Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Topic started by: si404 on February 16, 2016, 10:53:38 am

Title: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on February 16, 2016, 10:53:38 am
Scope: routes signed with Historic USxx signs

Routes already mapped: see http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?sys=usaush&rg=

Issues: long banner text with dates are hard to implement, as is the historic bit

Requests: other signed routes - where are they?

Comments: over to you
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: the_spui_ninja on February 16, 2016, 11:53:55 pm
Well here's something: http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html (http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html)
As far as I can tell from the pics there is an extant US20His in Marlborough and Becket, MA (although I have no idea of the routings).
There are also some links at the bottom that may or may not be useful.

I'm not sure whether this info is relevant or not, but I put it here for what it's worth.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Bickendan on February 17, 2016, 04:30:37 pm
Hist US 30 The Dalles should be removed: Its entire length is still US 30.
The segment that should be included is from Troutdale to I-84 exit 35 near Warrendale. In fact, I'll send this to Jim now.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on February 17, 2016, 05:41:42 pm
Hist US 30 The Dalles should be removed: Its entire length is still US 30.
The segment that should be included is from Troutdale to I-84 exit 35 near Warrendale. In fact, I'll send this to Jim now.
Thanks for correcting my misinterpretation the description given in discussions of US30 in OR.

Collaborators - please feel free to make alterations to routes in your regions like Bickendan has done.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on February 18, 2016, 02:06:15 am
Quote
Issues: long banner text with dates are hard to implement, as is the historic bit
As usaush.csv is currently formatted, NM HistoricUS66PRE-1937SFe is what would have to go into a .list file to mark a segment as clinched. That's a mouthful. Clunky.
My preference: usaush;NM;US66;His;SFe;Santa Fe;nm.us066hissfe;
That example doesn't include the date information. Leaving it out doesn't seem to create any collisions between same-numbered same-city routes, from my quick look at the CSV. I have no problem including it, as long as it's in the city field, e.g. usaush;NM;US66;His;SFe;(PRE-1937) Santa Fe;nm.us066hissfe; or such.

Quote
Collaborators - please feel free to make alterations to routes in your regions like Bickendan has done.
I remember there was one route in TX that needed some fixes. Don't remember which one though...
Edit: I guess not. Maybe I was thrown off by tx.i040bsgle having the points in reverse order from tx.us066hisgle, or something.

Routes in my regions, a checklist:
tx.us066hisgle / tx.us066hisgle;I-40(0);;;EXIT0;
tx.us066hisadr
tx.us066hisveg
tx.us066hiscon
tx.us066hisgro
tx.us066hisala
tx.us066hismcl
tx.us066hissha
ks.us066hisgal / ks.us066hisgal;KS26/66;;;LABEL_SELFREF;

[Si's post with shield images] (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=43.msg398#msg398)
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on February 21, 2016, 02:11:11 pm
Well here's something: http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html (http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html)
As far as I can tell from the pics there is an extant US20His in Marlborough and Becket, MA (although I have no idea of the routings).
and Weston, MA, New Lebanon, NY, North East, PA, Sandhills, NE...

Sadly the Ostriches haven't roamed those parts for a long time, so route discernment is difficult (the Becket, MA is a tiny former alignment segment where the turnpike diverted it - called Morse Rd).

I've also found a US6His in Provincetown, MA, with a same lack of decent and recent GMSV


I've also fixed the .csv
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on February 21, 2016, 04:59:31 pm
You've made it known that you don't believe that a route being coextensive with an existing route should preclude it from being included in any set it's qualified to be in, and I don't disagree with you in principle. But in the case of Historic US 20 (Painesville, OH) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=oh.us020hispai), the entire route is also the current routing for US 20. To me this seems unnecessary. At least a small part of Historic US 20 (Norwalk, OH) (http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?r=oh.us020hisnor) deviates from the unbannered route.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: vdeane on February 28, 2016, 12:42:06 am
Well here's something: http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html (http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html)
As far as I can tell from the pics there is an extant US20His in Marlborough and Becket, MA (although I have no idea of the routings).
and Weston, MA, New Lebanon, NY, North East, PA, Sandhills, NE...

Sadly the Ostriches haven't roamed those parts for a long time, so route discernment is difficult (the Becket, MA is a tiny former alignment segment where the turnpike diverted it - called Morse Rd).

I've also found a US6His in Provincetown, MA, with a same lack of decent and recent GMSV


I've also fixed the .csv
A small portion of the New Lebanon one appears to follow a local street.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on February 28, 2016, 04:11:03 am
the entire route is also the current routing for US 20. To me this seems unnecessary.
Tell that to the people who erected signs! There's loads of US20His concurrent with US20. And US6His in Provincetown doesn't even have the excuse of the road still being on the original alignment when it does it!
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Quidditch33 on June 09, 2016, 11:32:59 pm
Just out of curiosity, what color will these routes be on the map?

Thanks,
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on June 10, 2016, 08:03:42 am
colors are changeable, but the default will be brown.

Are there any routes I've missed?

What needs to happen to get this system to preview?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Jim on June 10, 2016, 10:38:30 am
colors are changeable, but the default will be brown.

Are there any routes I've missed?

What needs to happen to get this system to preview?

I guess I don't know how we know when this is substantially complete.  I doubt there's an authoritative list out there somewhere we can refer to.  I admit I've been blindly running site updates that include new usaush routes without paying much attention to what's in them (or not).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Quidditch33 on June 10, 2016, 01:24:39 pm
colors are changeable, but the default will be brown.
Thank you.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: sipes23 on June 10, 2016, 05:18:15 pm
I guess I don't know how we know when this is substantially complete.  I doubt there's an authoritative list out there somewhere we can refer to.  I admit I've been blindly running site updates that include new usaush routes without paying much attention to what's in them (or not).

I know it's not an ideal solution, but could we call our selection authoritative and add to it as more new historic routes are "found"? I know it would count as original research in the Wikipedia sense, but do we have a problem with the US Historic roads being a little beta all the time?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Highway63 on June 26, 2016, 08:18:52 pm
Who's putting these together? Apologies if I missed an announcement, but I see IL and MO US 66 files have been created. I don't have any problem with it (I certainly wouldn't have had time to do it), but if a signed route changes that could affect things.

On the portions where the historic route overlaps an active route, are waypoints being taken from existing files? If so, should concurrencies automatically show up yet? Or can that not happen until the system is activated? I'm marked as having 0% of 66 in IL/MO, and I have a bunch of interstate/business loop portions that would count.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on June 27, 2016, 12:12:52 pm
Who's putting these together?
I did about a year ago (well for '66 it was - US20 was more recently).
Quote
On the portions where the historic route overlaps an active route, are waypoints being taken from existing files?
Yes, though there's places where I've had to tweak things (eg add extra points if there wasn't a point where the usush route left a state route), which I didn't do with the state highways. IIRC, there's maybe 20 such points in IL/MO and perhaps 30 in total - it's hard to know exactly at the moment as the easiest ways to find out (broken concurrencies, etc) won't happen unless the system is preview/active.
Quote
If so, should concurrencies automatically show up yet? Or can that not happen until the system is activated?
Not until it's preview, so a 0% score is correct.
I guess I don't know how we know when this is substantially complete.
True, but I'm pretty sure I've got most of them, and we can always add more as people spot them or they get signed (more so the latter, as I look at various groups' sites and they tend to have pictures for every new section signed) - a quick check suggests I'm missing US20 in Termopolis, WY (which shouldn't take long to add)
Quote
I doubt there's an authoritative list out there somewhere we can refer to.
Sure, but the same is the case for various other systems - eg truck routes, several European systems, etc.
I know it's not an ideal solution, but could we call our selection authoritative and add to it as more new historic routes are "found"? I know it would count as original research in the Wikipedia sense, but do we have a problem with the US Historic roads being a little beta all the time?
I don't have a problem with this, though I skew fairly strongly towards P on Myers-Briggs (among other factors that mean similar things), and so a system that might not be fully complete, making a couple of statistics not very authoritative (eg percentage of system clinched) doesn't bother me anyway near as much as I'm sure it would bother other people.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: vdeane on June 30, 2016, 06:07:38 pm
I'm not sure what else could be done for Historic US Routes, unless there's a log somewhere we don't know about.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Highway63 on July 06, 2016, 12:10:39 am
The IA Historic US 20 that right now is confined to Dubuque County can be stretched nearly across the state to Early. Use Olde Castle Road, present 20 to the next intersection into Dyersville, and then the rest of the pre-freeway route should be easy to follow. (Or look at the Iowa DOT map archive.) I'd stick with the ca. 1960s route; the 1926-58 route from Cedar Falls to Jesup has at least two breaks in it, and the 1986-2000/2003 segment via D19 and IA 14 doesn't hold much significance IMO.

IA Historic US 6 can get an Altoona-Newton segment too (F48).

I can make the files if you want.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on July 06, 2016, 05:48:03 am
The IA Historic US 20 that right now is confined to Dubuque County can be stretched nearly across the state to Early. Use Olde Castle Road, present 20 to the next intersection into Dyersville, and then the rest of the pre-freeway route should be easy to follow.
Is it signed?
Quote
(Or look at the Iowa DOT map archive.) I'd stick with the ca. 1960s route; the 1926-58 route from Cedar Falls to Jesup has at least two breaks in it, and the 1986-2000/2003 segment via D19 and IA 14 doesn't hold much significance IMO.
Surely we have what is signed, not a specific year?
Quote
IA Historic US 6 can get an Altoona-Newton segment too (F48).
Again, is it signed? A single sign would be enough to please me.

I gather there are (given the cost given, 2 or 3?) signs in Atlantic http://usroute6iowa.org/node/22, so the Redfield can presumably be extended along US6 (and renamed for the larger city?) a few miles.
Quote
I can make the files if you want.
Thanks.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Highway63 on July 06, 2016, 02:25:02 pm
Oh, I completely misread your intent then. If the old routes have to be SIGNED, then the only highway in Iowa that qualifies is US 6. I thought you were looking for significant segments of bypassed road that one could follow independently, since old 20 in Dubuque County isn't signed, nor is 6 on Broadway in Council Bluffs (unless that's changed since I was last there).

I believe, but am not 100% sure, that Historic 6 has been signed all or mostly all across the state, even where it overlaps with existing 6 - there's a Historic 6 shield with 6 at the IA 48 intersection west of Atlantic. (But it could be only Cass County.) That's only happened in the last couple of years so Google Street View hasn't caught up. Polk County would be a potentially large exception because 6 is partially apart from 80, and the question becomes which route to sign, existing 6 or the really old route that went into downtown Des Moines.

I know old 6 is signed from 63/6 to Ladora (F29).

In Iowa and Illinois the route of the Lincoln Highway is signed, but not (in Iowa's case) Historic US 30.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on July 06, 2016, 08:10:28 pm
Oh, I completely misread your intent then. If the old routes have to be SIGNED, then the only highway in Iowa that qualifies is US 6. I thought you were looking for significant segments of bypassed road that one could follow independently, since old 20 in Dubuque County isn't signed,
https://www.facebook.com/HistoricUSRoute20IA (https://www.facebook.com/HistoricUSRoute20IA) has a clear picture of a Historic US20 sign on Y21.
Quote
nor is 6 on Broadway in Council Bluffs (unless that's changed since I was last there).
GMSV June 15 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.261162,-95.8480389,3a,37.8y,89.72h,91.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2cc2bdvQEXDJTrVJ-mLt-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).

End points might not be exact, and routes aren't fully up-to-date, but I've found signs for all routes in the browser.
Quote
I know old 6 is signed from 63/6 to Ladora (F29).
Along current US6?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Bickendan on July 07, 2016, 07:07:20 pm
Apparently I-5 runs on old US 99 in Wolf Creek, Oregon... https://goo.gl/maps/iFGe1X5BBqv
No sign of Hist US 99 shields, though -- I might have to swing down south to investigate.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Highway63 on July 08, 2016, 01:59:15 pm
https://www.facebook.com/HistoricUSRoute20IA (https://www.facebook.com/HistoricUSRoute20IA) has a clear picture of a Historic US20 sign on Y21.
That's a temporary sign Mr. Farr put up while he was traveling to promote his site. I e-mailed him about it. If you look closely, "Iowa" is taped onto it. There is no comprehensive signage of Historic 20 in Dubuque County, although Farr is trying to get some.

Quote
nor is 6 on Broadway in Council Bluffs (unless that's changed since I was last there).
GMSV June 15 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.261162,-95.8480389,3a,37.8y,89.72h,91.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2cc2bdvQEXDJTrVJ-mLt-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).[/quote]
That's new, then.

