to the city in 2011. GMSV imagery from 2015 or later on I-280, US 101, and CA 87 shows signs for exits to CA 82 within San Jose, and on an exit ramp from NB I-880 showing CA 82 both west and east of I-880. So either Caltrans is being sloppy about updating its signs (not unheard of) or it's treating CA 82 like it still exists in San Jose. However, once you're on the former CA 82 between I-880 and US 101, there appears to be no CA 82 signage (even though state law requires that from the city), and in particular there is no such signage to guide drivers in either direction through the four turns required to stay on former CA 82 in San Jose.

I'm inclined to truncate CA 82 at I-880, later when I deal with some other relinquishments.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on November 26, 2017, 11:55:23 am
Two point requests for recently deleted points:


On CA82, could you reinstate a point I was using at BroWay? It connects to an exit on US101, and without it there are no points at all on CA82 in Burlingame.


Same for G/HSt on CA132, which connects to a CA99 exit that provides access to downtown Modesto from the south (it's signed as the "Central Modesto" exit to CA132).



Thanks.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on November 26, 2017, 04:48:58 pm
Two point requests for recently deleted points:

On CA82, could you reinstate a point I was using at BroWay? It connects to an exit on US101, and without it there are no points at all on CA82 in Burlingame.


Same for G/HSt on CA132, which connects to a CA99 exit that provides access to downtown Modesto from the south (it's signed as the "Central Modesto" exit to CA132).

Both make sense to me -- I tried to keep points for roads connecting to nearby freeways, but those slipped by me.

I'll add back those points in tonight's pull request, but perhaps under different names:

BroWay => Bro

G/HSt => GSt ?  I'm unsure about including two named roads in the same waypoint label, and like for interchange waypoints would just go with the lower-lettered street (exit ramp).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on November 26, 2017, 08:03:55 pm
I suspect G/HSt was a point centered between a pair of a one-way couplet.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on November 26, 2017, 08:20:58 pm
Yes.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on November 30, 2017, 01:37:08 pm
I've finished "finalizing" all usaca routes, including synching them with each other and with California routes in active systems (usai, usaib, usaus, usausb), streamlining files to reduce shaping and other points, and truncating or splitting some routes affected by relinquishments to local maintenance.

As discussed above, I might've sometimes overdone it a little on visible waypoint removals, and am open to undoing some of them so long as the overall point density remains reasonable.

Most "near-miss-points" (out-of-synch route junctions) in CA have been eliminated or flagged as false positives. Those include a few involving the preview usanp system, which were manageable in number, and also I contributed many of usanp's California route files so I went ahead and fixed their junctions with other routes. I have not addressed the far more numerous NMPs, and associated broken concurrences, with historic routes in California. Those routes were synched with older versions of usaca and other files while I was still working on them, and will need to be re-synched later (preferably after usaca is activated).

I think all broken concurrences among usaca/usai/usaib/usaus/usausb routes have been eliminated. Any that I've missed, please let me know.

There are still relinquishments I need to figure out how to handle, including but not limited to CA 82 in San Jose, CA 39 in Buena Park, CA 2 between I-405 and West Hollywood, and most of CA 19. I'll address those, and others I think won't require route file changes (including but not limited to CA 146 in Soledad, and parts of CA 58 and 178 in Bakersfield), later.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on December 22, 2017, 01:37:04 am
Quote
I think all broken concurrences among usaca/usai/usaib/usaus/usausb routes have been eliminated. Any that I've missed, please let me know.
I-280 @ 48 is centered on San Pedro Rd.
CA1 @ 48(280) is centered on Washington St.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on December 22, 2017, 08:34:18 pm
Pull request submitted to fix broken CA 1/I-280 concurrence. Also adds back CA 187 (looks like I jumped the gun on its relinquishment), and tweaks CA 19 to lay groundwork for additional changes including perhaps adding back CA 164 (similar to CA 260, signed as part of CA 19 rather than its legislative route number).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on April 13, 2018, 02:50:15 pm
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ca.ca091
The part of SR 91 west of I-110 was transferred to the cities. But I drove it last month (east from I-405) and it's still well signed, both at the exit from I-405 and on reassurance. A check of the Goog also shows signage (as of May 2017) at SR 107 and on southbound SR 1; near the west end there's also reassurance westbound at Prospect and both ways at Meadows/Harper.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on April 13, 2018, 06:05:07 pm
The HB has part of CA 91 west of I-110, to Vermont Avenue. The Streets and Highways Code (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&division=1.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3.) has 91's west end at Vermont Avenue.

West of Vermont Avenue, the Code says that former 91 is not a state highway, nor eligible to be added back to the state highway system. So any 91 signage west of Vermont Ave. seems to be just remnant signage, with no obligation for the cities that now control those segments to maintain route 91 signage. This differs from some relinquishments (usually in the middle of a route) I've kept in the HB for now, where local governments are required to maintain continuation signage to tie together the route segments still state-maintained, an obligation often but not always completely ignored.

How to handle relinquishments is something I'm still noodling over, including consistency with systems in other states (like Florida State Highways, where it seems all relinquished segments are omitted from the draft HB, even if that chops up a route into multiple disconnected pieces). But my tentative approach to California includes at least treating end-of-route relinquishments as truncations, which is what happened to CA 91 west of Vermont Ave.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on April 14, 2018, 10:40:24 am
It's my understanding that TM goes by signage. So shouldn't we have a separate system for locally signed state highways? This would also include SR 130 east of Mount Hamilton.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on April 14, 2018, 07:01:40 pm
For TM, signage is usually necessary, but not sufficient. Usually this comes up for routes that are officially designated, but unsigned, which with exceptions (most notably for unsigned Interstates like I-444 in Tulsa) we omit from the HB. The opposite situation, where highways are signed as state routes even though they have been officially removed from the state highway system (in California, usually by state law), we normally omit them from the HB too. It's pretty common to find "remnant signage" of decommissioned routes, something of great interest in the road enthusiast community but doesn't do anything for TM.

In California, I've made a tentative exception for highway segments that are officially not in the state system but state law requires them to be signed as such anyway in some fashion. Since usaca is a preview system, that tentative exception is subject to peer review before the system is finalized and becomes "active", and might not survive the peer review process. In any case, that exception would not apply to the former CA 91 west of Vermont Ave. which is not only officially excluded from the state system, but state law does not require whatever route signage exists.

CA 130 is a different story, which is legislatively authorized to exist east of Mt. Hamilton, but Caltrans never built and does not maintain or treat as part of the state system the road east of Mt. Hamilton, which is county-maintained (I'm on the road right now, my info is incomplete at the moment).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Duke87 on April 15, 2018, 11:10:44 am
Chiming in on the subject of relinquishments:

It is fairly common in the northeast to have sections of state routes (and sometimes entire lengths of state routes!) that are maintained by municipal or county governments. The responsible entity sometimes does not put up signs where there really should be signs (see: New Brunswick, NJ)... and sometimes puts up glaringly nonstandard signs (see: Woonsocket, RI).

No routes have been cut up in the HB due to this, though. Nor should they be - these segments that are not state maintained are still officially part of the routes in question and (usually) signed as such to some degree.

It seems to me that California's relinquished segments are functionally the same thing, even if the legalese behind them is slightly different - a section of a state route which is maintained by a county of municipal government. That is what the legal obligation for the responsible entity to post signs entails. I would not go chopping up routes over this, it is both nonsensical from a network perspective and inconsistent with what we have previously done in other states.


As for Florida, whether chopping routes up is correct would depend on whether there is a legal obligation or expectation that the entity responsible for maintaining the non-state segment should post state route shields (I'm not familiar enough with the legal situation there to really say).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on April 16, 2018, 05:29:08 pm
No routes have been cut up in the HB due to this, though. Nor should they be - these segments that are not state maintained are still officially part of the routes in question and (usually) signed as such to some degree.
To be fair, the legislative definition of SR 91 begins at Vermont (just west of I-110) with no mention of the continuation to SR 1, now that it's all been relinquished. But signs have not been removed by the cities or Caltrans (on intersecting routes).

If we were going to get into the same level of officialness with I-80, we'd begin it at the former Embarcadero Freeway ramps, with SR 80 continuing west to US 101. The Central Skyway was removed from the Interstate system in 1965 or 1968 (http://cahighways.org/itypes.html) and remains that way according to FHWA (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/northern_california/sanfrancisco_ca.pdf).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on April 29, 2018, 03:15:25 pm
CA 99's exits are inconsistent when they overlap:
Southernmost point uses Route(Exit); the Sacramento portion uses Exit(Route).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on April 29, 2018, 03:40:15 pm
CA 99's exits are inconsistent when they overlap:
Southernmost point uses Route(Exit); the Sacramento portion uses Exit(Route).