Quote
End points might not be exact, and routes aren't fully up-to-date, but I've found signs for all routes in the browser.
Quote
I know old 6 is signed from 63/6 to Ladora (F29).
Along current US6?
If you mean, are there signs pointing to old 6 from current 6 (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7457658,-92.5916293,3a,75y,135.05h,82.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDsuoP65iyXS2ZkKZ6e05yQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), yes.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on July 09, 2016, 03:10:53 pm
https://www.facebook.com/HistoricUSRoute20IA (https://www.facebook.com/HistoricUSRoute20IA) has a clear picture of a Historic US20 sign on Y21.
That's a temporary sign Mr. Farr put up while he was traveling to promote his site. I e-mailed him about it. If you look closely, "Iowa" is taped onto it. There is no comprehensive signage of Historic 20 in Dubuque County, although Farr is trying to get some.
Oh yes, I hadn't realised that taping. IA is your state, if I recall correctly in my current state (just finished crewing a beer festival, and drinking too much of the leftovers), therefore feel free to delete/extend/change files in IA, etc as you see fit.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: oscar on August 14, 2017, 11:37:34 pm
There are very well-signed segments of Historic US 40 in Dixon CA and Sacramento CA, not included in the California HistUS40 segments already in the HB, I don't know the full extent of those segments, or even if they are separate, but IIRC they are on West A Street, N Adams Street, and CA 113 in Dixon, and on 16th Street in downtown Sacramento. That Sacramento segment is currently covered by the HB as part of CA 160, but not for long (at least south of the American River) as explained in the usaca thread.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 15, 2017, 10:22:18 am
The Dixon bit goes down Porter Road, but I can't see any signs on Midway Road. I had a dummy file for Sacramento, but had forgot about it. With the recent GMSV update I've been able to work out the extent of signage to add it.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 18, 2017, 11:17:03 am
I've synced up points so that these routes intersect properly with other routes. I've not fixed NMPs.

This means that various I-, US and state route files have been changed slightly. I've pinged the relevant people via Github (apart from Jeff M, who isn't on there). Please check you are OK with the changes I'm proposing.

Jeff M: IA (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/4679d10a2b29b43ed95622450d2f9bcd9da37309), IL (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/9706093c15fb8b9fc5cdf0d1bdd4780389a85d2a), MO (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/1e22633a250bcbdc341172a14a825f82b8099bbd)
Mapcat: OH (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/f264793200b099b4e6b4f4323b158cd05b9dae5b)
Oscar: CA (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/6e85d3aa0add063889de6e7f160478a444bfcebc), NM (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/7303abf53f4a2c202d7a5eeb7dbd10cae8b9c937)
Rickmansfast67 / theFXexpert: GA (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/dea543717278e5acb682b633fc428c53a118a9d1)
Yakra: MA (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/546d5e49d690191bf81be92f6a50fd17c20a7ef5), NE (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/05d8a1d846b8d5a121a55b3673aa2cf638da57ff), NY (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/b77de57ef03a21b4078e373be14f68e9dd8a2a92), OK (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/2b221c629851c12ddb661c07125b0c7ffba50d95)
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on August 18, 2017, 03:11:02 pm
Please check you are OK with the changes I'm proposing.
Yakra: MA (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/546d5e49d690191bf81be92f6a50fd17c20a7ef5), NE (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/05d8a1d846b8d5a121a55b3673aa2cf638da57ff), NY (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/b77de57ef03a21b4078e373be14f68e9dd8a2a92), OK (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/2b221c629851c12ddb661c07125b0c7ffba50d95)
I'm not sure how wild I am about US20His style labels in general, but I'll let that matter go for the time being...

OK:
The US66HisWea changes effectively revert a change (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/a262c7154cc919bd7f55173d66734159ecdc47b5) I made a while back. I removed the point on I-40, as there was no junction there; the point wasn't on the US66His roadway. US66His uses just the northern frontage road here, but northbound OK58Med uses the northern frontage road, and southbound OK58Med uses the southern one. Thus I-40 & OK58Med intersect at (35.536352°, -98.575079°), but I decided a different solution was in order for US66His. I went with one OK58 point (where OK58Med crosses SB, and leaves the concurrency NB), and then added the other point at N2480 for those travelers who'd passed through the area on northbound OK58Med, and would want to mark off the corresponding section of US66His as clinched.

US69: US66His -> US66His_Nar. Fine for US59, as it's the only US66His point on that route.

OK66: US66His_LkOW & US66His_LkOE -> US66His_Yuk & US66His_Okl

NE:
US20: might as well leave OldSmiSDr_E out. It's a minor one-way (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6616924,-103.5691808,3a,16y,16.86h,89.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOFc5LyUkbcvOKcOHCYjGvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) park road, not needed for shaping. (I just recently added in SolCreRd per a request in for forum for a point in the state park; that should suffice.) As for the existing OldSmiSDr_W, that was just added in as a shaping point. Its name is not up to current labeling standards; it should probably be SmiCanDr instead.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 18, 2017, 06:29:50 pm
I'm not sure how wild I am about US20His style labels in general, but I'll let that matter go for the time being...
What would you prefer? Very happy to change where possible. oscar wanted road names, so I changed them to that.
Quote
NE:
US20: might as well leave OldSmiSDr_E out. It's a minor one-way (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.6616924,-103.5691808,3a,16y,16.86h,89.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOFc5LyUkbcvOKcOHCYjGvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) park road, not needed for shaping.
It was needed for the intersecting route, not shaping - somewhere some time ago, I saw fit to include the park road due to signage. However I can't find it now and I'm pulling the route back and dropping it.
Quote
As for the existing OldSmiSDr_W, that was just added in as a shaping point. Its name is not up to current labeling standards; it should probably be SmiCanDr instead.
relabelled, along with the other suggestions.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on August 19, 2017, 02:01:19 am
What would you prefer? Very happy to change where possible. oscar wanted road names, so I changed them to that.
Not sure I follow. Road names, like ElmSt & MainSt? Or route names? I see US66His etc. in the CA & NM commits.

Quote
As for the existing OldSmiSDr_W, that was just added in as a shaping point. Its name is not up to current labeling standards; it should probably be SmiCanDr instead.
relabelled, along with the other suggestions.
I see (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/NE/usaus/ne.us020.wpt) OldSmiDr (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/blob/abe48d1bd2591d4d975043bb310ef05cb39101fc/hwy_data/NE/usaus/ne.us020.wpt) right now. Mind changing it to SmiCanDr, since you'll be the next one to have a commie LOL commit merged in for that file?
Thanks for making all those fixes.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 19, 2017, 04:03:55 am
Not sure I follow. Road names, like ElmSt & MainSt?
Yes
Quote
I see US66His etc. in the CA & NM commits.
Which I've since changed to road names.
Quote
I see (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/NE/usaus/ne.us020.wpt) OldSmiDr (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/blob/abe48d1bd2591d4d975043bb310ef05cb39101fc/hwy_data/NE/usaus/ne.us020.wpt) right now. Mind changing it to SmiCanDr, since you'll be the next one to have a commie LOL commit merged in for that file?
You're right, fixed now.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Bickendan on August 19, 2017, 03:40:53 pm
Si, remember when I had you switch out the Rowena Crest section of Hist US 30 for the Columbia River Gorge section a while back?
Turns out both are signed in the field! US 30 prime is also signed (or just becomes US 30H) through Rowena Crest after leaving The Dalles.
I'll upload the Rowena Crest section with my update to US 97 and the OR 99s. Since both segments of US 30H are in the Columbia River Gorge, the first segment should be renamed --
Crown Point?
Columbia River Gorge Waterfalls?
Multnomah Falls?
Troutdale-Dodson?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on August 20, 2017, 02:17:29 am
Not sure I follow. Road names, like ElmSt & MainSt?
Yes
Oh nice. I prefer that style too actually, and feel better about asking for it if Oscar already did so & you were happy to make the changes.
FWIW, I followed this same convention when developing cannss. EG, NS NS4 PepSt (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.655972&lon=-60.875081), instead of BrasdOrDr_WhateverDirectionalOrCitySuffix...

I remember there was one other US66His label in KS. Other than that I'm not aware of anything else you changed in my regions before these recent commits.

Quote
I see US66His etc. in the CA & NM commits.
Which I've since changed to road names.
Which I could have seen had I thought to do for Oscar's commits what I did for mine, and replace the arcane hexadecimal commit number in the GitHub url with "master" ;P
I don't see myself stopping posting on the Internet at 2am anytime soon though. :-/

You're right, fixed now.
Thanks!
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on August 21, 2017, 08:17:29 pm
MA US20:
US20His_Hun -> OldStaHwy
US20His_MarW -> MainSt_MarW
US20His_MarE -> MainSt_MarW

NE US20:
SmiCanDr +OldSmiSDr_W -> SmiCanDr

OK US59:
140Rd -> E0140
delete +X05930

OK US69:
140thRd -> E0140
delete +X05930

The rest looks good
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 23, 2017, 03:24:30 am
I've gone with everyone having names on existing routes, rather than USxxHis labels (some are OldUSxx or varients of, as that is what the road is named).

change log here: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1551/files (Jim's waiting on confirmation before pulling in)
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on August 23, 2017, 04:16:00 am
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1551/files#diff-ebbc96f75e12035e486661c9ef81de01
That's one funky filename. o_O
Isn't the Lincoln Highway outside the scope of the usaush system?

That said though, I approve of the changes in MA, NE, NY and OK.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 23, 2017, 04:03:57 pm
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1551/files#diff-ebbc96f75e12035e486661c9ef81de01
That's one funky filename. o_O
It's obvious what it is though. I didn't want to add 20-something points to the actual US30 file, but didn't want to play hunt-and-name them should we include the Lincoln Highway to the project.
Quote
Isn't the Lincoln Highway outside the scope of the usaush system?
It's not in the .csvs, but I've drafted IL and IN should we decide to add this route which is in the sphere of this system, but not currently its scope, to the project (either in this, or another, system).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on September 10, 2017, 02:08:02 pm
Can you post a link to where you found the endpoints for the US20His routes in Ohio? I'm wondering how you decided to limit them to those three particular segments.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 11, 2017, 09:20:21 am
the end points are rather random. I basically took the existing US20 points after a sign, or where I guessed a sign might be.

However, more have been added (this recent document (http://historicus20.com/iowa.html) about getting the route really well done in IA has Bellevue, Monroeville, Norwalk, Wakeman, Elyria, Willoughby, Mentor, Painesville and North Perry have signs, so I need to extend the Painesville section at some point) or I just gave up trying to find. It doesn't help that GMSV is either too old, or that the signs are very hard to find. I haven't found too many - this one in Monroeville (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2361633,-82.689598,3a,22.5y,281.82h,88.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suPXLH2lc9ClWbF2L2nleWw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), this one in Willoughby (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.621917,-81.4495758,3a,75y,91.44h,69.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPDhd_dPhTUS8awgDLUDWJg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), this one in North Perry (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.7700949,-81.1737358,3a,35.3y,65.1h,81.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3IpowU-jCYj1SjPUMlyB_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), and this one in Painesville (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7128917,-81.260045,3a,40.8y,289.2h,86.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sL7XhWYgsak3jirTkC0VfWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Otherwise it is photos - eg Norwalk (http://www.norwalkreflector.com/gallery/Norwalk-unveils-special-signs-for-Route-20).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on September 14, 2017, 08:36:02 pm
the end points are rather random. I basically took the existing US20 points after a sign, or where I guessed a sign might be.

Then how is this any different from looking at an old map, seeing where US20 used to be routed, and calling that US20HisFoo?

I finally had a chance to GMSV US20HisEly from end to end and didn't see a single sign. Imagery was from 2013-2016.

The Monroeville sign in your link was the only one I found on US20HisNor (the imagery for the intersection shown in the article predates the unveiling).

I'm just looking for some justification for these two (US20HisPai seems safe), or a reason not to add the former alignment in Fremont (which is actually signed, albeit in a nonstandard manner (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3464278,-83.1068985,3a,40.1y,242.53h,91.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQTAu6X2gyDZFdcFbofXkaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 15, 2017, 02:40:52 pm
Then how is this any different from looking at an old map, seeing where US20 used to be routed, and calling that US20HisFoo?
Because it's signed as Historic US20 rather than merely the old route of it?

That said, I can't find any signs, despite GMSV being mostly recent enough to fit the June 2016 date for the supposed signage in the town.
Quote
I'm just looking for some justification for these two
Why isn't Norwalk safe? - as you say, GMSV is pre-unveiling of signage. The end points might need tweaking (the west end seems to be OH113, with nothing further west in Bellevue), but it's clearly signed in several places. Here's a third (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2686721,-82.8160253,3a,27.1y,355.77h,85.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQ-CM0qqHnOH0ysahPXu6iw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). Wakeman's GMSV is too early.
Quote
a reason not to add the former alignment in Fremont (which is actually signed, albeit in a nonstandard manner (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.3464278,-83.1068985,3a,40.1y,242.53h,91.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQTAu6X2gyDZFdcFbofXkaw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)).
I didn't realise 'City Route 20' signs are valid for inclusion as Historic US20.  :o

And especially silly when you are saying that Historic US20 signs aren't enough for the Norwalk section!
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on September 15, 2017, 11:31:36 pm
Because it's signed as Historic US20 rather than merely the old route of it?

*Some* of the route is signed, but a large part of your file seems to be guesswork. Ohio's historic US routes don't seem to be in the same class as the well-signed examples in California or Illinois. Granted, it would be pointless to have a 2-block route for the small segment signed in Monroeville and another tiny segment near another sign in Norwalk, but keeping all of US20HisNor in a single file demands a lot more guesswork than a route should require. The endpoints are ambiguous. The phantom Elyria segment is more than ambiguous.

Would it be better to unite all of these segments into a single one, since the organization (possibly just one extremely dedicated and/or obsessive gentleman) posting the signs evidently intends to use them to promote the entire route of US20?

Quote
I didn't realise 'City Route 20' signs are valid for inclusion as Historic US20.  :o

And especially silly when you are saying that Historic US20 signs aren't enough for the Norwalk section!

I didn't say I wished to include that segment, only that it was more clearly signed (as *something*) than the Norwalk section.

I'd prefer to hold off on all of the Ohio routes until signage becomes more consistent across the state. Is any other state as careless with its Historic Route signage?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: bejacob on September 18, 2017, 10:22:17 pm
I'm somewhat puzzled by this set of routes. I've seen a fair number of "Historic US Route" X in my travels and have even driven some, so I like the idea of being able to add a few more to my list.

What I don't know are the criteria for including a Historic route? I assume it must be signed. What else? Must the route be decommissioned or have a segment relocated?

I can see why it might be necessary when a route is signed as "Historic" though a town when a bypass was created and the old route was not designated a "Business" route or replaced by a state route of the same number (WA 99 in Federal Way for instance). The idea of a Historic route having a concurrency with the same numbered route that still exists seems like an oxymoron (how can it be a historic route if it is still a current route? I can understand for the segments that deviate from the current route).

One route I know is signed but not included is Historic US395 in Riverside, CA. Are there others?

I like the idea of adding Historic routes, but there seems to be a lot of confusion about appropriate waypoints, signage, concurrencies, and which routes to include. At least with most other systems, there usually some sort of official list maintained by the state DOT.

Now that this system is in "preview," I'll probably add several routes to my list. I'm still not sure I completely understand what's being included or left out of this system, but I'll go along with whatever is in the HB.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: oscar on September 19, 2017, 11:51:06 am
I've seen Historic US 99E signs in Chico CA, and US 99W signs somewhere along I-5BL Orland (a poorly-signed BL that was really borderline for staying in the HB). I have a photo of one of the latter. The Chico 99E segment followed in part the decommissioned CA99 Business route through Chico, but continued south on Midway where the business route turned east on Park Ave.

Is there a more systematic way of identifying CA's generally well-signed historic US routes, other than randomly through reports on this forum?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: bejacob on September 20, 2017, 08:50:47 am
the entire route is also the current routing for US 20. To me this seems unnecessary.
Tell that to the people who erected signs! There's loads of US20His concurrent with US20. And US6His in Provincetown doesn't even have the excuse of the road still being on the original alignment when it does it!

I know I am quoting an old comment, but it helps explain my confusion with this system.

Just because some group erected "Historic Route" signs, what makes a route worth including?
Is the some sort of "official designation" by state DOTs for historic routes?
If not, who determined which routes are included?
How will we know if the route list is complete? Is there some "master" list?
Will early US "auto routes" like the Lincoln Highway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Highway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Highway) (which covered parts of US30, US50, and others) be included especially in places where is deviates from the existing alignment? (I know a great deal of signage exists in the Midwest on parts of this route).
What about routes that had different alignments over time?
Once usaush is done, will there be a push to do the same at a state level? (Are there even any signed historic state routes?)

I like the idea of adding historic routes, I just wonder whether enough consideration was given to the above questions. The system is already in "preview," so there is probably little chance of going back now. A little clarification might however be useful moving forward.

I'm all in favor of adding new systems. I was glad to see usanp and several state systems (CA, FL, GA) added to "preview" recently. I've still got some big gaps in places like AL, LA, and MS where state systems have not yet been developed.

This system just feels a bit slapdash especially if TM contributors are relying on "reports from the field" to make sure the route list is complete. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the effort and will be glad to add any new routes to my list file. I'm just looking for a bit of clarity on this route system. It's still somewhat confusing as to the criteria for a route to be included.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 20, 2017, 10:16:29 am
What I don't know are the criteria for including a Historic route? I assume it must be signed. What else? Must the route be decommissioned or have a segment relocated?
Just signed. The other stuff adds a layer of complexity as to whether a route is included or not that a driver won't easily know about. Ideally, one would only see signs on decomissioned/bypassed sections, but alas that isn't the case.

Quote
The idea of a Historic route having a concurrency with the same numbered route that still exists seems like an oxymoron (how can it be a historic route if it is still a current route? I can understand for the segments that deviate from the current route).
I agree, but it seems that some people want to sign existing routes as historic routes and so have done so. My favourite example for this nonsense is the US6 Historic Route in Provincetown, MA - where it's clearly a bypass (MA6A going through the town) and is current US6.

Quote
One route I know is signed but not included is Historic US395 in Riverside, CA.
Added, though it seems to peter out at the north end.

Quote
At least with most other systems, there usually some sort of official list maintained by the state DOT.
The issue is that these routes are created or maintained by the state. In some cases they are, in others it's cities and counties (and, obviously, some are just businesses or campaigns).



US 99W signs somewhere along I-5BL(Orland -- a poorly-signed BL that was really borderline for staying in the HB).
I only found one sign on GMSV, in Willows, but added. There's also two in Williams, which is annoying as same first three-letters, so I'm going with Willows and Williams for the abbreviations
Quote
The Chico 99E segment followed in part the decommissioned CA99 Business route through Chico, but continued south on Midway where the business route turned east on Park Ave.
The late 2016 GMSV shows CA99 signs northbound on Main, but not His-99E signs either way on the old Bus-99 route, and I can't see it on Midway - this is a recent route, added in the last 10 months. I need more info to add it, though you can add it.
Quote
Is there a more systematic way of identifying CA's generally well-signed historic US routes, other than randomly through reports on this forum?
it seems to mostly be cities/counties signing these routes, so there's nothing really unified.



Just because some group erected "Historic Route" signs, what makes a route worth including?
How can a driver tell whether it's a state, county, city, lobby group/non-profit, or business that erected a sign? No one seems to have a problem if a state DOT is the one putting up signs (especially if has its beaurocracy Vogonishly catalogue the routes), what's the problem with signs put up by other entities if drivers can't tell the difference?

Quote
Is the some sort of "official designation" by state DOTs for historic routes?
I don't believe so. IA seems to be heading down that path, though - hence the US20 presentation to get the route designated, with Iowa DOT getting cities and counties signing the route.

Quote
If not, who determined which routes are included?
the contributors - I've gone with if it's signed, it's included.

Quote
How will we know if the route list is complete? Is there some "master" list?
We won't - to some extent. But think of it more of a grab-bag, rather than a coherent and complete system, and why does it matter? The point is to map these routes (and also doing the job of documenting them), where we've discovered them, and to map our travels on them.

For gbna, SABRE, is the master list that the DfT directs people too, and most of the changes I've made in the last year or two, I've also made on the 'official' list of SABRE, therefore the master list is basically TM contributor findings (from posts on road geek forums, signage on streetview/photos, etc) - ie the same as this system.

For a lot of European systems, I've found no official list for and used wikipedia or wegenwiki, along with mapping data, to make the routes.
Quote
Will early US "auto routes" like the Lincoln Highway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Highway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Highway) (which covered parts of US30, US50, and others) be included especially in places where is deviates from the existing alignment? (I know a great deal of signage exists in the Midwest on parts of this route).
While I personally have no objections to signed Lincoln Highway segments being included in this system, the feedbank I've recieved so far that it doesn't belong in this system.

Quote
What about routes that had different alignments over time?
If there signed. cf US66's different routings.

Quote
I just wonder whether enough consideration was given to the above questions. The system is already in "preview," so there is probably little chance of going back now.
I've certainly considered all those questions. The move to preview has a lot to do with making the routes more accessible and getting other people to engage and consider questions like these - the system was devel status for two years and there was mostly silence on this.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: bejacob on September 20, 2017, 12:54:36 pm
I appreciate the thoughtful comments.

I'm still slightly concerned about "just signed" as the sole criteria.

I discovered a few years back that a US62Bus sign placed on the Ohio side of the Ohio River was a mistake http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=6277c09d12eb9d5b31cc221a9c0be320&topic=15733.msg2121667#msg2121667 (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=6277c09d12eb9d5b31cc221a9c0be320&topic=15733.msg2121667#msg2121667) and that a US62Bus did not actually exist in this area despite signage to the contrary. That may not be relevant if there is no "official" list of Historic route, but recalling this old discussion, I thought it worth mentioning.

Then there is situation in Paso Robles with US101. It's in the HB as US101BusPas, but signed in the field as "Historic US101" http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1937.msg5340#msg5340 (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1937.msg5340#msg5340). Does that mean this route needs to be included in both the usausb and usaush systems?

The bottom line for me is this. It's your (the TM contributors) sandbox. I just play in it. The thoughts and opinions of those developing and maintaining these systems are what really count.
If these routes are in the HB and I've driven them, they go on my list. (I didn't get to 100,000 miles by leaving things out  ;)).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on October 12, 2017, 12:58:41 am
Si, don't know if this will actually provide any new info for you, but nonetheless:
http://www.kwwl.com/story/36568671/2017/10/11/turning-an-old-highway-into-the-new-route-66
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Barefoot Driver on October 18, 2017, 03:18:48 am
please note that there is a segment of historic us-6 in polk county, ia.
the link is http://usroute6iowa.org/about-us/route-description (http://usroute6iowa.org/about-us/route-description).
i can remember when this road went onto sw 8th in altoona (from hubbell, instead of staying with that to i-80 as it does now) and continued onto what is now f48 (and that county road sports some of the g. a. r. highway signage) but am unsure as to where it joined up with 6 beyond that.
i also recall when hickman rd east of merle hay was part of 6. i knew this because the street had no curbs, just shoulders.
finally, has there been any effort to find old alignments of other highways? i know that us-65 (the “jefferson highway”) used to follow ne 14th and turn onto grand, go to w 7th, cross the viaduct, follow 7th to indianola av, and rejoin se 14th from there. the reason for that was that the railroad bridge on se 14th had not been constructed yet. (i have no idea what us-69 did then, since that highway also followed e 14th and still does.)
happy travels all!
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Highway63 on October 22, 2017, 07:38:34 pm
I've synced up points so that these routes intersect properly with other routes. I've not fixed NMPs.

This means that various I-, US and state route files have been changed slightly. I've pinged the relevant people via Github (apart from Jeff M, who isn't on there). Please check you are OK with the changes I'm proposing.

Jeff M: IA (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/4679d10a2b29b43ed95622450d2f9bcd9da37309), IL (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/9706093c15fb8b9fc5cdf0d1bdd4780389a85d2a),
 (https://github.com/si404/HighwayData/commit/1e22633a250bcbdc341172a14a825f82b8099bbd)

I need to apologize for not being on this earlier. I don't check this forum every day, nor do I check every thread. That said, I have a HUGE problem with this. Manipulating active system files for a prototype defeats the entire purpose of having one person in charge of a state.

There is a world of difference between making suggestions and going in and changing stuff. That complicates my end for having a complete set of up-to-date local files, and for when I'm working on something else - the Baraboo bypass affected half a dozen files.

The change to IA 21 was unnecessary because there was already a waypoint name there, the name of the current route (CRF29). Does a historic route name supersede an existing designation? For a street without a current designation, is the naming convention "OldUSXX" or "USXXHist" or what?

I fear that adding all these historic routes is missing the forest for the trees - or missing the forest to catalog every dead stump. The segment of US 6 in Des Moines pointed out above hasn't been part of mainline 6 since 1934 and hasn't been signed as anything since the early 1960s.

I know it's two months after the fact, but I am very not OK with this. If we're going to make historic routes a thing, we need to set parameters, probably limit it to very significant highways and alignments, and have the routes maintained by that state's administrator.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: bejacob on October 23, 2017, 07:46:08 pm
I know it's two months after the fact, but I am very not OK with this. If we're going to make historic routes a thing, we need to set parameters, probably limit it to very significant highways and alignments, and have the routes maintained by that state's administrator.

Couldn't agree more. I don't think historic routes should be a system, signed or otherwise as noted by my earlier comments. Once upon a time they may have been actual signed "official" routes, but they aren't any more. I see the "Historic" route signage as akin to the roadside historical markers. Even Historic US66, which is undoubtedly the most famous historical route isn't well marked in all places as I discovered on a recent trip in Oklahoma. The majority of decommissioned US routes have been renumbered as state routes (i.e. OK66). At least there is some official repository at the state level for those routes. As someone mentioned previously, other than users just noticing signage in the field, there's no way of being certain this system could ever be complete.