Yeah, I need to make things consistent on all California routes, including the ones in active systems. I blow hot and cold on whether to stick with Route(Exit), or move everything to Exit(Route).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on April 30, 2018, 12:22:44 am
Quote
I blow hot and cold on whether to stick with Route(Exit), or move everything to Exit(Route).
Is a given route otherwise an exit-numbered route?
For example,
NH11 has I-89(12) and I-89(11)
NH101 has 6(93) and 7(93)
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 01, 2018, 01:11:36 am
Do we even have a consistent rule about this?
At the very least, my main gripe about Exit(Route) in its current iteration is that it's a bit vague because the route qualifier's omitted.
To use CA 99 as an example -- 6(50) and 522(5) -- are fairly obvious to us and to those who know California. But for less versed travelers, I think that's confusing, where the Route(Exit) format is more clear [US50(6) and I-5(522)], particularly in states or regions where number duplication aren't uncommon (127(69), to pull a number from the ether -- is that TX 69, US 69, or I-69... or CR/FM/RM 69?!). If the Exit(Route) format were adopted, the qualifiers should be there [6(US 50) and 522(I-5)]; however, that implies that the dominant route (I-5 and US 50) are 'subservient' to CA 99 in this case.
I think ultimately this highlights the strength of the Route(Exit) format -- the route qualifiers have been built in by default, and it shows the dominant route and its exit number on the particular tags.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: si404 on May 01, 2018, 04:34:43 am
If the Exit(Route) format were adopted, the qualifiers should be there [6(US 50) and 522(I-5)]
Absolutely. Always done with single-letter ones (even Tim did it) in Europe.
Quote
however, that implies that the dominant route (I-5 and US 50) are 'subservient' to CA 99 in this case.
No - the very opposite in fact! It's saying this is that route's exit numbering, not this route's.
Quote
I think ultimately this highlights the strength of the Route(Exit) format -- the route qualifiers have been built in by default, and it shows the dominant route and its exit number on the particular tags.
Yes, but it makes it look as if the route is interchanging with the route it is concurrent with!

Route(Exit) is fine for distinguishing multiple intersections with a route with exit numbers. Route(Exit) is deeply confusing for intermediate exits on a concurrency as there's no intersection with 'Route' - the intersection is 'Exit', and the number happens to come from 'Route'.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 01, 2018, 07:36:20 am
Quote
I blow hot and cold on whether to stick with Route(Exit), or move everything to Exit(Route).
Is a given route otherwise an exit-numbered route?
For example,
NH11 has I-89(12) and I-89(11)
NH101 has 6(93) and 7(93)

Sometimes. CA 99 is exit-numbered south of Sacramento. North of the concurrence with I-5 in Sacramento, CA 99 is mostly non-freeway, so it has few numbered exits. The junction with I-5 at its south end south of Bakersfield is I-5(221), but on the concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 in Sacramento, exit number(route number) is the format.

For another example brought up earlier, CA 166 is freeway with exit numbers only on its concurrence with US 101. The exits are labeled US101(exit number). It has one interchange each at its east end with I-5 and CA 99, but no exit numbers needed.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 02, 2018, 11:23:35 pm
Quote
I blow hot and cold on whether to stick with Route(Exit), or move everything to Exit(Route).
Is a given route otherwise an exit-numbered route?
For example,
NH11 has I-89(12) and I-89(11)
NH101 has 6(93) and 7(93)

I always thought it should be the one in bold when a state/US highway was on an Interstate.  The other way was suppose to be only Interstate/Interstate.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on May 03, 2018, 02:46:58 am
Tim advised me on how to do NH101 specifically when I created usanh. I think the manual also bears this out, but I'm not bothering to check it right now. :)
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 03, 2018, 04:39:02 am
Looks like we should codify one or the other then :/
My preference has been noted, methinks.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: si404 on May 03, 2018, 07:59:22 am
The CHM Manual has the following (as people can't be bothered to look it up) - abridged to just the relevant bits.

Interchanges on exit-numbered highways

In multiplexes where the concurrency uses exit numbers from the other highway, put the highway number in parentheses. Drop the letter prefix of the concurrent highway if it is more than one character long: I-75 becomes (75). A5 can stay as (A5).

If the concurrent highway uses exit numbers but has a name instead of a number, use the truncated first word: Garden State Parkway is truncated as GarStaPkwy, and use the first part that is not the generic highway type: (Gar) for Garden State Parkway, (Bol) for Tangenziale di Bologna.


and

Waypoint labels for multiplexes:

For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with a numbered, exit-numbered route, use the concurrent highway designation with the exit numbers in parentheses.

For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with a named, exit-numbered route, use the first part of the truncated name followed by the exit numbers in parentheses.


Not that we have to go along with it, but the distinction was exit-numbered/not.

Of course, this was clouded as (IIRC) Tim stopped us using exit numbers on US highways for a long time.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 16, 2018, 04:14:59 pm
I-10_W and I-10_E on CA 60?
Google Maps reports I-10W as 1A on the westbound lanes; GMSV and OSM report it as 1B. Given that 1A and 1B both exist to the east of that on the eastbound lanes, shouldn't I-10_W be 1 prime?

Unhelpfully, GMSV doesn't show the correct exit number for 6th Ave in Beaumont at the eastern terminus. It shows it as 93, which is I-10's for both CA 60 and 6th Ave. It should be 76. CalTrans messed that one up.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 16, 2018, 04:28:11 pm
CA 1 should have an interchange point at the west end of the tunnel in Santa Monica for Ocean Ave.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 16, 2018, 06:21:06 pm
I-10_W and I-10_E on CA 60?
Google Maps reports I-10W as 1A on the westbound lanes; GMSV and OSM report it as 1B. Given that 1A and 1B both exist to the east of that on the eastbound lanes, shouldn't I-10_W be 1 prime?

Both GMSV and CalNexus show that WB CA 60 exit 1B is for the Mateo St./Santa Fe Ave. offramp. GMSV shows the WB merge into I-10 as unnumbered. While CalNexus (http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/exit/) assigns 1A to the WB merge with I-10, EB it's assigned to the exit to SB I-5. I think I-10_W is better than inventing an exit number inconsistent with CalNexus, or using a CalNexus exit number WB that is used for an exit EB that is more than a half-mile away and connects to a completely different freeway. 

Quote
Unhelpfully, GMSV doesn't show the correct exit number for 6th Ave in Beaumont at the eastern terminus. It shows it as 93, which is I-10's for both CA 60 and 6th Ave. It should be 76. CalTrans messed that one up.

Caltrans hasn't assigned a CA 60 exit number for its junction with I-10, because it doesn't do exit numbers on non-freeways. CalNexus has the end of the CA 60 freeway at Jackrabbit Trail (exit 74) rather than I-10, perhaps because there are at-grade intersections east of Jackrabbit. I-10_E also matches how I've dealt with the exit number tangle at CA 60's west end (see above).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 16, 2018, 07:08:55 pm
For a route having two distinct exits on its own mainline, it's obnoxious that CalTrans opts to make CA 259 a hidden designation and sign it only as 'To CA 210' northbound, and more obnoxiously, as 'I-215' opposed to 'To I-215' from CA 210.
Considering that this is a major connector between two freeways with its own exits (E St northbound, unshared with CA 210; Base Line southbound, shared with I-215; and Highland Ave both directions), and we do have unsigned Interstates in the database, most notably I-305, which CalTrans doesn't even acknowledge, I'd argue that CA 259 fits the bill for a variance and should be included, the fact that all the online maps (Gmaps, MapQuest, OSM, Bing, RMN [Yahoo seems to be dead?]) all show 259 notwithstanding.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 16, 2018, 07:33:35 pm
For a route having two distinct exits on its own mainline, it's obnoxious that CalTrans opts to make CA 259 a hidden designation and sign it only as 'To CA 210' northbound, and more obnoxiously, as 'I-215' opposed to 'To I-215' from CA 210.

I'm not sure Caltrans "opt[ed]" one way or another. CA 259 has been signed in the not-too-distant past with at least one reassurance marker in each direction on the 259 mainline (https://www.aaroads.com/california/ca-259.html), but for whatever reason the markers aren't there any more.