While I'll hate to lose the mileage I have clinched on those few segments that aren't part of the state route systems, I believe the historic route system should be scrapped. If they do end up staying, the folks handling the appropriate regions need to take these on. I'm sure there will be a difference of opinion on the subject, and I'll be interested to hear the pros and cons.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on October 27, 2017, 09:24:40 am
Manipulating active system files for a prototype defeats the entire purpose of having one person in charge of a state.
Your not having reset the files back to how you want them is what defeats the entire purpose of having one person in charge of a state!

You've moaned and griped and done nothing to fix it - do you want to be in charge of your states, or do you want to sit on the sidelines and complain about how you apparently aren't?

You've ignored my apologies, you've ignored me saying (at least twice) that you should undo the changes if you don't like them. It's like you are deliberately holding a grudge!
Quote
The change to IA 21 was unnecessary because there was already a waypoint name there, the name of the current route (CRF29). Does a historic route name supersede an existing designation? For a street without a current designation, is the naming convention "OldUSXX" or "USXXHist" or what?
Sorry, I must have missed that one when reverting that type of change. CRF29 should be the label. I would change it back, but you don't want me anywhere near your fief.
Quote
I fear that adding all these historic routes is missing the forest for the trees - or missing the forest to catalog every dead stump.
'every dead stump'? No, just the ones that are actively signed! It was you that got confused as to why some dead stumps were missing last year, proposing adding former US20 and US6 across Iowa, even though it was not signed.
Quote
The segment of US 6 in Des Moines pointed out above hasn't been part of mainline 6 since 1934 and hasn't been signed as anything since the early 1960s.
The one Barefoot Driver lists? I couldn't find signage (I might have seen one sign), and so have no plans to add it.

The proposal made by Barefoot Driver sounds similar, though less excessive, to this post:
The IA Historic US 20 that right now is confined to Dubuque County can be stretched nearly across the state to Early. Use Olde Castle Road, present 20 to the next intersection into Dyersville, and then the rest of the pre-freeway route should be easy to follow. (Or look at the Iowa DOT map archive.) I'd stick with the ca. 1960s route; the 1926-58 route from Cedar Falls to Jesup has at least two breaks in it, and the 1986-2000/2003 segment via D19 and IA 14 doesn't hold much significance IMO.

IA Historic US 6 can get an Altoona-Newton segment too (F48).

I can make the files if you want.

Even Historic US66, which is undoubtedly the most famous historical route isn't well marked in all places as I discovered on a recent trip in Oklahoma.
OK is the exception here with US66 (due to OK66), but there's 10 different signed segments of Historic US66 in the state. And I'm not sure why we need routes to be long to include them!
Quote
The majority of decommissioned US routes have been renumbered as state routes (i.e. OK66).
Sure, but why should those bits that aren't, but are considered important enough to be signed as a historic US route be ignored?
Quote
At least there is some official repository at the state level for those routes.
You want me to delete gbna? Because there's NO official repository for those routes!
Quote
As someone mentioned previously, other than users just noticing signage in the field, there's no way of being certain this system could ever be complete.
Sure, but why does that matter??
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: bejacob on October 27, 2017, 10:36:30 am
As I mentioned previously, I'm just a user of the site. You don't need my buy-in. I do think it appropriate to get the buy-in from those who maintain the individual regions/states. From the tone of a few of the past comments, that does not appear to have happened.

I've expressed my concerns. They don't seem to matter, so I'll leave the matter to those involved with updating routes in each state. Hopefully an agreement can be reached. I'll continue to update my travels based on whatever is included in the HB.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: oscar on October 27, 2017, 11:31:40 am
I have mixed feelings about a historic routes set. Basically, I like having them around, and indeed contributed a route file (Historic US 6 in southern California, which follows what used to be in the CA 14U route file, but when I cleaned up that file then truncated away most of it, the historic route set was a good home for the deleted segment). OTOH, I don't have a lot of interest in developing or maintaining those route files, so am content to let someone else do that. I did let Si alter some usaca route files after I objected to some of his point renames (basically, no "Hist___" points in non-historic files, instead use normal non-historic intersecting road names). I'm satisfied with how that got resolved.

One issue is that the California historic route files were drafted when the I-/US/CA routes in that state were still being worked on. As I've been fixing up routes to get usaca ready for peer review (still a few dozen left), that has created a lot of NMPs and broken concurrences with the draft historic routes. I'm not fixing them now so I can focus on usaca, but they will need to be fixed later once usaca goes active.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Jim on October 27, 2017, 11:42:16 am
I think that a key point in this is that the "official" version of our data has to be that which is in the HighwayData repository rather than what's in anyone's local files.  Before making any changes, we all need to make sure we merge in the latest from the origin repository on GitHub.

I've stepped aside from highway data management for a while now, but I know I'd rather have minor fixes made (with a quick note to me that it happened) as long as by someone experienced enough that we trust they'll do the right thing, instead of having to see a problem report, go in and fix it, submit a pull request, go back and mark the request.  I do this kind of thing all the time if I notice a minor problem with labeling or the position of a route.  It's easier for me to fix than to type in the post here asking for that state's maintainer to do it.

The usaush situation is a little different, since it introduced new labels, etc, into active systems.  Even there, though it seems Jeff M. disagrees, if Si were adding a new devel system in a state I maintained, I would want him to make conforming changes to active systems.  Some new contributor without the experience, I'd be worried.  Sure, mistakes might be made but they can be worked out.

I'd like to be able to allow continued email submissions of highway data files from those uncomfortable with git and GitHub, but I think many actual and potential problems would go away if we could get more people using it.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: vdeane on October 29, 2017, 01:47:20 pm
Quote
As someone mentioned previously, other than users just noticing signage in the field, there's no way of being certain this system could ever be complete.
Sure, but why does that matter??
Some of us use Travel Mapping as a "checklist" of routes to clinch and strive to get to 100% for certain regions/systems (or, in my case, certain parts of the map, so it looks good).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Highway63 on November 06, 2017, 03:08:58 pm
If the Historic Routes are going to be an active system, I want to take over Iowa's. IL and MO US 66 stuff is fine but the Iowa routes need work.

On the Lincoln Highway file in GitHub, there are multiple places where loop routes (as signed in the field) are incorporated into the mainline and should be parted out. The Marion loop is the biggest example.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on February 10, 2018, 02:38:46 am
Route66 Historic Alignments (https://gis-okdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ed838af735da4f03ab820b190e2844bf_0?geometry=-98.466%2C35.535%2C-98.032%2C35.633)
Quote
Represents all known historic alignments of US Route 66 in the state of Oklahoma. Based on historical research using Oklahoma Department of Transportation records and other sources.
LOL have fun :D
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on February 10, 2018, 06:41:54 am
If the Historic Routes are going to be an active system, I want to take over Iowa's. IL and MO US 66 stuff is fine but the Iowa routes need work.
You can do so now. I'm really not that fussed about it being me doing the improving and such-like. I'd much rather state maintainers did it and then there's less toes trodden on, etc.
Quote
On the Lincoln Highway file in GitHub, there are multiple places where loop routes (as signed in the field) are incorporated into the mainline and should be parted out. The Marion loop is the biggest example.
Fair enough. I sought to follow the signs, but will bow to greater knowledge. Again - change how you want. Obviously we don't have that route in a system, but I drafted a route file for my own interest and felt it might as well be uploaded.

Route66 Historic Alignments (https://gis-okdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ed838af735da4f03ab820b190e2844bf_0?geometry=-98.466%2C35.535%2C-98.032%2C35.633)
LOL have fun :D
Most of that isn't signed as His US66. So we don't need to bother with it  :P

Some of us use Travel Mapping as a "checklist" of routes to clinch and strive to get to 100% for certain regions/systems (or, in my case, certain parts of the map, so it looks good).
If you are doing an area - then you'll see signs, know that it's something we're adding and probably drive it. Certainly you'd request the route be added/add the route yourself so that it exists and you can grab it. We've had lots of these "I was driving here, and this route was signed" posts with state routes, auxiliary US routes and the like.

If you are intrigued by this system specifically, then you'd know that there's no nice neat record and you'd keep your ear to the ground about new signs going up and such like. And, again, request/add routes as you are made aware of them. Now sure, it's a little harder than AASHTO publishing approved route changes (but isn't dissimilar to the many many states that add in/remove auxillary US routes/Business I-routes without informing AASHTO) or detailed lists being made and published by the state DoT regularly. But it's not impossible.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on February 11, 2018, 12:50:16 am
There's a spur route of 66 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7621307,-90.1267948,3a,79.5y,286.07h,97.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMcsxKmdbgWkSYEzRqVRxYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Illinois along the road leading up to the old Chain of Rocks Bridge.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: vdeane on February 11, 2018, 10:46:49 am
If you are doing an area - then you'll see signs, know that it's something we're adding and probably drive it. Certainly you'd request the route be added/add the route yourself so that it exists and you can grab it. We've had lots of these "I was driving here, and this route was signed" posts with state routes, auxiliary US routes and the like.

If you are intrigued by this system specifically, then you'd know that there's no nice neat record and you'd keep your ear to the ground about new signs going up and such like. And, again, request/add routes as you are made aware of them. Now sure, it's a little harder than AASHTO publishing approved route changes (but isn't dissimilar to the many many states that add in/remove auxillary US routes/Business I-routes without informing AASHTO) or detailed lists being made and published by the state DoT regularly. But it's not impossible.
Not necessarily.  The Historic US 20 route near New Lebanon, NY has zero signage in the field, even on the small piece of the route that isn't concurrent with modern US 20 (which I made a special trip to clinch a couple years ago, since I had already seen everything else in the area and therefore have no other reason to go there).  Signage for the other Historic US 20 route in NY is a small shield attached with zip ties to an existing sign by the Historic US 20 group.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Highway63 on February 28, 2018, 01:19:02 am
There's a spur route of 66 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7621307,-90.1267948,3a,79.5y,286.07h,97.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMcsxKmdbgWkSYEzRqVRxYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) in Illinois along the road leading up to the old Chain of Rocks Bridge.
I can make a file with a point at the parking lot and then across the river for those who walk it. I don't know quite what to do in MO, though, because a matching file would be the walking path across the bridge to the lot on that side.

I apologize for my non-attention to the historic routes and will try to spend some time on them this week.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on February 28, 2018, 07:58:05 am
I can make a file with a point at the parking lot and then across the river for those who walk it. I don't know quite what to do in MO, though, because a matching file would be the walking path across the bridge to the lot on that side.
I think that ending it at the parking lot is fine. Is the walking path across the bridge signed as a highway?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Highway63 on March 04, 2018, 01:10:44 am
It's got "Historic 66" signs but it's closed to vehicles, but it is walkable.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on March 04, 2018, 02:35:38 am
VT65 Brookfield Floating Bridge?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Duke87 on March 12, 2018, 11:03:14 pm
Well here's something: http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html (http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html)
As far as I can tell from the pics there is an extant US20His in Marlborough and Becket, MA (although I have no idea of the routings).
There are also some links at the bottom that may or may not be useful.

I would like to point out that the Historic US 20 signs shown in Massachusetts on this site were either photoshopped into those pictures, or temporarily mounted by the owner of that website (Bryan Farr) for the purpose of taking a picture and then removed.

Bryan has been lobbying to get Historic US 20 signage on old alignments in every state it passes through, but as far as I can tell none have actually been posted in Massachusetts.

For exaple this is what the location of the sign shown in Marlborough actually looks like as of August 2017: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.​3469468,-71.5471033,3a,15y,291.97​h,88.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slI4B​fV3qyoshnye-RXCzZg!2e0!7i13312!8i​6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.​3469468,-71.5471033,3a,15y,291.97​h,88.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slI4B​fV3qyoshnye-RXCzZg!2e0!7i13312!8i​6656)
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: froggie on March 27, 2018, 08:38:44 am
Quote
VT65 Brookfield Floating Bridge?

Has been reopened to vehicle traffic for over a year now...
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: neroute2 on April 17, 2018, 07:02:43 pm
So...how does CA US40HisSac actually go downtown? The way TM handles one-way pairs makes it impossible to tell.
(It also doesn't seem to play well with the CA160 waypoint AmeRiv.)
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: oscar on April 17, 2018, 11:45:24 pm
So...how does CA US40HisSac actually go downtown? The way TM handles one-way pairs makes it impossible to tell.
(It also doesn't seem to play well with the CA160 waypoint AmeRiv.)

It helps, on following the route in the field, that US40HisSac has pretty good signage, while the corresponding former CA 160 segment through downtown doesn't have even remnant signage.

The AmeRiv waypoint on CA 160 was added after the historic routes were drafted. Lots of other historic route waypoints are out of synch with intersecting/concurrent usaca routes, as one might expect when historic routes in CA were drafted while most everything else in CA was being comprehensively updated and overhauled.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on April 18, 2018, 05:48:52 am
I believe, when drafting the route, CA160 still extended there, so I just copied that (I have no other idea why I would have put a shaping point near Alkali Flat) - presumably only checking eastbound as it disagrees with westbound.