If it was a deliberate decision rather than inadvertence, it might've been that 259 really is a set of glorified ramps between 210 and 215, covering the "missing movements" omitted from the 210/215 interchange. Enough pavement to assign it a separate route number, but not enough to possibly confuse the traveling public with route markers other than CA 210 NB and I-215 SB.

Removing CA 259 from the HB caused a little heartburn for me. But only a little.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 16, 2018, 07:36:04 pm
I-10_W and I-10_E on CA 60?
Google Maps reports I-10W as 1A on the westbound lanes; GMSV and OSM report it as 1B. Given that 1A and 1B both exist to the east of that on the eastbound lanes, shouldn't I-10_W be 1 prime?

Both GMSV and CalNexus show that WB CA 60 exit 1B is for the Mateo St./Santa Fe Ave. offramp. GMSV shows the WB merge into I-10 as unnumbered. While CalNexus (http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/exit/) assigns 1A to the WB merge with I-10, EB it's assigned to the exit to SB I-5. I think I-10_W is better than inventing an exit number inconsistent with CalNexus, or using a CalNexus exit number WB that is used for an exit EB that is more than a half-mile away and connects to a completely different freeway. 
The ramp braiding certainly makes it complicated. If anything then, I don't agree with the _W _E labels for CA 60, as that's traditionally used for business loops and surface concurrencies. _W -> (16B) or I-10 prime?

Quote
Quote
Unhelpfully, GMSV doesn't show the correct exit number for 6th Ave in Beaumont at the eastern terminus. It shows it as 93, which is I-10's for both CA 60 and 6th Ave. It should be 76. CalTrans messed that one up.

Caltrans hasn't assigned a CA 60 exit number for its junction with I-10, because it doesn't do exit numbers on non-freeways.
That doesn't match with CA 126 at Commerce Center Dr (https://goo.gl/maps/rJ9vThhwd6k). OSM shows the mileage based exit 40A; GMSV shows a signed exit 13, with no exit number at I-5 most likely from it's non-freeflow interchange. CA 1 has exit 226 at CA 135 (https://goo.gl/maps/XVbpm8584412), and more impressively, CA 154 has a signed exit 32 on its only interchange as a super-2 (https://goo.gl/maps/FxFEyxSn1wJ2)! [/quote]CalNexus has the end of the CA 60 freeway at Jackrabbit Trail (exit 74) rather than I-10, perhaps because there are at-grade intersections east of Jackrabbit. I-10_E also matches how I've dealt with the exit number tangle at CA 60's west end (see above).
[/quote]I think with these examples (despite 126's incorrect exit number at Commerce Center Dr), CalTrans is dropping the ball with CA60(76). It probably should be I-10(93) for our uses.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 16, 2018, 08:51:53 pm
I-10_W and I-10_E on CA 60?
Google Maps reports I-10W as 1A on the westbound lanes; GMSV and OSM report it as 1B. Given that 1A and 1B both exist to the east of that on the eastbound lanes, shouldn't I-10_W be 1 prime?

Both GMSV and CalNexus show that WB CA 60 exit 1B is for the Mateo St./Santa Fe Ave. offramp. GMSV shows the WB merge into I-10 as unnumbered. While CalNexus (http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/exit/) assigns 1A to the WB merge with I-10, EB it's assigned to the exit to SB I-5. I think I-10_W is better than inventing an exit number inconsistent with CalNexus, or using a CalNexus exit number WB that is used for an exit EB that is more than a half-mile away and connects to a completely different freeway. 
The ramp braiding certainly makes it complicated. If anything then, I don't agree with the _W _E labels for CA 60, as that's traditionally used for business loops and surface concurrencies. _W -> (16B) or I-10 prime?

While I don't see anything wrong with I-10_W and I-10_E, might I-10(16B) and I-10(93) work?

Quote
Caltrans hasn't assigned a CA 60 exit number for its junction with I-10, because it doesn't do exit numbers on non-freeways.
Quote
That doesn't match with CA 126 at Commerce Center Dr (https://goo.gl/maps/rJ9vThhwd6k). OSM shows the mileage based exit 40A; GMSV shows a signed exit 13, with no exit number at I-5 most likely from it's non-freeflow interchange.

CalNexus assigns exit number 40A for CA 126 there, and treats the east end of 126 as an exit-numberable freeway. Just the exit number doesn't match what's posted in the field. I used ComCenDr in case Caltrans has fixed, or soon will fix, its mistake.

Quote
CA 1 has exit 226 at CA 135 (https://goo.gl/maps/XVbpm8584412), and more impressively, CA 154 has a signed exit 32 on its only interchange as a super-2 (https://goo.gl/maps/FxFEyxSn1wJ2)!

CA 154 is not in CalNexus, but at least is a freeway even if just a Super-2. CA 1 at CA 135 (north junction) is in CalNexus, which confirms that the 226 exit number is on the books. OTOH, I'm not sure the HB should keep label 224 at the south CA 1/CA 135 junction, which is neither in CalNexus nor GMSV.

Quote
Quote
CalNexus has the end of the CA 60 freeway at Jackrabbit Trail (exit 74) rather than I-10, perhaps because there are at-grade intersections east of Jackrabbit. I-10_E also matches how I've dealt with the exit number tangle at CA 60's west end (see above).
I think with these examples (despite 126's incorrect exit number at Commerce Center Dr), CalTrans is dropping the ball with CA60(76). It probably should be I-10(93) for our uses.

Even if it be a mistake (which I think it isn't), not our job to invent CA60(76) to fix it. I-10(93) at least is a real exit number.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 16, 2018, 10:10:53 pm
Quote from: oscar
While I don't see anything wrong with I-10_W and I-10_E, might I-10(16B) and I-10(93) work?
That'll work fine.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on May 16, 2018, 10:36:24 pm
I-10(16B) and I-10(93) seconded. (Thirded?)

Also, I-215(33) and pals -> 33(215) and pals.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: si404 on May 17, 2018, 09:19:34 am
While I don't see anything wrong with I-10_W and I-10_E, might I-10(16B) and I-10(93) work?
By the CHM rules, as CA60 is an exit-numbered route, they should be 16B(10) and 93(10). But it's really dealers choice between any of the labelling options.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: si404 on May 17, 2018, 09:22:00 am
For a route having two distinct exits on its own mainline, it's obnoxious that CalTrans opts to make CA 259 a hidden designation and sign it only as 'To CA 210' northbound, and more obnoxiously, as 'I-215' opposed to 'To I-215' from CA 210.
Shame it doesn't have a name for usasf.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on May 17, 2018, 11:28:15 am
By the CHM rules, as CA60 is an exit-numbered route, they should be 16B(10) and 93(10).
Not quite: while it is an exit-numbered route, those are not exit-numbered points.
With no actual exit-numbers at these points, we instead fall back on "Intersections with visibly numbered highways" here.
Then, it's on to the rule about "If an exit numbered highway is a cross road twice, exit numbers in parentheses can be used to distinguish them."

But it's really dealers choice between any of the labelling options.
There's no "dealer's choice" here -- the manual (http://cmap.m-plex.com/tools/manual_wayptlabels.php) says to "Choose the first type that applies."

For example:
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/MI/usai/mi.i475.wpt
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 17, 2018, 02:23:03 pm
For a route having two distinct exits on its own mainline, it's obnoxious that CalTrans opts to make CA 259 a hidden designation and sign it only as 'To CA 210' northbound, and more obnoxiously, as 'I-215' opposed to 'To I-215' from CA 210.
Shame it doesn't have a name for usasf.
I believe it's the northernmost portion of the San Bernardino Freeway.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 17, 2018, 03:46:27 pm
For a route having two distinct exits on its own mainline, it's obnoxious that CalTrans opts to make CA 259 a hidden designation and sign it only as 'To CA 210' northbound, and more obnoxiously, as 'I-215' opposed to 'To I-215' from CA 210.
Shame it doesn't have a name for usasf.
I believe it's the northernmost portion of the San Bernardino Freeway.

I don't think so. The San Bernadino Freeway runs west-east, in the San Bernadino area along part of I-10 which is well south of CA 259. As far as I can tell, 259 has no name (which fits into my "glorified ramps" theory above).

I think even if it had a name, we'd be really straining here to include in usasf a route that is a numbered state highway, which would be in usaca if it had route number markers.