Eastbound reassurance signs on: Capitol Ave near the railway bridge (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@38.5828681,-121.5159337,3a,75y,71.78h,93.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD2wi12gENaxq1AF_ESQ33A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), N just before 15th (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@38.574109,-121.4888438,3a,37.6y,71.94h,91.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7ZyBDgmf_toElKrNEG5giw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 16th just after N (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@38.5740649,-121.486957,3a,75y,21.82h,85.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slictDajWjrVBryO0_AK-Aw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Del Paso near Globe (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@38.6020847,-121.4671695,3a,75y,63.57h,81.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKVDnhyK5RA-tQpJA41Ba8A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

Westbound signs on: Del Paso near Baxter (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@38.6039378,-121.4638716,3a,75y,254.41h,85.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syP37Uc67ocoVYgn0iYWbmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 12th at Fat Alley (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@38.5836959,-121.4891025,3a,15y,165.9h,87.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sp14VlYsuAQF3iKzuSGczJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Capitol Ave near the railway bridge (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@38.5828135,-121.5156978,3a,75y,295.74h,86.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9B1b1w0oNU3Khnwf8ZmwGg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

We can infer Tower Bridge as being part of the route, for obvious reasons. But how to get to it from 12th/G or from it to N/15th? Assuming there's no radical difference between the routes for each direction, we can assume Hist 40 comes down 12th to L. The question has to be (other than needing to fix the route north of downtown) whether it takes the L-N pair between 9th and 3rd, or whether it takes the Capitol Mall. I gather the Capitol Mall was part of 40 (pictures of old postcards supposedly showing signage), but if you went L or N instead, then you can fudge it and call it clinched!
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on June 25, 2018, 11:59:35 pm
@Si: in case you're unaware, there are a few Historic US 165 signs on LA 125 (and possibly other routes) in Louisiana:

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.9282339,-92.2011321,3a,39.5y,299.79h,94.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srez5dOHeS_U9jq_j0lGciQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on June 26, 2018, 05:50:06 am
So I traced them (and it's just LA125 for that bit) in GMSV, and when I move from 2014 imagery to 2016 imagery, the signs disappear. This isn't "I can't find signs on more recent imagery" but "this sign that I see in 2014 imagery doesn't exist when I move a tiny bit and the image date changes". All LA125/US165 junctions, and where LA124 turns west too. It seems the signs are gone, or meant to be going.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: neroute2 on June 26, 2018, 02:36:58 pm
It seems the signs are gone, or meant to be going.
Confirmed here:
http://www.google.com/maps/@31.8939923,-92.2614889,3a,75y,76.61h,86.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svgt51Fuqy9K9IPnGmSjXxg!2e0!5s20140601T000000!7i13312!8i6656 (2014)
http://www.google.com/maps/@31.8939972,-92.2614632,3a,75y,76.61h,86.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjC7jgpLgtsfhzuEiXr8Klw!2e0!5s20160701T000000!7i13312!8i6656 (2016)
I wonder why they were removed. Ninjasigning without state approval?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: osu-lsu on June 26, 2018, 09:50:25 pm
Wonder where all the 'Historic US 61' shields for the bypassed routes, between Baton Rouge & the Louisiana/Mississippi Border, are?  ???
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on July 09, 2018, 12:01:18 pm
I drove the length of US20HisBri (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=null&r=ny.us020hisbri) yesterday and didn't see any Historic US 20 signs, just these (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7a/1e/61/7a1e61b1369a48669dbead79c4d74dd2.jpg).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: osu-lsu on July 09, 2018, 08:18:39 pm
I drove the length of US20HisBri (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=null&r=ny.us020hisbri) yesterday and didn't see any Historic US 20 signs, just these (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7a/1e/61/7a1e61b1369a48669dbead79c4d74dd2.jpg).

Somebody, who likes posting 'Historic' US 20 shields, is supposed to be giving a presentation, in Mentor, on the last weekend in September.
You're invited to attend.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Jim on July 09, 2018, 08:52:37 pm
I drove the length of US20HisBri (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=null&r=ny.us020hisbri) yesterday and didn't see any Historic US 20 signs, just these (https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7a/1e/61/7a1e61b1369a48669dbead79c4d74dd2.jpg).

It looks like the route is entirely concurrent with US 20 in our system.  Seems like no point in keeping it.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on July 09, 2018, 09:46:42 pm
Somebody, who likes posting 'Historic' US 20 shields, is supposed to be giving a presentation, in Mentor, on the last weekend in September.
You're invited to attend.
I think most of the Historic US 20 segments Si put into the system are the result of that guy.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on July 10, 2018, 04:14:24 am
Oddly enough, not US20HisBri, which was someone else saying it was signed. Have removed it locally.

As entirely concurrent with US20, no one who clinched it isn't rewarded with mileage...
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: vdeane on July 14, 2018, 06:01:50 pm
I think that guy went out one day, attached a few signs to existing US 20 signs with zip ties, and called it signed.  I think I've seen one at the Duanesburg end near I-88 during either the pavement survey or HPMS survey last year, so there was a sign up at least then.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Duke87 on July 15, 2018, 09:45:51 pm
Generally yes, the photos of Historic US 20 signs on Bryan Farr's website in NY and MA are his own mock-ups, not official signage.

That said - I can confirm that as of today the Chester-Huntington segment of Historic US 20 is actually signed!  (https://i.imgur.com/3RwwqIy.jpg)That is the only sign for it, at the western end, but there is one. So, US20HisHun can stay.

Also checked out the Sturbridge segment, and found zero signs on it. So, US20HisStu definitely needs to be deleted.

The other segments remain suspect (and I still think should be deleted) given that we have no evidence of signage other than Bryan Farr's photos which by his own admission are of signs he temporarily put up for demonstration purposes.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: froggie on July 15, 2018, 11:03:01 pm
I'm not certain we should be including historic route segments that are only signed because of a guy on a one-man crusade.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2018, 05:24:33 pm
I'm not certain we should be including historic route segments that are only signed because of a guy on a one-man crusade.
Agreed.  I think most of my issues with this system come back to this issue.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on July 21, 2018, 02:09:25 pm
I've purged US20His segements that I couldn't find evidence of.

Other than the California State Highway resync issue, I think we can push this system further along the road to activation now.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: oscar on July 21, 2018, 09:17:30 pm
Other than the California State Highway resync issue, I think we can push this system further along the road to activation now.

Don't forget neroute2's point requests which include some historic routes in CA (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2509.0), erroneously posted in the Updates form. Neither I nor anyone else appears to have made those changes, but his suggestions for changes to usaca routes (which I'm still working on) seem to be mostly reasonable.

In addition to changes to usaca routes, all the active system routes in California were redone after usaush was drafted, and so would need to be part of the resync. The NMP log should flag them. Also, there is some danger that possible future removals of relinquished state route segments concurrent with historic routes, like CA 2/US 66 His (Hollywood), would require additional re-synching changes to usaush routes, though I hope such changes will be manageable in number.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: neroute2 on July 21, 2018, 10:31:31 pm
CA US66HisHol/CA US66HisAzu:
What's the deal at the west end of CA US66HisHol? US 66 never went that way; it always turned down Lincoln to end at Olympic. As of December 2017 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0198995,-118.490998,3a,75y,257.01h,104.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJc9y8CYJP-VaaKYPRUM3Og!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) this was backed up by signage, along with an end sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0151179,-118.4864376,3a,75y,147.64h,98.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqmD1rMcoAeuqG8jYxzoK4Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) at Olympic.
How was it decided what route CA US66HisHol would follow through LA? I can't find any signs on the Goog, but if you're going for the longest-lasting alignment, that would be Sunset-Figueroa, then onto the Arroyo Seco Parkway to Pasadena. Pre-freeway (opened 1940!) it used Figueroa (partly repurposed for the freeway through Elysian Park) all the way to Pasadena. If it ever used Broadway to Mission, that was before 1934 (at which time the route was San Fernando-Eagle Rock-Colorado).
I did find two (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1379783,-118.1874048,3a,22.2y,46.53h,107.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su72eSNL6PXVluEUfT4oqXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1380097,-118.1876575,3a,20.8y,189.21h,95.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTITfR5THEQjWnu3BI3z3eA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) at Figueroa and Colorado. So unless anyone has a good reason for a different alignment (such as signs I missed), we should change it to turn off the current route at Sunset and Figueroa, north on Figueroa to SR 110, then overlapping SR 110 between 24B and 26, then taking over CA US66HisAzu.

CA US66HisCaj should also be combined with these two, now that Cajon Boulevard has been built across I-15.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on July 22, 2018, 10:41:52 am
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)
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on July 22, 2018, 02:15:01 pm
If it ever used Broadway to Mission, that was before 1934 (at which time the route was San Fernando-Eagle Rock-Colorado).
The sign at the west end of Broadway (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0586346,-118.2400737,3a,75y,34.16h,112.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smU9vByWLi_X_Mkhm3WdCbg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DmU9vByWLi_X_Mkhm3WdCbg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D152.69778%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), and the east end (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0739549,-118.1967838,3a,49.9y,301.12h,97.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9eb7d-z0SbDPsTloVatl6A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) do say 'circa 1926-1934'. Ditto the one on Cezar Chavez Ave (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@34.0585688,-118.2402629,3a,34.2y,327.31h,97.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEQ7HFkVKsSqxInt9WpR69A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en). Though at Avenue 20 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0726125,-118.220155,3a,60y,96.98h,92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNXVQrbLXeZ09juVnal3hLQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) the sign says 'circa 1934 to 1941'
Quote
I did find two (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1379783,-118.1874048,3a,22.2y,46.53h,107.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1su72eSNL6PXVluEUfT4oqXA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1380097,-118.1876575,3a,20.8y,189.21h,95.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTITfR5THEQjWnu3BI3z3eA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) at Figueroa and Colorado. So unless anyone has a good reason for a different alignment (such as signs I missed), we should change it to turn off the current route at Sunset and Figueroa, north on Figueroa to SR 110, then overlapping SR 110 between 24B and 26, then taking over CA US66HisAzu.
There's zero signage on SR110 though...
Quote
CA US66HisCaj should also be combined with these two, now that Cajon Boulevard has been built across I-15.
Yep, agreed.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: neroute2 on July 22, 2018, 02:32:09 pm
Aha, I missed those signs. I'll look some more when I get home.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: neroute2 on July 22, 2018, 11:38:43 pm
I see now. This 1926-34 route has shields painted on the pavement (where they can't be stolen) in South Pasadena: http://www.route66news.com/2017/02/23/south-pasadena-fair-oaks-pharmacy/
I found shields eastbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1161332,-118.150416,3a,36.4y,178.46h,80.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLxyQ_x-v9F9P86dWW1jheQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and westbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.116393,-118.150411,3a,24.5y,77.37h,76.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9j-0qDNjee6HMdzSs2VckA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) on Fair Oaks near Mission, and westbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1140379,-118.1504034,3a,75y,226.17h,63.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s306AxFsEl_A6kYaEOMaGLg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) near Oxley.
Given the original layout at Sierra Vista, Huntington North is almost certainly old 66. (Huntington itself was the Pacific Electric.) We could tie this South Pasadena piece into the Hollywood piece, or we could give it a separate segment. City limits are Huntington at Kendall/Alhambra and Fair Oaks at Columbia.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on July 24, 2018, 08:28:00 am
Amarillo has started using proper signs (http://www.route66news.com/2018/06/07/new-route-66-signs-unveiled-in-amarillo/)

Someone has made a (not up-to-date) map (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=14-a8I0S1xWH9N-D3pIH8BRaET9o&ll=35.205715488146524%2C-101.81731130347293&z=12) of where the green/white (and occasional 'OLD US66' brown) signs are. It's a little bit of a hot mess - which is why I've not made a file for it.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: oscar on August 02, 2018, 11:11:10 pm
Some notes on New Mexico's historic US 66, after reviewing the insets on the state highway map I picked up last month. These are FWIW, and I'm not sure any edits to the HB are in order.

-- The Santa Fe inset indicates that southeast of the city, historic US 66 follows at least part of the Old Las Vegas Trail (frontage road along the SB side of I-25, recently added to the HB as NM 300), rather than I-25 as the HB has it.

-- The Albuquerque inset indicates that historic US 66 follows NM 313 south of Bernalillo (where the HB has the historic route ending) into Albuquerque, then following a decommissioned part of NM 47 (still shown in OSM) into downtown Albuquerque. Then that or another historic US 66 route (this in addition to the east-west route along Central Ave.) continues on the other side of downtown, along Isleta Blvd. south to at least I-25 exit 213. The inset doesn't provide enough detail in downtown Albuquerque to indicate how the historic route segments north and south of downtown connect with each other or to the Central Ave. route, if at all.

If it helps, I can scan, and e-mail or post, the Santa Fe and Albuquerque insets.

I don't know if these mean anything:

-- NM's state highway map is undated, so all I know from the current governor's smiling face on the map is that the map was printed after she took office in 2011. But the map doesn't reflect truncation of NM 47 in Albuquerque ca. 2015, so it might not be real current.