If we were going to stretch anything here, it should be our unsigned routes rule, based on that the route had route number markers about a decade ago, and the route number is shown on callbox signs (assuming that any callboxes remain on that route, since nowadays almost everybody has a cellphone). But CA 259 is just a crummy one mile long, hardly worth the trouble.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 17, 2018, 04:14:36 pm
I-10(16B) and I-10(93) seconded. (Thirded?)

I'll add this to my queue. Also, Bickendan's suggested point addition to CA 1 in Santa Monica. I think CA 1 in Santa Barbara County needs a relabel for the point called 224 (looks like a fictitious exit number), and the corresponding point on CA 135.

Quote
Also, I-215(33) and pals -> 33(215) and pals.

I'm not yet on board for that part, which would need to be applied system-wide and probably to some active routes in California as well. Later.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 17, 2018, 09:26:14 pm
For a route having two distinct exits on its own mainline, it's obnoxious that CalTrans opts to make CA 259 a hidden designation and sign it only as 'To CA 210' northbound, and more obnoxiously, as 'I-215' opposed to 'To I-215' from CA 210.
Shame it doesn't have a name for usasf.
I believe it's the northernmost portion of the San Bernardino Freeway.

I don't think so. The San Bernadino Freeway runs west-east, in the San Bernadino area along part of I-10 which is well south of CA 259. As far as I can tell, 259 has no name (which fits into my "glorified ramps" theory above).

I think even if it had a name, we'd be really straining here to include in usasf a route that is a numbered state highway, which would be in usaca if it had route number markers.

If we were going to stretch anything here, it should be our unsigned routes rule, based on that the route had route number markers about a decade ago, and the route number is shown on callbox signs (assuming that any callboxes remain on that route, since nowadays almost everybody has a cellphone). But CA 259 is just a crummy one mile long, hardly worth the trouble.
IIRC, the SBD Freeway runs east-west mostly along I-10 from US 101 to I-215, then north-south along I-215 to at least CA 259. I'll need to verify if CA 259 is part of the SBD on cahighways.org.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 17, 2018, 09:30:39 pm
I-10(16B) and I-10(93) seconded. (Thirded?)

I'll add this to my queue. Also, Bickendan's suggested point addition to CA 1 in Santa Monica. I think CA 1 in Santa Barbara County needs a relabel for the point called 224 (looks like a fictitious exit number), and the corresponding point on CA 135.

Quote
Also, I-215(33) and pals -> 33(215) and pals.

I'm not yet on board for that part, which would need to be applied system-wide and probably to some active routes in California as well. Later.
I'm looking for CalTrans contact info to inquire about CA 1 '224', CA 60 '76', CA 126 '13', and CA 259. Unlike WSDOT and ODOT, CalTrans doesn't have a general inquiries email address, forcing me to find a contact person in the respective divisions.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 17, 2018, 10:01:48 pm
]I'm looking for CalTrans contact info to inquire about CA 1 '224', CA 60 '76', CA 126 '13', and CA 259. Unlike WSDOT and ODOT, CalTrans doesn't have a general inquiries email address, forcing me to find a contact person in the respective divisions.

Unless you have reason to think CA1(224) and CA60(76) are signed in the field (I don't recall seeing the latter when I was there last summer; my travels didn't take me to CA 1), since they aren't in CalNexus I see no reason to wait on my changes.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on May 29, 2018, 07:48:12 pm
Point request for Wheeler Ave on CA 66 in San Dimas, and a synchronization to US 66 Hist Azusa.
Looks like CA 2 along Santa Monica Blvd isn't synced to US 66 Hist Hollywood.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on May 29, 2018, 08:36:31 pm
Point request for Wheeler Ave on CA 66 in San Dimas, and a synchronization to US 66 Hist Azusa.
Looks like CA 2 along Santa Monica Blvd isn't synced to US 66 Hist Hollywood.

Wheeler Ave. point added to local copy of CA 66, to be pulled in once I've caught up with cansk peer review or I make some other pull request.

I'm doing nothing to synch with historic routes in CA. Someone else can synch them to usaca (and active routes in CA, which I was still working on when the historic routes were rolled out) once I'm finished with usaca. Besides, parts of CA 2 have been relinquished, and might get removed from the HB, so that's another reason not to try to synch with the corresponding historic route.
Title: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on June 24, 2018, 10:14:06 pm
These are almost all places where I entered or left the route (hence their addition would make my log more accurate).

CA1:
[CA9]
MisSt_E http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.97684&lon=-122.03185
(old alignment and route makes a turn)
[YouAve DimLn DavAve]
SwaRd_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.02857&lon=-122.21639
(old alignment)
[SwaRd] -> SwaRd_N
[x110-111 GazCrkRd x113]
BeanHolRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.22208&lon=-122.40624
(old alignment)
[x114 PesCrkRd CA84 X378976]
StaRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.33761&lon=-122.39418
(old alignment)
[TunCrkRd]

CA17:
[x20]
GleDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.11986&lon=-121.97600
(awesome old alignment, worth a drive if you're in the area)
OldSanCruzHwy http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.12781&lon=-121.97587
(old alignment)
[CA35]

CA17BusSco: are GraCrkRd and CA17(5) not the same interchange, hence should have only one point? I came southbound on Glenwood Drive and turned right on Scotts Valley Drive, and all I missed of the southbound route was the exit 5 offramp.

CA26:
[SanGulRd]
RaiFlatRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.38906&lon=-120.52724
(probably more important than the listed roads in this area)
[PineSt x88 HigRd x96]
DefGraRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.41885&lon=-120.55914
(old alignment of the county road that became SR 26)
[JoyRd]

CA35:
[GistRd]
BlaRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.20548&lon=-122.04832
(signed for Los Gatos, and location of a temporary closure to through traffic)
[OldSumRd]

CA39:
[LinAve]
CreAve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.83938&lon=-117.99546
GraAve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.84549&lon=-117.99784
(access to/from Knott's Berry Farm; OSM's name "Paper Street" for Grand Avenue appears to be bullshit)
[LaPalAve]

US40HisRos:
[KingRd]
RipRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.82651&lon=-121.19041
[PenRd]
EngColWay http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.85133&lon=-121.16450
SisRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.85222&lon=-121.16358
CalRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.86576&lon=-121.15188
(all parts of the original Lincoln Highway alignment)
[OldStaHwy]

US40HisAub:
[HighSt_S]
LinWay_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.89957&lon=-121.06995
[CA49_N]
LinWay_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.90383&lon=-121.06647
[CA49_S]
(old Lincoln Highway)

CA49:
[OldCA49_N]
NewChiRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.44074&lon=-120.85485
(paved through road into the hills)
[CA16]

CA82:
[Bro]
TroDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.59454&lon=-122.38321
(connects to I-280)
[MilAve]

CA84:
[TriRd]
KinMtnRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.42606&lon=-122.26620
(paved scenic route to the coast, certainly more important than TriRd)
[CanRd]

CA88:
[CHJ12] (shouldn't this be CRJ12?)
LibRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.23605&lon=-121.05106
(straight shot west to SR 99)
[VilDr]
...
[CA26]
DefGraRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.43170&lon=-120.57195
(paved cutoff to SR 26)
[x30-31 SugPineDr]

CA193:
[GoldHillRd X167946]
OldStaHwy_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.87650&lon=-121.13248
(old Lincoln Highway)
[TayRd]
Also, are OphRd and I-80 not two points at the same interchange?

CA193Geo:
[CamLn]
GarVlyRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.81634&lon=-120.82226
(paved cutoff, apparently an old alignment of SR 193?)
[ShooFlyRd]
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on June 25, 2018, 05:51:38 am
I'll get to these later -- you caught me on my way out of town for an extended road trip.  But a few notes:


...

US40HisRos:
[KingRd]
RipRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.82651&lon=-121.19041
[PenRd]
EngColWay http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.85133&lon=-121.16450
SisRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.85222&lon=-121.16358
CalRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.86576&lon=-121.15188
(all parts of the original Lincoln Highway alignment)
[OldStaHwy]

US40HisAub:
[HighSt_S]
LinWay_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.89957&lon=-121.06995
[CA49_N]
LinWay_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.90383&lon=-121.06647
[CA49_S]
(old Lincoln Highway)

I'm not developing or maintaining the historic routes in California. That task probably should wait until usaca is activated.

Quote
CA88:
[CHJ12] (shouldn't this be CRJ12?)