-- Also, I don't know if the state maps' routings are consistent with signage in the field, or other info on where the routes actually went. I haven't looked at GMSV, which someone might've done already. When I passed through the Santa Fe area on my latest trip, I don't recall seeing any historic US 66 signage on NM 300 either confirming or disconfirming that the historic route followed NM 300 rather than I-25. On a previous trip, I drove NM 47 north of I-25 (including the former routing through downtown Albuquerque), and don't recall seeing any historic US 66 markers except for the Central Ave. route.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on August 17, 2018, 10:22:31 pm
Historic US 10 is signed at several exits along I-90 in Washington. I saw signs for it at Exits 196, 215, and 220 as well as at the intersection of Danekas and Schoessler Rds northeast of Ritzville (heading to the NE on Danekas). The signs must be more recent than 2015, since neither GMSV nor Bing Streetview show them anywhere.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on August 20, 2018, 09:58:37 pm
In Illinois, US66HisCar, US66HisLit, US66HisLiv, and US66HisMou all have endpoints named US66His_S and US66His_N. Shouldn't these be US66His_W/US66His_E?

Also, the city names for two have typos:

Carlingville -> Carlinville
Livingstone -> Livingston
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: froggie on August 21, 2018, 08:04:36 am
^ Depends on if you follow Tim's old insistence on "uniformity" with US route directions on the old CHM or how local states sign their routes.  IIRC, US 66 was signed north-south in Illinois, much like how US 52 is in that state (and others).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 21, 2018, 01:49:01 pm
Looking, there isn't directional signage on US66His in IL. I went with N-S mostly unthinkingly as I default to non-gridded systems and thus reflect geography rather than odd/even. Changing these, leaving alt labels, is very simple but I'll await confirmation/consensus that it ought to be changed.

I've fixed the US66 typos.

Historic US10 I've done, however I've not changed I-90BL (where the point at Danekas/Schoessler was way off, so I fixed it on US10HisRit) or WA21 (where there's an intersection). I found this article where $50k was secured to sign US10His in Eastern WA (http://markschoesler.src.wastateleg.org/legislature-backs-effort-promote-historic-u-s-10-route/). Given it's apparently signed county boundary to county boundary in Adams County, but obviously won't have end signs, I've extended it to the next intersection either way.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on August 21, 2018, 03:20:17 pm
US66HisWil and US66HisLin have the _W/_E endpoints, so I was pointing out that the set weren't uniform. It would be difficult to change US66HisWil to _S/_N, however, given its shape.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: cl94 on August 21, 2018, 05:41:45 pm
An issue I noticed with 66 in Barstow, California: the concurrency with BL 15 in Barstow is not being marked automatically. This should be a simple fix by syncing the coordinates.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Duke87 on August 26, 2018, 12:17:28 pm
There is no signage in the field for MA US20HisSud. Can confirm personally as of yesterday. So that one needs to be deleted too.

This means the Huntingdon segment is the only one in MA that currently has any signage at all.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on November 03, 2018, 06:32:18 pm
ca.us040hisaub has two LABEL_INVALID_CHAR datacheck entries.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on January 31, 2019, 12:22:25 am
Is IA US6HisCou actually signed as such?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on January 31, 2019, 03:29:28 am
Not as well as it's signed as the Lincoln Highway (but very few roads are signed with the density of reassurance shields that the Lincoln Hwy has over this stretch!*), but there's this sign eastbound (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.2611106,-95.8482361,3a,15.2y,80.46h,89.41t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8PHQdRFV4VR5SPVe3y_a8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and this one westbound (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.2645572,-95.8416839,3a,51.8y,240.55h,79.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZOmG0ThMBsOcsoHPpA7ZrA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

*Something like 6 eastbound and 4 westbound. The route's only a mile long, doesn't turn, doesn't meet any major roads...
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Highway63 on February 08, 2019, 01:58:15 am
Is IA US6HisCou actually signed as such?
Eh, yes and no. It's a project from a US 6 enthusiast who, when he started it, probably didn't have any idea that it would become OLD old US 6 while Broadway became Old 6.

Taking another look at the historic routes is on the to-do list.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on February 08, 2019, 02:33:45 pm
It's a project from a US 6 enthusiast
Should usaush really include something like that?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on February 08, 2019, 03:21:01 pm
Should usaush really include something like that?
How can drivers in the field differentiate by this, signed properly by a hobbyist, and similarly signed by the state, or a larger private sector group?

Unlike the temporary signage work by the US20 guy, this is signed permanently to a decent standard. So absolutely this deserves inclusion!
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on February 08, 2019, 10:41:41 pm
Eric suggested that it wasn't signed particularly well, and I failed to find signs at either end when I did a quick check in GMSV, so I wasn't able to see how close to specs the "enthusiast's" signs were.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on February 12, 2019, 04:15:02 pm
MO US66HisFlo:
Suggest centering waypoints along the  centerline of Dunn Rd. Even if it breaks intersecting/concurrent routes, it less confusingly & more accurately tracks where the route goes; more important IMO. There's even a false-positive multiplex from I-270(27) to I-270(28).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on May 16, 2019, 02:01:07 pm
Well here's something: http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html (http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html)
As far as I can tell from the pics there is an extant US20His in Marlborough and Becket, MA (although I have no idea of the routings).
and Weston, MA, New Lebanon, NY, North East, PA, Sandhills, NE...

Sadly the Ostriches haven't roamed those parts for a long time, so route discernment is difficult (the Becket, MA is a tiny former alignment segment where the turnpike diverted it - called Morse Rd).
I don't see any references in the link at the quote, including at web.archive.org.
No historic route signage in GMSV either, including historic imagery.
On NE US20HisCra NWhiLakeRd AirRd_W, sattelite imagery shows badly deteriorated pavement, returning to nature. There's no GMSV coverage, and while I have no reason to suspect the road isn't open to traffic, I doubt this is the kind of road anyone would want to put historic route signs on for the tourists.

Barring anything really revelatory, I'll probably delete both Nebraska usaush routes soon.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on May 16, 2019, 03:18:47 pm
There's definitely non-fake signs in Gordon (https://sheridancountyjournalstar.net/news/item/2737-gordon-unveils-historic-us-route-20-signs). The article refers to Rushville, which also has at least one sign (screenshot of similar article from the same local paper preserved on the the Historic US20 website). GMSV is 2012, so doesn't show these more recent additions. I might have put the ends a waypoint too far, but there is decent evidence that Historic US20 is signed along US20 at these two towns.

I'm fine with routes, especially US20 ones, being removed if there's no evidence of them.

IIRC, the Historic US20 site used to have a map with cities with signs marked on it (hence Sandhills, NE, etc). These signs could have just been someone putting it up on their wall, rather than being used on the road.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on June 22, 2019, 02:02:16 pm
OK, Gordon/Rushville is good enough for me. I'm not too fussed about trying to pin down more exact endpoints.
Deleting the Crawford segment, but I'll leave the unprocessed wpt, in case we find in the future that it should come back.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2934
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Bickendan on July 09, 2019, 04:45:02 pm
OR Hist US 99 does not have any field signage.
I will be emailing ODOT about this amongst other related matters.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on July 09, 2019, 06:18:22 pm
OR Hist US 99 does not have any field signage.
OK, it must have used to have had, as I didn't add it willy nilly and there's not some guy with a shield that goes and erects it, takes a photo and then takes it down - unlike US20!

There's no harm in removing it as its entirely concurrent with OR99
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Bickendan on July 09, 2019, 08:14:09 pm
The annoying thing is outside of the shields on the exit signs for I-5, OR 99 is not signed at all on the surface streets for Canyonville, Tri City-Myrtle Beach, or Yoncalla-Drain. Luckily the routings are easy to follow.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on July 30, 2019, 05:08:47 pm
Found one (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1124476,-72.1290945,3a,25.3y,99.48h,89.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snEUouBoHe3xdj7jmSfMGUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along US 20 in Sturbridge, Mass.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on July 30, 2019, 09:08:51 pm
Having these when concurrent with the present-day mainline never made much sense to me, or seemed very important. (Signed by That One Guy?) I may give GMSV a closer look, but it's a low priority.
Did you say you also saw one west of Springfield? Is that the one already in the HB?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on July 30, 2019, 09:15:38 pm
Having these when concurrent with the present-day mainline never made much sense to me, or seemed very important. (Signed by That One Guy?) I may give GMSV a closer look, but it's a low priority.
Did you say you also saw one west of Springfield? Is that the one already in the HB?

Right, that one I mentioned the other night was the one that's already in the HB. Barely signed, but signed.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Bickendan on August 06, 2019, 07:47:14 pm
US30 Columbia River Gorge doesn't end at Exit 35, but extends through Dodson and Warrendale, reentering the freeway at Exit 37.

There's an additional US30 Hist segment between Cascade Locks and Hood River, according to signage I spotted from the freeway on the old route. Looks like it's from Exit 44 to 51, taking Frontage Road and Wyeth Rd. It's entirely possible that US 30 proper through Cascade Locks is included.

No changes needed to the Rowena Crest segment.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on August 14, 2019, 10:31:10 pm
Historic US 101 in San Diego ends at Harbor Dr (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2092724,-117.3882437,3a,50.6y,149.36h,93.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMy3ZVSzAUu2spMxYihU4Wg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (I-5 exit 54C) rather than at CA 76 (exit 54A).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: CharlotteAllisonCDTG on August 15, 2019, 01:17:49 am
I don't see any Historic US 101 signage on Harbor Drive.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on August 15, 2019, 10:51:28 am
It's not on Harbor Dr. It's on Coast Hwy.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: CharlotteAllisonCDTG on August 16, 2019, 09:45:54 am
I still didn't see one.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: oscar on August 16, 2019, 10:36:38 am
The historic route intersection with Harbor Drive is also where ramps to and from SB I-5 meet Harbor Drive.

I think the intersection being part of the I-5(54C) interchange, it's appropriate to include points for both I-5(54C) to reflect the tie-in to I-5, and Harbor Drive (the latter point helps show the historic route as parallel to I-5 on the old US 101 bridge over the San Luis Rey River).

I'm not sure how to fix the I-5(54A) point on the historic route. CA 76 appears to end at I-5, with the connector to the Coast Hwy. not officially part of the state highway (I can check my paper Caltrans logbooks, once I get back home, to confirm). Maybe move the point to the Coast Hwy./Mission Expy, intersection, and rename it MisExpy?

As someone who grew up in Oceanside, extending the historic route over the old San Luis River bridge looks right to me.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on August 16, 2019, 11:05:47 am
I think the intersection being part of the I-5(54C) interchange, it's appropriate to include points for both I-5(54C) to reflect the tie-in to I-5, and Harbor Drive (the latter point helps show the historic route as parallel to I-5 on the old US 101 bridge over the San Luis Rey River).
Since it appears to begin where the ramps intersect Harbor Dr, I think one point at I-5(54C) would be good enough, although a shaping point on the bridge could make it easier to see if necessary, depending on what you do with the I-5(54A) point.

Quote
I'm not sure how to fix the I-5(54A) point on the historic route. CA 76 appears to end at I-5, with the connector to the Coast Hwy. not officially part of the state highway (I can check my paper Caltrans logbooks, once I get back home, to confirm). Maybe move the point to the Coast Hwy./Mission Expy, intersection, and rename it MisExpy?
That's how I would handle it, although this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2049103,-117.3812793,3a,75y,339.47h,100.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNd4bvsH44kEBjqnLnWgpvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) and this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2017684,-117.3839065,3a,44.9y,7.95h,88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSepzXBO_JJd6UaQvkHqPUw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) make it look like it's worth investigating the true end of CA 76.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: oscar on August 17, 2019, 02:04:25 pm
^ I'm at home (briefly), was able to check out Caltrans' old paper logs as well as the more current online Postmile Query Tool. Both put CA 76's west end at I-5 rather than Coast Hwy (US 101 Historic), with CA 76's postmile 0.0 in the I-5 median. So I'm leaving CA 76 as is in the Highway Browser, even with the otherwise convincing signage shown in your GMSV links.

I think a labeled waypoint at the Coast Hwy./Harbor Dr. intersection (HarbDr_W, since there's an intersection with another Harbor Dr. in San Diego) best reflects the end of signage for the historic route, and the approximate north end of the old pavement (obliterated by the new I-5, until it resumes within the Marine Corps base). That also more clearly shows the historic route as separate from the parallel I-5, even with the moved and renamed I-5(54A) point on the south side of the river.

No signage on Harbor Dr. between Coast Hwy. and I-5, so I'm not as sure about including the I-5(54C) point as the historic route's north end just to maintain a graph connection with I-5 - @si404, any thoughts on that, as (I assume) the original drafter of the route file?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 17, 2019, 02:22:59 pm
I'd suggest one point per interchange means that the Coast Hwy / Harbor Dr intersection is part of the I-5 interchange. The intersection is, after all, a crossroads with the southbound carriageway's ramps opposite Coast Hwy.