California has a county highway system (usually signed with blue pentagons), and locally-designated county roads (usually unsigned except with street blades). To avoid confusion, I'm referring to the county highways as CH___, and county roads as Rd___ (which is typically how they're marked). There are still a few CR___ waypoints, which I'm changing to CH___ or Rd___ when I find them.
 
Quote
CA193:

...

Also, are OphRd and I-80 not two points at the same interchange?

That was my inclination at first, but OphRd was added back in as a separate point because it's where US40HisAub peels away from CA 193.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on June 25, 2018, 11:50:24 am
California has a county highway system (usually signed with blue pentagons), and locally-designated county roads (usually unsigned except with street blades). To avoid confusion, I'm referring to the county highways as CH___, and county roads as Rd___ (which is typically how they're marked). There are still a few CR___ waypoints, which I'm changing to CH___ or Rd___ when I find them.
Can you show me an example of a route marked "CH x"? "Road x" is not a normal county route system, rather one direction of a grid with "Avenue x" perpendicular.

Here is how one county signs its locally-designated county roads:
(http://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/28947221_1956261474704624_4695840215410611133_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=eb381d88ba410810abce8aa07926df19&oe=5BAE4DC3)
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on June 25, 2018, 07:44:40 pm
California has a county highway system (usually signed with blue pentagons), and locally-designated county roads (usually unsigned except with street blades). To avoid confusion, I'm referring to the county highways as CH___, and county roads as Rd___ (which is typically how they're marked). There are still a few CR___ waypoints, which I'm changing to CH___ or Rd___ when I find them.
Can you show me an example of a route marked "CH x"? "Road x" is not a normal county route system, rather one direction of a grid with "Avenue x" perpendicular.

No routes are marked "CH x", just as it's rare for Interstate routes to be marked "I-x".  CH- and I- are just abbreviations for the relevant route system. The typical County Highway blue pentagon marker has only the number and the county name:

(https://www.aaroads.com/ca/s000/cr-s004_eb_after_i-015_01.jpg)

The county roads that have numbers (most do not, such as in the example you posted), but are not marked with blue pentagons like the ones in the County Signed Route program, don't follow any particular numbering scheme. Some of them are indeed called "Road X" or "Ave Y", as in this example from Madera County (which I photographed only because that county really loves its -half roads/avenues):

(http://www.alaskaroads.com/Thirty-and-a-HalfRd-MaderaCoCA-DSC_7368.jpg)

See https://www.cahighways.org/county.html for more info.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on June 25, 2018, 08:52:40 pm
Hm. If the standard is CR__ for blue pentagon routes in the rest of the country, changing them to CH__ in one state doesn't seem the best option...
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on June 26, 2018, 04:29:53 am
The county roads that have numbers (most do not, such as in the example you posted), but are not marked with blue pentagons like the ones in the County Signed Route program, don't follow any particular numbering scheme. Some of them are indeed called "Road X" or "Ave Y", as in this example from Madera County (which I photographed only because that county really loves its -half roads/avenues):
Zoom in on my photo; the numbers are posted.

"Road 30 1/2" is no more a county numbered route than "Half Street" is a DC numbered route. It's simply a named road designated by its place in the grid.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Bickendan on June 29, 2018, 04:48:48 am
You mean the numbers under the suffixes (the 143 and 9)?
If so, I would have confused them for the block number as that's Portland's method (eg, SE Division St/2500) :/
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on June 29, 2018, 01:40:55 pm
If there are no objections to the additions, can we please get them added? Thanks.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on June 29, 2018, 08:20:10 pm
If there are no objections to the additions, can we please get them added? Thanks.

I'm not even going to review your proposed additions until mid-July. I'm on the road, with little free time, for the next few weeks.

Not every point request gets granted. Indeed, one of my recent point requests was rejected.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on June 29, 2018, 08:25:41 pm
Ah. Bureaucracy. Gotta love it.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: michih on June 30, 2018, 02:37:47 am
Not every point request gets granted. Indeed, one of my recent point requests was rejected.

Why? If an user needs a point, I would just add it! Jim and I just add points we need without asking the maintainer at all....
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on June 30, 2018, 10:36:04 am
Why? If an user needs a point, I would just add it! Jim and I just add points we need without asking the maintainer at all....
I don't think it's a good policy for collaborators to edit other collaborators' files without telling them.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: michih on June 30, 2018, 11:41:00 am
Why? If an user needs a point, I would just add it! Jim and I just add points we need without asking the maintainer at all....
I don't think it's a good policy for collaborators to edit other collaborators' files without telling them.

Telling them afterwards but doing the modification ourselves when needed.

I think if a "normal" user requests a wp we should generally add it except there is already a wp very close to it or if there is any very good reason.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Jim on June 30, 2018, 11:50:28 am
My general rule is that if it's a totally obvious fix or addition that I'm 99% sure won't be an issue, I'll make it and notify the maintainer with a mention in the commit message and/or a note in the forum.

In this specific case, I think it's best of Oscar makes the changes when he's back, as the system is just in preview and beginning its major peer review.  These requests should be addressed as part of that.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on June 30, 2018, 10:24:43 pm
Not every point request gets granted. Indeed, one of my recent point requests was rejected.

Why? If an user needs a point, I would just add it! Jim and I just add points we need without asking the maintainer at all....

I'm not in favor of adding every point requested by a user. For example, I'd want to size up whether the proposed new points are too close to existing points (or could replace nearby points), or would re-clutter up route files I went to some trouble to streamline.

Anyway, we're talking about just a few weeks, and there's no urgency to small improvements in user maps or statistics, or for anybody to mess with files I'm still working on. Patience, please!

OTOH, I'm not maintaining the draft historic route files in California (nor the usanp files, though I contributed many of those files, and would be willing to make fixes with Si's concurrence). That part of neroute2's point request list could be covered by someone else without stepping on my toes.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: the_spui_ninja on June 30, 2018, 10:35:28 pm
Not every point request gets granted. Indeed, one of my recent point requests was rejected.

Why? If an user needs a point, I would just add it! Jim and I just add points we need without asking the maintainer at all....

I'm not in favor of adding every point requested by a user.
Also, sometimes the point requester thinks over the request and realizes it doesn't make much sense (I've done this before).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on July 26, 2018, 01:16:08 pm
The requests below that I'm implementing will be pulled in later, along with some New Mexico updates I've mentioned in another Updates thread.

Also, I've moved this topic from Updates into the "In-Progress Systems and Work" topic for usaca. neroute2, as I've reminded you before, point suggestions/requests for systems still in progress should be made in the topic(s) for those systems, not in Updates which is for changes in active systems. That goes double for requests including two in-progress systems (in this case, usaca and usaush) with different developers.

CA1:
[CA9]
MisSt_E http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.97684&lon=-122.03185
(old alignment and route makes a turn)
[YouAve DimLn DavAve]
SwaRd_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.02857&lon=-122.21639
(old alignment)
[SwaRd] -> SwaRd_N
[x110-111 GazCrkRd x113]
BeanHolRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.22208&lon=-122.40624
(old alignment)
[x114 PesCrkRd CA84 X378976]
StaRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.33761&lon=-122.39418
(old alignment)
[TunCrkRd]

All in my local copy. StaRd is really close to x378976, but I was able to delete that shaping point.

Quote
CA17:
[x20]
GleDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.11986&lon=-121.97600
(awesome old alignment, worth a drive if you're in the area)
OldSanCruzHwy http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.12781&lon=-121.97587
(old alignment)
[CA35]

GleDr added to my local copy. OldSanCruzHwy is way too close to GleDr, and isn't needed for shaping or other purposes, so I'm leaving that out.

Quote
CA17BusSco: are GraCrkRd and CA17(5) not the same interchange, hence should have only one point? I came southbound on Glenwood Drive and turned right on Scotts Valley Drive, and all I missed of the southbound route was the exit 5 offramp.

The point at GraCrkRd is needed at the very least to reflect that people like you who didn't enter or leave CA 17 at exit 5 haven't clinched the entire business route (which includes part of GraCrkRd for northbound travelers, and a parallel ramp for southbound travelers). It also reflects that travelers need to make a 90-degree turn there to stay on the business route, and helps the business route display separately from the mainline except at the endpoints.

Did you see any signage for the business route? My recollection is that signage was sketchy at best.

Quote
CA26:
[SanGulRd]
RaiFlatRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.38906&lon=-120.52724
(probably more important than the listed roads in this area)
[PineSt x88 HigRd x96]
DefGraRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.41885&lon=-120.55914
(old alignment of the county road that became SR 26)
[JoyRd]

No can do. Both requested points are a mile or less from existing points. And those existing points are "important" for shaping (plus one is at a town center), while the requested points aren't, so I can't just eliminate those points in favor of the ones you requested.

Quote
CA35:
[GistRd]
BlaRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.20548&lon=-122.04832
(signed for Los Gatos, and location of a temporary closure to through traffic)
[OldSumRd]

In my local copy. OldSumRd was there for shaping, but BlaRd is about as good for that purpose, and OldSumRd isn't in anyone's list file, so I replaced OldSumRd with BlaRd.

Quote
CA39:
[LinAve]
CreAve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.83938&lon=-117.99546
GraAve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.84549&lon=-117.99784
(access to/from Knott's Berry Farm; OSM's name "Paper Street" for Grand Avenue appears to be bullshit)
[LaPalAve]

Nope. Both requested points are less than a half mile from each other, and each less than 0.6 mile from existing points, so they'd be excessive even with the higher waypoint densities typical for urban areas. Also, the entire Knott's Berry Farm segment of CA 39 has been relinquished to the city of Buena Park (between the southern BP city limit and I-5), so both requested points might get glorked anyway once I settle on how to deal with such relinquishments.

Did you see any CA 39 signage in Buena Park south of I-5? (I could check GMSV, but it isn't always up to date so field observations are useful too). That's relevant to how I handle the Buena Park relinquishment. Buena Park is required by state law to maintain continuation signage, but such requirements are all too often completely ignored.

Quote
US40HisRos:
[KingRd]
RipRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.82651&lon=-121.19041
[PenRd]
EngColWay http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.85133&lon=-121.16450
SisRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.85222&lon=-121.16358
CalRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.86576&lon=-121.15188
(all parts of the original Lincoln Highway alignment)
[OldStaHwy]

US40HisAub:
[HighSt_S]
LinWay_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.89957&lon=-121.06995
[CA49_N]
LinWay_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.90383&lon=-121.06647
[CA49_S]
(old Lincoln Highway)

These have been copied over to the topic for U.S. historic routes, for the developer of that system in progress (which isn't me) to address as he chooses.

Quote
CA49:
[OldCA49_N]
NewChiRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.44074&lon=-120.85485
(paved through road into the hills)
[CA16]

In my local copy. Good suggestion, new point is a bit distant from existing points, and in a town that didn't have a waypoint.

Quote
CA82:
[Bro]
TroDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.59454&lon=-122.38321
(connects to I-280)
[MilAve]

In my local copy. Another point added in similar situation I noticed, SneLn about 0.3 mile north of I-380, but which somehow also has its own connection to I-280.

Quote
CA84:
[TriRd]
KinMtnRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.42606&lon=-122.26620
(paved scenic route to the coast, certainly more important than TriRd)
[CanRd]

In my local copy. TriRd was there for shaping, but KinMtnRd serves the same shaping purpose, so I replaced TriRd with KinMtnRd.

Quote
CA88:
[CHJ12] (shouldn't this be CRJ12?)
LibRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.23605&lon=-121.05106
(straight shot west to SR 99)
[VilDr]
...
[CA26]
DefGraRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.43170&lon=-120.57195
(paved cutoff to SR 26)
[x30-31 SugPineDr]

I added DefGraRd in my local copy, and deleted nearby x30 and relocated x31 to offset the added point. I'm not sold on LibRd. Yeah, it's a long-distance connector to CA 99, but so is county J12 less than two miles away, and I doubt many travelers looking for a shortcut will use an unnumbered road rather than a parallel numbered highway. EDIT: LibRd added to my local copy.

The CH vs. CR issue you and yakra flagged is something I'm noodling over. It's a system-wide issue. If I make that change, it will affect many other usaca routes and also some in active systems, as well as many list files including my own.

Quote
CA193:
[GoldHillRd X167946]
OldStaHwy_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.87650&lon=-121.13248
(old Lincoln Highway)
[TayRd]

Proposed point is only 0.08 mile from existing TayRd point, not worth a separate point. But I will rename TayRd as TayRd_W, and replace x167946 with a named waypoint.

Quote
CA193Geo:
[CamLn]
GarVlyRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.81634&lon=-120.82226
(paved cutoff, apparently an old alignment of SR 193?)
[ShooFlyRd]

In my local copy as GarValRd.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on July 26, 2018, 04:38:15 pm
The point at GraCrkRd is needed at the very least to reflect that people like you who didn't enter or leave CA 17 at exit 5 haven't clinched the entire business route. It also reflects that travelers need to make a 90-degree turn there to stay on the business route, and helps the business route display separately from the mainline except at the endpoints.
But I have clinched the entire business route, since I don't count ramps.

Did you see any signage for the business route? My recollection is that signage was sketchy at best.
Not on the route itself. The Goog does show a sign pointing left on the southbound offramp.

Quote
CA26:
[SanGulRd]
RaiFlatRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.38906&lon=-120.52724
(probably more important than the listed roads in this area)
[PineSt x88 HigRd x96]
DefGraRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.41885&lon=-120.55914
(old alignment of the county road that became SR 26)
[JoyRd]

No can do. Both requested points are a mile or less from existing points. And those existing points are "important" for shaping (plus one is at a town center), so I can't just eliminate those points in favor of the ones you requested.
I don't understand this. RaiFlatRd is very clearly the most important road in the area.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Duke87 on July 26, 2018, 08:21:15 pm
Why can't a requested point be added within a mile of another point?

I mean, I get that Tim wanted to keep the number of points down back in the CHM days because he was concerned about server resources. But we are no longer required to follow to Tim's rules, nor do we have those resource constraints anymore. So I see no reason to be stingy with adding points.

Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on July 26, 2018, 09:31:20 pm
Jim can speak to resource constraints, but now that our project is expanding internationally to at least five continents, the size of the database and associated processing burdens could still be issues. Even without Tim, there has certainly still been nudging to keep point density under control, including specifically for some of the largest route files in usaca.

Besides, the one-mile "rule" is not hard and fast. If there are closely-spaced intersections with numbered routes, they both go in. Same if we need closely-spaced points for shaping. And point density in densely-populated urban areas tends to go up, as it was even under Tim's management. But if we don't add some intersection with an unnumbered road of non-obvious importance (not even for shaping, which is the reason for many otherwise totally unimportant waypoints), and there's a point within a mile, the user who would like that intersection added usually will lose a mile or less in the user stats and maps. No big deal, IMO. That happens to me all the time.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Jim on July 26, 2018, 10:35:59 pm
No resource constraints at this point.  I think we just want to keep routes from getting too overly dense, so things are not too cluttered on the maps and tables.  That said, if there are a few points likely to be useful that happen to be close together, I'd be in favor of including all of them.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on July 26, 2018, 11:10:23 pm
One way to solve the problem of too many unnecessary waypoints would be to replace some of the visible points with invisible ones, and reserve the visible points for truly useful junctions.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on July 26, 2018, 11:38:52 pm
One way to solve the problem of too many unnecessary waypoints would be to replace some of the visible points with invisible ones, and reserve the visible points for truly useful junctions.

That runs counter to what I'd understood was the current SOP, to replace hidden waypoints with visible ones where possible (which I've done with some routes covered in neroute2's point requests). If we're going to have a waypoint anyway, such as for shaping purposes, making it visible would make it available to users with little extra cost, even if the potential benefit is uncertain at best.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: michih on July 27, 2018, 01:34:51 pm
if there are a few points likely to be useful that happen to be close together, I'd be in favor of including all of them.

Seconded!
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on July 28, 2018, 07:27:41 pm
if there are a few points likely to be useful that happen to be close together, I'd be in favor of including all of them.

Seconded!

OTOH, requested points for intersections with unnumbered routes, less than 0.1 mile from existing waypoints (there were two of them here), seem generally not to be worth the extra work. I think "not worth the extra work" would sometimes also apply to requested points not quite so close to existing points, though different team members might draw the line differently WRT the systems they maintain/develop.