Moving the point with not-CA76 should make it separate enough from I-5.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: oscar on August 17, 2019, 03:31:59 pm
I'd suggest one point per interchange means that the Coast Hwy / Harbor Dr intersection is part of the I-5 interchange. The intersection is, after all, a crossroads with the southbound carriageway's ramps opposite Coast Hwy.

Moving the point with not-CA76 should make it separate enough from I-5.

Gotcha. I-5(54C), and I-5(54A) => MisExpy (relocated to Coast Hwy.), it is.

I can implement those changes later this weekend, before I disappear for a week camping in western Massachusetts.

EDIT: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3061
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: cl94 on August 27, 2019, 11:42:49 pm
Former US 66 in NM has the pre-1937 alignment signed on surface roads in a couple places not shown on TM:

- Santa Fe to I-25 Exit 339 follows the frontage road ("Old Las Vegas Highway" or "Frontage Road 2116") where it exists
- The old alignment in Albuquerque and south/West, following 4th Street, Bridge Blvd, and Isleta Blvd to NM 314, thence south to NM 6 and west along NM 6 to I-40. Yes, this means that all four legs of the Central/4th intersection in Downtown Albuquerque are signed as "Historic 66". I did NOT see if signs exist north/east of where 4th crosses I-40, but it is possible.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 28, 2019, 04:14:46 am
The old alignment in Albuquerque and south/West, following 4th Street, Bridge Blvd, and Isleta Blvd to NM 314, thence south to NM 6 and west along NM 6 to I-40. Yes, this means that all four legs of the Central/4th intersection in Downtown Albuquerque are signed as "Historic 66". I did NOT see if signs exist north/east of where 4th crosses I-40, but it is possible.
When the files were made, I couldn't see any signs between I-25/US550 and that Central/4th intersection. Nor any south of Central. There's also the issue that 4th disappears at the Civic Plaza. But that's because the GMSV wasn't that good/recent and I didn't know the route well enough to target my search in the right places.

edit: found a couple of signs at I-40/NM6 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@34.9846278,-107.1804135,3a,15.4y,116.81h,89.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWeYLGzupPDD2Zh4ABA-X6A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). There's this unhelpfully unarrowed one (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@34.8075728,-106.7361843,3a,37.8y,121.49h,79.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYinH7jp6G3VW1XwnCYIocA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) at NM6/NM314. And another (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.0527031,-106.6774947,3a,75y,49.12h,85.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdQD1RnIp7GNwSmE5DKFvtQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) couple (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.0685461,-106.6661457,3a,16.1y,269.83h,88.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYL8ZeZ6ISVVfHIuUFMK6PA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) where NM314 turns at either end of Isleta Blvd. Struggling to find anything on 4th or north other than at Central - which was the original problem.

Amarillo is another place where I've struggled to pin Historic 66: there's far too much going on.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on August 28, 2019, 12:28:56 pm
Amarillo is another place where I've struggled to pin Historic 66: there's far too much going on.
Prominently signed on TXLp279, especially west of GeoSt.
Eastbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2033119,-101.9046547,3a,15y,45.65h,90.89t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sbMgFac55eJXGrcQItGfOOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and westbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2060157,-101.8992476,3a,15y,272.33h,94.02t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sqllzbMTHZeX19m5dg9vGuQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DqllzbMTHZeX19m5dg9vGuQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D337.38983%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) at I-20BL, the turns are signed well enough (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2061193,-101.9019297,3a,60.9y,282.72h,88.91t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sC3ZU2sjhy0Pr294VtjhfyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) I suppose, if not at a complete 100% (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2061236,-101.9024835,3a,43.4y,257.21h,88.04t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sLsxIOY7U9t0MYIUzf2dztQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
Spotted some more signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2097909,-101.8340123,3a,60.4y,28.39h,79.26t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sxhzBgZoJCQJpMqeFnJyLuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) on Fillmore AKA US87 AKA historic US66Bus (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sl/sl0279.htm), but haven't looked beyond there because short attention span. I do know that at the I-20BL connector from US60 to I-40 Exit 85, signage is lacking.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 28, 2019, 01:04:29 pm
Amarillo is another place where I've struggled to pin Historic 66: there's far too much going on.
Prominently signed on TXLp279, especially west of GeoSt.
Eastbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2033119,-101.9046547,3a,15y,45.65h,90.89t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sbMgFac55eJXGrcQItGfOOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and westbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2060157,-101.8992476,3a,15y,272.33h,94.02t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sqllzbMTHZeX19m5dg9vGuQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DqllzbMTHZeX19m5dg9vGuQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D337.38983%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) at I-20BL, the turns are signed well enough (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2061193,-101.9019297,3a,60.9y,282.72h,88.91t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sC3ZU2sjhy0Pr294VtjhfyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) I suppose, if not at a complete 100% (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2061236,-101.9024835,3a,43.4y,257.21h,88.04t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sLsxIOY7U9t0MYIUzf2dztQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
Spotted some more signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2097909,-101.8340123,3a,60.4y,28.39h,79.26t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sxhzBgZoJCQJpMqeFnJyLuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) on Fillmore AKA US87 AKA historic US66Bus (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sl/sl0279.htm), but haven't looked beyond there because short attention span. I do know that at the I-20BL connector from US60 to I-40 Exit 85, signage is lacking.
By 'far too much going on', I mean with signs in Amarillo.
Amarillo has started using proper signs (http://www.route66news.com/2018/06/07/new-route-66-signs-unveiled-in-amarillo/)

Someone has made a (not up-to-date) map (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=14-a8I0S1xWH9N-D3pIH8BRaET9o&ll=35.205715488146524%2C-101.81731130347293&z=12) of where the green/white (and occasional 'OLD US66' brown) signs are. It's a little bit of a hot mess - which is why I've not made a file for it.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 28, 2019, 01:11:13 pm
Let's document this 'PRE-1937' (as some signs banner it) alignment via Santa Fe in order to rejig parts that aren't quite right:

eastbound:
westbound:
I've tweaked the existing file to better match, but I've not chopped it (which might be an idea) up: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3085
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapmikey on August 28, 2019, 01:18:22 pm
Amarillo is another place where I've struggled to pin Historic 66: there's far too much going on.
Prominently signed on TXLp279, especially west of GeoSt.
Eastbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2033119,-101.9046547,3a,15y,45.65h,90.89t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sbMgFac55eJXGrcQItGfOOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and westbound (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2060157,-101.8992476,3a,15y,272.33h,94.02t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sqllzbMTHZeX19m5dg9vGuQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DqllzbMTHZeX19m5dg9vGuQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D337.38983%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) at I-20BL, the turns are signed well enough (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2061193,-101.9019297,3a,60.9y,282.72h,88.91t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sC3ZU2sjhy0Pr294VtjhfyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) I suppose, if not at a complete 100% (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2061236,-101.9024835,3a,43.4y,257.21h,88.04t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sLsxIOY7U9t0MYIUzf2dztQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
Spotted some more signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2097909,-101.8340123,3a,60.4y,28.39h,79.26t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sxhzBgZoJCQJpMqeFnJyLuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) on Fillmore AKA US87 AKA historic US66Bus (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sl/sl0279.htm), but haven't looked beyond there because short attention span. I do know that at the I-20BL connector from US60 to I-40 Exit 85, signage is lacking.

Also posted on Amarillo Blvd. east of downtown - https://goo.gl/maps/5RwbqCkGDox1pNa26 and https://goo.gl/maps/xTGdyJrNXtV69zHQ9

Did not see anything EB past this back out to I-40
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 29, 2019, 04:27:22 am
Eastbound on I-40, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1914096,-101.8876656,3a,16.9y,103.93h,92.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIZbFultSuwvpbGHfjqgnkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.19447,-101.8703229,3a,37.3y,85.79h,97.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVq8LIDRI_w1zcNSjb8h82g!2e0!5s20190401T000000!7i13312!8i6656) are where its signed - some way east of where Lp279 turns off I-40BL.

There's signage on Georgia Street, but not Western. Made a route goes on the frontage roads from exit 67 to 68B and up Georgia Street to Lp279, as well as the BL40-Lp279-US87-BL40 route.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapmikey on August 29, 2019, 09:41:13 am
Eastbound on I-40, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1914096,-101.8876656,3a,16.9y,103.93h,92.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIZbFultSuwvpbGHfjqgnkQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.19447,-101.8703229,3a,37.3y,85.79h,97.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVq8LIDRI_w1zcNSjb8h82g!2e0!5s20190401T000000!7i13312!8i6656) are where its signed - some way east of where Lp279 turns off I-40BL.

There's signage on Georgia Street, but not Western. Made a route goes on the frontage roads from exit 67 to 68B and up Georgia Street to Lp279, as well as the BL40-Lp279-US87-BL40 route.

The signage from I-40 at Georgia and Western is odd as neither of those streets has ever been part of US 66 as far as I can tell...?  The point of the signs is likely meant to be TO Historic US 66 as opposed to posting the actual historic route.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 29, 2019, 12:13:12 pm
The signage from I-40 at Georgia and Western is odd as neither of those streets has ever been part of US 66 as far as I can tell...?  The point of the signs is likely meant to be TO Historic US 66 as opposed to posting the actual historic route.
True, but there are no 'TO' banners at all, and if they were looking for 'TO' connections from I-40, you'd have thought signing eastbound before Western - most notably on the free-flow connection along I-40BL that's really rather short - would have surely made more sense.

It seems that the old signage along Georgia (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.2059942,-101.8663163,3a,15y,5.63h,87.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sy7Ygy2_CepxWjxCvBaByOQ!2e0!5s20170201T000000!7i13312!8i6656) that the city had installed has gone, but that they signed it as if it was Historic US66, despite it never being such...
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: mapcat on August 30, 2019, 08:37:05 am
The routing in the HB for US66HisChi in Springfield changed at the same time (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/51cedcb095481615911d2745fba787fb8c9895bd) that I-55BL was adjusted (June 23), but there's no updates entry for it, or any discussion here. Was the rerouting of Historic 66 confirmed in the field?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: michih on August 30, 2019, 09:24:59 am
but there's no updates entry for it

Because it's just a preview but not an active system?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on August 30, 2019, 01:38:18 pm
Amarillo has started using proper signs (http://www.route66news.com/2018/06/07/new-route-66-signs-unveiled-in-amarillo/)

Someone has made a (not up-to-date) map (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=14-a8I0S1xWH9N-D3pIH8BRaET9o&ll=35.205715488146524%2C-101.81731130347293&z=12) of where the green/white (and occasional 'OLD US66' brown) signs are. It's a little bit of a hot mess - which is why I've not made a file for it.
A few more links found from surfing around from the first link. Saving for future reference.
https://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/historic-texas-highways/route-66-texas
https://www.thc.texas.gov/historic-highways/route-66/explore-route-66
https://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/historic-texas-highways/route-66/route-66-survey/route-66-maps
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on August 30, 2019, 01:44:11 pm
It seems that the old signage along Georgia (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.2059942,-101.8663163,3a,15y,5.63h,87.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sy7Ygy2_CepxWjxCvBaByOQ!2e0!5s20170201T000000!7i13312!8i6656) that the city had installed has gone, but that they signed it as if it was Historic US66, despite it never being such...
Not gone, just relocated (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.2069069,-101.8664176,3a,15y,47.18h,87.68t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s5QdYWebBb9_qVRoMzVZmzw!2e0!5s20181001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)...
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on August 31, 2019, 04:11:50 am
It seems that the old signage along Georgia (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.2059942,-101.8663163,3a,15y,5.63h,87.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sy7Ygy2_CepxWjxCvBaByOQ!2e0!5s20170201T000000!7i13312!8i6656) that the city had installed has gone, but that they signed it as if it was Historic US66, despite it never being such...
Not gone, just relocated (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.2069069,-101.8664176,3a,15y,47.18h,87.68t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s5QdYWebBb9_qVRoMzVZmzw!2e0!5s20181001T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)...
Nah, that one was another one that was there, but isn't now (April 19 GMSV shows it gone).
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 05, 2019, 08:35:13 am
Speaking of signs that have gone. I was looking at Oklahoma City.

It seems like they have had a problem with signs on NW23rd being taken/removed:
September 2012 westbound at May (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.4932114,-97.5651143,3a,38.8y,273.48h,85.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD2P8fRG9wqBnGRtNyGdxnA!2e0!5s20120901T000000!7i13312!8i6656), March 2019 westbound at May (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.4932095,-97.5651392,3a,46.8y,271.21h,85.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2b51kO3Lqrb3YoZJTPPAzw!2e0!5s20190301T000000!7i13312!8i6656). February 2017 westbound at Classen (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.4933154,-97.531296,3a,75y,279.21h,83.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPspgajEVCuktRysa3ICwhw!2e0!5s20170201T000000!7i13312!8i6656), March 2019 westbound at Classen (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.4933061,-97.5313098,3a,75y,279.21h,83.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soIpx3SViJJUVdvOBV5KWgw!2e0!5s20190301T000000!7i13312!8i6656).