I did add two points on CA 82 for connectors to nearby freeways, that were less than a half-mile from existing points. I've tried to include such points as a general rule, but didn't do so for that route when I initially edited the file.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on July 28, 2018, 09:21:55 pm
That runs counter to what I'd understood was the current SOP, to replace hidden waypoints with visible ones where possible (which I've done with some routes covered in neroute2's point requests). If we're going to have a waypoint anyway, such as for shaping purposes, making it visible would make it available to users with little extra cost, even if the potential benefit is uncertain at best.
AFAIK, that's been hinted at in the forum, but if there's ever been a clear directive to favor visible shaping points over hidden ones, I've not read it. It seems kind of pointless to clutter the files with named points at culs-de-sac and paper roads that no one will ever use.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: Duke87 on July 30, 2018, 07:24:03 pm
AFAIK, that's been hinted at in the forum, but if there's ever been a clear directive to favor visible shaping points over hidden ones, I've not read it. It seems kind of pointless to clutter the files with named points at culs-de-sac and paper roads that no one will ever use.

How is this clutter, though? You are making a point either way. The total number of points in the file is not impacted by such a policy.

If there is a cross street of some sort at the approximate location you are making a point anyway, you may as well make it a visible point because even though the likelihood of it being used may be low, it takes no extra effort to make it visible and no extra bandwidth to allow it to be visible.

That said I would only apply this to actual intersections. So, cul-de-sacs would be fair game, and so would dirt roads... but "paper roads" would not be.


Meanwhile don't dismiss the usefulness of such points - maybe someone has only driven the route as far as that cul-de-sac because their second cousin they went to visit that one time lives on it. Maybe they turned around at the intersection with that dirt road because it happened to be right over the line of  a county they wanted to clinch, or because it was at that point that they realized that had missed a turn and needed to go back the other way.

I'm certainly in favor of having "make a point visible if there is a nearby intersection to use" be official guidance if it isn't already.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on July 30, 2018, 09:30:55 pm
^ I agree with the above. But the one kind of "clutter" from including minor visible waypoints, that would be reduced if they were hidden, is in the waypoint list shown in the HB.

In addition to people who used a minor intersection to go to their destinations, or to turn around, there will be people who go through that intersection, do a U-turn elsewhere (or break down, or go off-road, or turn around at another minor intersection), but they can use the labeled intersection to claim some more mileage in their list files.

In instances where I've U-turned right after passing a county line sign, while I can't ask for a county line point (unless there is a legitimate county line road intersection there), I have asked for a point at a nearby intersection that other users might find helpful too, so I could claim some of the mileage and my maps would hint at how I snagged that county.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: mapcat on July 31, 2018, 07:54:00 pm
How is this clutter, though? You are making a point either way. The total number of points in the file is not impacted by such a policy.
Like Oscar said, every visible point makes the waypoint list showing in the HB longer, and adds a waypoint symbol to the map.

Quote
If there is a cross street of some sort at the approximate location you are making a point anyway, you may as well make it a visible point because even though the likelihood of it being used may be low, it takes no extra effort to make it visible and no extra bandwidth to allow it to be visible.
Of course it takes extra effort. I don't know what basemap you use in the editor, but I typically start with OSM Default. To add an invisible waypoint for shaping, you find the place where the point makes the shape conform to the limits and it's done. To add a visible point at a random unimportant road, you need to open GMSV at that location to check to see if (A) there is actually a road there and (B) if its name shows up on a street sign. If there is a road but no sign, you need to find some other way to confirm the name. Google's name for it isn't any more likely to be correct than OSM's. And then you need to see if you've already used that name somewhere else in the file, and if so, either modify one of them or move one to a different road that might the job. Which puts you right back to checking GMSV.

Quote
Meanwhile don't dismiss the usefulness of such points - maybe someone has only driven the route as far as that cul-de-sac because their second cousin they went to visit that one time lives on it. Maybe they turned around at the intersection with that dirt road because it happened to be right over the line of  a county they wanted to clinch, or because it was at that point that they realized that had missed a turn and needed to go back the other way.
And anyone who has ever asked me to create one for them has gotten their wish, as far as I can recall. Although CHM guidelines specifically stated that we NOT locate a point at a place just because it's personally relevant (your second cousin's house), I don't have a problem with this. I added one at a county line just the other day for Oscar, in fact. It wasn't needed for any shaping purpose whatsoever, but since I knew it would be used, it deserves to be in the file.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: bejacob on July 31, 2018, 08:09:13 pm
I added one at a county line just the other day for Oscar, in fact. It wasn't needed for any shaping purpose whatsoever, but since I knew it would be used, it deserves to be in the file.

Seems like a reasonable approach. I've occasionally requested an extra waypoint (usually with a reason why I thought it necessary) and always had it added. In cases where I might have driven partway between 2 existing waypoints, I usually go with the next one back (so I don't mistakenly clinch a segment which I've only partially driven).
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: compdude787 on August 02, 2018, 06:46:36 pm
That runs counter to what I'd understood was the current SOP, to replace hidden waypoints with visible ones where possible (which I've done with some routes covered in neroute2's point requests). If we're going to have a waypoint anyway, such as for shaping purposes, making it visible would make it available to users with little extra cost, even if the potential benefit is uncertain at best.
AFAIK, that's been hinted at in the forum, but if there's ever been a clear directive to favor visible shaping points over hidden ones, I've not read it. It seems kind of pointless to clutter the files with named points at culs-de-sac and paper roads that no one will ever use.

I agree with this 100%. Whoever created the waypoint files for WA state routes did this quite extensively, and it's something that I've found to be quite annoying and I am planning to clean it up when I get time.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on August 08, 2018, 07:30:14 pm
http://cmap.m-plex.com/tools/manual_includepts.php
Quote
Prefer an intersection to act as a shaping point location wherever possible. Shaping points that coincide with intersections should be added as normal, visible waypoints labeled in the usual way.

My takeaway from the manual is:
DON'T place a point just because it leads to your second cousin's house.
DO place a point if it's needed to keep the route's shape within tolerance.
• When doing so, prefer an intersection over a hidden point.
From here, it follows that these points may occasionally be of use by travelers, as Duke87 noted.

County lines:
It's safe to say our target audience is roadgeeks who like collecting stuff. There will be some natural overlap here with county collectors. Points at/near county lines thus may be a little more likely to be useful. If requested, I may add them in, but want to have some other justification as well; I still try to be conservative here. When Oscar recently requested two points in canabs, I added one, but not the other as it was rather close to an existing point.

WA cleanup:
I haven't looked at stuff in Washington in too great detail, but I'd say that,
If a route is "over-shaped", with more points than necessary to stay within tolerance, then trimming out unneeded shaping points may be advisable.
If points are necessary to keep within lateral tolerance, leave them in.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on September 20, 2018, 02:41:01 am
There is a signed CA 49 Historic on Gold Strike Road from San Andreas north. Signs:
south end (http://www.google.com/maps/@38.1960742,-120.6807541,3a,15y,347h,87.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6-owWwZuKmr4G8FRKV-LXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
north end (http://www.google.com/maps/@38.229053,-120.7049259,3a,75y,143.91h,83.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHdldo2d20ulPuNRwK-CvRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on September 20, 2018, 12:13:20 pm
There is a signed CA 49 Historic on Gold Strike Road from San Andreas north. Signs:
south end (http://www.google.com/maps/@38.1960742,-120.6807541,3a,15y,347h,87.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6-owWwZuKmr4G8FRKV-LXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
north end (http://www.google.com/maps/@38.229053,-120.7049259,3a,75y,143.91h,83.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHdldo2d20ulPuNRwK-CvRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Thanks. This has been mentioned, as an apparent old CA 49 alignment, in the middle of a very long trip report (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18621.msg2172085#msg2172085) on the AARoads forum. I haven't yet found other mentions, including on cahighways.org.

I'm inclined to add it to the HB, similar to the business loops from state routes already in the HB (as part of usaca, there is no separate system for the business loops). The San Andreas CA 49 historic route appears not to be state-maintained, but then in California neither are most of the signed business routes.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on September 27, 2018, 10:02:25 am
Some discussion in the usanyp thread (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1928.msg11559#msg11559) mentions the closure of CA39. I presume on San Gabriel Canyon Rd north of the Azusa segment (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ca.ca039azu). I checked this thread and searched the forum to jog my memory about the circumstances surrounding its closure, and came up empty. ISTR some discussion about this (by Oscar? Someone else?) somewhere (Here? AARoads? GitHub? Somewhere else?) sometime... Any leads?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on September 27, 2018, 11:06:29 am
Some discussion in the usanyp thread (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1928.msg11559#msg11559) mentions the closure of CA39. I presume on San Gabriel Canyon Rd north of the Azusa segment (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ca.ca039azu). I checked this thread and searched the forum to jog my memory about the circumstances surrounding its closure, and came up empty. ISTR some discussion about this (by Oscar? Someone else?) somewhere (Here? AARoads? GitHub? Somewhere else?) sometime... Any leads?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_39#History
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: neroute2 on September 29, 2018, 09:33:02 pm
CA12 and CA88 need a point at CRJ5_S at what OSM labels "Jack Tone Bypass". The current TulRd should be CRJ5_N.
http://www.google.com/maps/@38.1562256,-121.1548214,3a,33.2y,38.25h,79.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGANYRj6Xzq4oFqZP9AWMew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on September 29, 2018, 10:36:47 pm
^ Looks consistent with other (including older) GMSV imagery in the area. In my queue, along with the CA 49 Historic you spotted in San Andreas.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on October 24, 2018, 10:05:39 pm
There is a signed CA 49 Historic on Gold Strike Road from San Andreas north. Signs:
south end (http://www.google.com/maps/@38.1960742,-120.6807541,3a,15y,347h,87.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6-owWwZuKmr4G8FRKV-LXw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
north end (http://www.google.com/maps/@38.229053,-120.7049259,3a,75y,143.91h,83.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHdldo2d20ulPuNRwK-CvRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

After I drove through San Andreas earlier today, to check out and clinch that route you spotted, I noticed (and think I clinched) a similarly-signed Historic CA 49 in Mokelumne Hill a few miles to the north. This one appears to consist of Main Street and Center Street.

Before I add this to the HB, worth poking around GMSV and cahighways.org for any other missing Historic CA 49s. I'm pretty sure there are no others on the part of CA 49 I drove today, between Coulterville and Jackson, but maybe there are others in or north of Jackson.

BTW, the town of San Andreas, in the Sierra Nevada foothills, is nowhere near the San Andreas Fault, and also is in the part of California that won't fall into the ocean. :)
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on November 02, 2018, 07:31:08 pm
I just got back home from northern California, where I did some field-checking while I think clinching all the state routes in northern California I hadn't already covered. The only ones I'm still missing are some in the four coastal counties from Los Angeles County to San Luis Obispo County.

I'll be shortly submitting the following changes to route files, which might affect your list files so watch your error logs:

-- Add CA 49 Historic (Mokelumne Hill), per preceding post, with conforming changes to the CA 49 route file

-- Delete CA 114 as unsigned

-- Truncate CA 87 north of US 101 (Caltrans' Postmile Query Tool says the route ends at US 101)

-- Truncate CA 82 east of I-880, removing mileage relinquished to the city of San Jose (some remnant old route signage, but not enough to guide travelers through several turns in downtown; plus this does not break the route in two), with conforming relabel of north endpoint in San Francisco

-- Adding a few more visible points for CA 61 (Oakland Airport), most notably for the turnoff for the Oakland airport's consolidated car rental facility, and also the winding CA 130 to the Lick Observatory atop Mt. Hamilton

-- Corrected some labels for CA 1 Business (Monterey) and CA 68.

The eastern segment of CA 146, to the east entrance to Pinnacles National Park, also appears to be unsigned. 2012 GMSV shows route signage within or just outside the park (junction markers on CA 25, End 146 marker at the old entrance station, postmiles between the old entrance station and CA 25), even after the park was expanded in 2006 to include all of CA 146's eastern segment. That route signage now has all disappeared. However, this may be temporary, pending decisions by the National Park Service on building a new east entrance station somewhere closer to CA 25, which might result in decommissioning all of eastern CA 146 or only part of it (Caltrans' Postmile Query Tool indicates none of it has yet been decommissioned). So I would hold off for now on removing the segment from the HB. The legislature has authorized the total relinquishment of CA 146, but that hasn't happened except the short stretch of the western segment within Soledad city limits, which has adequate continuation signage so I would leave that alone.

EDIT: I'm adding to today's pull request the removal of relinquished segments of CA 92, CA 185, and CA 238 in Hayward. This set of relinquishments was unusual, in that Hayward was not required to maintain signage pointing to the rest of each route, only to direct travelers to the rest of the state highway network. Sure enough, I saw no continuation signage on the relinquished segments. My changes will remove a few blocks from the east end of CA 92 and the south end of CA 185, and a few miles from the middle of CA 238 (splitting that route into the main Fremont segment, and a short stub in Castro Valley connecting to the I-238 and I-580 freeways).

cahighways.org indicates that in October 2017, the California Transportation Commission approved additional relinquishments for CA 92 east of Santa Clara St., CA 185 south of Rose St., and CA 238 between Industrial Pkwy and Hayward's southern city limit. However, the Postmile Query Tool indicates these latest relinquishments have not yet been implemented -- such delays are common, such as when the city in question wants the state to catch up on roadwork before taking the road off Caltrans' hands. I'll wait on these additional truncations before removing them from the HB.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on November 03, 2018, 05:33:19 pm
Pull request submitted for above changes, and also to clean up unused usaca route files:

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2336

EDIT: In addition to removing CA 114 from the HB, I've made a follow-up pull request to rename the CA114 point in the CA 84 (Fremont) route file to WilRd.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on February 01, 2019, 04:52:32 pm
Following up on mapmikey's note from his recent visit to San Diego (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=397.msg12922#msg12922), I'm truncating the south end of CA 15 to waypoint 1A (Main St.), removing the waypoint for 32ndSt. All the official sources (CalNExUS exit number list, Caltrans Postmile Query Tool, old Caltrans route log) confirm that CA 15 extends south of the I-5 interchange, but ends at Main St. rather than 32nd St.

This has been changed in my local files, and will be pulled into the HB with my next update.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on September 05, 2019, 11:10:41 pm
Copied over from the Florida State Highways topic, for later followup. See https://goo.gl/maps/V7GBBQZNjAUdgb1q7 (END CA 16 sign on Howe Ave. north of Folsom Blvd. before US50 interchange, which I didn't notice when I drove by there in 2017).

Reliquishment of part of CA 16 in Sacramento and Sacramento County has been authorized and agreed to by the local jurisdictions. However, the Postmile Query Tool still shows it as part of CA 16. The authorizing statute requires application to Caltrans to convert the relinquished CA 16 segments into a business route. Not clear what's happening with that, but in the meantime the local jurisdictions are required to maintain continuation signage.

usaca has no standard on implied multiplexes, other than that the implied route can follow only one signed route.
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ca.ca016
http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ca.ca099
Do these need to be split?

Maybe 16, whose multiplex follows I-5 and US 50, and is poorly signed if at all.

99, IIRC that multiplex (also over shorter segments of I-5 and US 50) is reasonably well-signed.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on September 06, 2019, 12:45:42 pm
I'll shortly split CA 16 into a main segment west of Woodland, and separate Willow Springs segment from Sacramento east. This will remove the supposed multiplex with I-5 and US 50. That multiplex is unsigned, and the END CA 16 sign mentioned in the preceding post seals the deal for me.

OTOH, CA 99 will be left as is. There is adequate signage to guide CA 99 travelers though the multiplex with I-5 and US 50.

I'm also truncating CA 14U. Caltrans' best efforts to remove the route entirely from the books have not yet been successful, but it has transferred some of the route to local governments, as shown in Caltrans' Postmile Query Tool (https://postmile.dot.ca.gov/PMQT/PostmileQueryTool.html).

EDIT: Above changes are now in the Highway Browser.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: michih on September 14, 2019, 06:34:54 am
CA16 has a wp label with invalid character: "+!-5(541)": http://travelmapping.net/devel/datacheck.php?rg=CA
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: oscar on September 14, 2019, 07:24:47 am
Thanks! https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3140
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: michih on September 14, 2019, 07:52:58 am
I just realized... alt labels in a preview system? Are there more?
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: si404 on September 14, 2019, 08:59:41 am
I just realized... alt labels in a preview system? Are there more?
Does it matter?

preview allows lists to be broken without warning or update, but while we don't do updates, we don't have to break list files if we don't want to.
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: yakra on September 14, 2019, 09:21:50 am
preview allows lists to be broken without warning or update, but while we don't do updates, we don't have to break list files if we don't want to.
iawtp
Title: Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
Post by: rickmastfan67 on September 18, 2019, 01:06:33 am
I just realized... alt labels in a preview system? Are there more?

I've done it from time to time when I knew an route would be changing numbers sometime in the near future, but not exactly when it would happen.  So, decided to play it safe.