They were never that good at signing it though. Here's where the signs I've found are (I'm going to document signs) and those other two are the only others I've found:
I-44 e/b approach at exit 124 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5114291,-97.5714877,3a,31.6y,93.77h,84.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4v0KKVv3pNeCSwgetI1fqA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), May n/b at OK66 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5117569,-97.5655783,3a,75y,38.69h,85.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8CQDdlNwEdIbC8dJmxNZOA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), NW23rd eastbound at Lincoln (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.493141,-97.5067439,3a,39.6y,107.18h,86.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s68bH0UQYghMTvHV026npKA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), I-44 eastbound between exits 128A and 128B (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5312949,-97.4991055,3a,75y,82.34h,89.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD9czlXVi7cjgyEUpXBCzrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), I-44 westbound between exits 128A and 128B (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5336617,-97.4965494,3a,75y,273.28h,86.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-uKrptOTWImVASeDRofsBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), I-44 ramp eastbound at 128B (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.5345048,-97.4945917,3a,34.6y,54.47h,89.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjiNQZTgJ8YUQ_--0NjZxeg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), US77 s/b ramp at Kelley Ave (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.6123027,-97.4954913,3a,75y,254.25h,97.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU-9e52rxib1-4YJh-VoFUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), US77 s/b approaching Kelley Ave (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.6167891,-97.491686,3a,41.4y,216.48h,83.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHvFKna9JhDP63YxW1R4jFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Broadway n/b approaching 2nd (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.6518557,-97.4818118,3a,15y,47.76h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb71N7WCqe5sVGweaqN6aqg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 2nd w/b approaching Broadway (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.6530362,-97.4791456,3a,47.6y,276.75h,87.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKdNAFwv4mKL42140Y9C6ZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 2nd west of I-35 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.6526762,-97.4302876,3a,16.2y,325.43h,88.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9b_jILnlS_fatXOPToNs4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

What I can see is that OK state is relatively good at signing US66 Historic with the exception of in and around OK66 (when not concurrent with I-44). Cities are much more a mixed bag, and OK City is one of the worse ones - partially because the route is more complex than just 'the one main road through the town'.

Elk City has got signs that I must of missed initially (perhaps as they are all westbound): 1 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.4218956,-99.3738037,3a,75y,269.65h,86.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAic_bpKLUgfzktxRUEZQ2A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 2 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.411773,-99.4039341,3a,42.6y,280.38h,90.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEffId8KWsVNVoEG7B1s6Wg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 3 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@35.4118527,-99.4348493,3a,16.4y,262.34h,89.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA4eQURqIm-Hn7AL2G6APIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

Also found signs in western OK as follows (west of El Reno) Near I-44 exit 50 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.426902,-99.2133994,3a,75y,59.17h,87.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0NwnIPWEaZjyANI4ss3llg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Erick 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2150208,-99.8666323,3a,50.8y,118.37h,87.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snD8dFALe6gP9q3iLQL7mQA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnD8dFALe6gP9q3iLQL7mQA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D119.99108%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), Erick 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2150208,-99.8666323,3a,50.8y,259.85h,85.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1snD8dFALe6gP9q3iLQL7mQA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnD8dFALe6gP9q3iLQL7mQA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D119.99108%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), Erick towards Texola (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.215463,-99.9122136,3a,75y,330.35h,84.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ_2C-kBtE_d7qzauCeeM4A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), I-40 BL in Sayre at Elm (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2964839,-99.6401005,3a,34.2y,199.2h,81.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMJqsrZ7986LA4MmLVQujCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), I-40 BL in Sayre at Pine (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2981818,-99.6401126,3a,15y,34.05h,90.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbhRl-3R_ezJs8MhfbbWt8Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), I-40 BL in Sayre at Washington (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3064782,-99.6401132,3a,71.5y,190.89h,84.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFnh5mjCLGIHm9pJGLPpkMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
frontage road between I-40 exits 61 and 62 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4796715,-99.0261106,3a,75y,315.5h,81.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUmy_dAG8MgUTCfzj5ggyaA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), road marking south of Clinton (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4838723,-98.9798026,3a,26.8y,191.23h,83.67t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sw5ldcoK5HF-_c8i5VgD16Q!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dw5ldcoK5HF-_c8i5VgD16Q%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D112.82771%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), on 10th in Clinton (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5151507,-98.9720655,3a,24.4y,181.82h,84.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEM1Y01XpZWlx4NIK71HXyA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), on Gary in Clinton (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5154022,-98.9684103,3a,75y,295.62h,86.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAyzl4yqIwrsRgCEfa-wmwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), on OK54 west of Weatherford (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5247824,-98.7156882,3a,75y,233.74h,69.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sa-PL3f2djyptofGqzwTscA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), on I-40BL in Weatherford (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5259569,-98.6952128,3a,75y,106.95h,78.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sovTMEuseDDHBH91vzewK2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), Main at Davis in Weatherford (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5368418,-98.6764387,3a,38.9y,93.28h,86.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slg1osd7IgZNRWwAtZx1g8w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), just west of OK58 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5368873,-98.5883966,3a,37.6y,85.63h,85.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZbYHFDG7JW9EO9nkWwjtPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), just east of OK58 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5369403,-98.5705593,3a,25y,105.48h,80.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sajpZuO2zqq3_bQLyo_AgvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), at US281Spr (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5366244,-98.2386816,3a,15.5y,105.65h,87.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfrkrW8BitjYCfcfFkpP8bw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 06, 2019, 09:05:09 am
To document these - two standalone US6His signs in Ohio: Edgerton (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4482967,-84.7480538,3a,75y,60.99h,91.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbtCN3IxGzG0GY-5yBb0hJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and, at the opposite end of the state, Andover (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.6071846,-80.5721966,3a,32.2y,131.43h,82.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6I7P1rPTvbqIKuoxac3iYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

See the Iowa thread for more US6 signs there

Nebraska has US6His signs off US6 either end of Gretna (Angus Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1396175,-96.2401176,3a,75y,275.04h,92.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF53Xnzsz3rPnw3q7hn2F0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 216th St (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1335028,-96.2533796,3a,36.4y,63.33h,85.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq76wRRhQ53sHVfiL1POJ3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

Historic US80 is signed in places according to AA Roads - along AZ80 (with a detour or two) and from Tucson to US60
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: osu-lsu on September 06, 2019, 11:28:13 am
There are two other stand along Historic US 6 signs on either end of Chardon, Ohio, as well.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48148451687_1a3036b07c_z.jpg)
(I only got the WB one, seen above)
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 06, 2019, 01:28:37 pm
(I only got the WB one, seen above)
I've found that one (near Grant Street), and here's (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.580692,-81.2268986,3a,39.2y,131.06h,82.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbcMInkW5t3sMduH1GkEHRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) the eastbound one.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: michih on September 07, 2019, 07:37:06 am
What has happened instead with usaush is that with no single authoritative data source for it available, it has been languishing in limbo, routinely getting adjustments made as new information is found but never brought to a state of being "done" because there is no measuring stick by which to declare it done.

In this regard, the usaush system is effectively another example of "stupid truck routes".

Ergo, as I see it, we have two realistic options here:
- We need to realize that, without an authoritative data source, this system is lacking in officiality and go ahead and 86 it. Then it's no longer a problem.
- We need to realize that, without an authoritative data source, this system is never going to meet the usual threshold of being ready, and go ahead and promote it to active status. Then any further changes will get noted in updates and any waypoint relabelings will have their old labels preserved if in use, and we don't need to redefine anything about how preview systems are handled.

Since we still work on improving usaush, I guess that we tend to option 2? Is there anything left to be addressed before activation?

Or does anyone tend to option 1?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: froggie on September 07, 2019, 07:43:28 am
My personal viewpoint on Historic US Routes is Option 1.  There's no background system source, it seems to be shifting with the winds, and there's no consistency.  Worse than Truck routes in those regards.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: bejacob on September 07, 2019, 07:57:04 pm
My personal viewpoint on Historic US Routes is Option 1.  There's no background system source, it seems to be shifting with the winds, and there's no consistency.  Worse than Truck routes in those regards.

Seconded. While it's nice to be able to add some additional mileage, this entire system has been problematic from the beginning.
Here's an excerpt of my comments from 2 1/2 years ago.

Is the some sort of "official designation" by state DOTs for historic routes?
If not, who determines which routes are included?
How will we know if the route list is complete? Is there some "master" list?
What about routes that had different alignments over time?

This system just feels a bit slapdash especially if TM contributors are relying on "reports from the field" to make sure the route list is complete. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the effort and will be glad to add any new routes to my list file. I'm just looking for a bit of clarity on this route system. It's still somewhat confusing as to the criteria for a route to be included.

Those comments were quickly shot down so I let it go. While I'd hate to lose the roughly 500 miles I've driven on these routes, my comments from Feb 2016 seem just as relevant today as they did then. As far as I can tell, if the route is signed (officially or otherwise) it gets included. Not a bad approach, but as others have also pointed out, there is no source material and no consistency.

I'd be fine if the system got activated as is or dropped. As the saying goes, "this decision is above my pay grade."
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 08, 2019, 02:13:17 am
this entire system has been problematic from the beginning.
The system hasn't been problematic, but Vogonish attitudes demanding paperwork in triplicate from governmental sources have been.

There were some creases (the US20 guy), but we've ironed them out now.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: bejacob on September 08, 2019, 12:22:40 pm
The system hasn't been problematic, but Vogonish attitudes demanding paperwork in triplicate from governmental sources have been.

Maybe I am confused as to why this page http://travelmapping.net/credits.php (http://travelmapping.net/credits.php) has so many governmental sources as references. I can't recall all the countless threads highlighting something official from state DOTs or the latest AASHTO meeting minutes. Correct my ignorance about whether national or regional systems need official sources before changes are made in the highway browser. This system won't have official sources. If no one cares, that's fine.

If it doesn't matter whether there is an underlying source, why has it been such a frequent topic of discussion?  I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm trying to understand.

As I said earlier, activate the system or kill it. I don't care either way.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: froggie on September 08, 2019, 09:02:58 pm
Someone remind me not to ask Si to recite his poetry...
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on September 08, 2019, 11:25:11 pm
Bypass.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 13, 2019, 05:07:09 am
Maybe I am confused as to why this page http://travelmapping.net/credits.php (http://travelmapping.net/credits.php) has so many governmental sources as references.
It's not the existence and use of Governmental sources for systems on this site that's an issue, but the demand for this system to be as sourced in the same way as them and if it can't be it should be ditched.

Absolutely, where Government sources exist and are helpful, go for it. However, just because something is different shouldn't mean its banishment. The problem with this system has always been the naysayers calling for its removal because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions. It's been far more work to deal with them than to hunt for signs, analysis the sometimes sparse data we have, etc.
Quote
This system won't have official sources. If no one cares, that's fine.
But you and froggie do care - "There's no background system source" is your complaint.

Are you saying you are revoking your objection? If so, great!
Someone remind me not to ask Si to recite his poetry...
My poetry is shite, but not as bad as you reading comprehension - its clear that I'm describing others as Vogons here.

I've found some stuff from official sources to appease the Vogons. I doubt it will be enough, but:
AZ: AZ DOT Map with US66 His and US89A His mapped (https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2019/05/scenic-map.pdf), US80 His signage discussed by ADOT (with map) (http://aztransportationboard.gov/downloads/Presentations/2018-092118-US80-Recommendations.pdf)
CA: pretty hopeless getting explicitly DOT sources - its just hobbyist/business group sites. There's some legislative designations, but only for US80 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/acr_123_bill_20060816_chaptered.html) (I think US66 in the state has some federal legislation), AFAICS
IA: the DOT site "can't be reached"
IL: US66 His map (http://idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Travel-Information/Maps-&-Charts/Scenic-Byways/HISTORIC%20ROUTE%2066.pdf) (a more interactive one here (http://idot.illinois.gov/travel-information/tourism/scenic-byways/index))
MO: MO DOT: Historic Route 66 Scenic Byways (https://www.modot.org/historic-route-66-scenic-byways)
OK: OK DOT: Route 66 Maps (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/memorial/route66/route66maps.htm)
TX: TX THC Route 66 2018 survey (https://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/historic-texas-highways/route-66/route-66-survey/route-66-maps)

Of course, a lot of stuff is done at the county/city level as well. I can't be bothered to find these as more general sources - wikipedia, tile mapping, etc provided enough information for my (what wikipedia would call) 'original research'. There's perhaps nothing in the above sources that add anything, but I'll cite them anyway. We don't seem to add newspapers as sources for openings, so we shouldn't for announcements about signage being posted - those (and contributor field reports), while invaluable, won't get added to the sources list.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 13, 2019, 07:09:37 am
From the US6 Historic (Durant) thread (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3174.0). Just because it deals with some general stuff (namely obstacles, banners and along the existing route).
The problem with the McPherson alignment is that there's now an airport runway in the way. Going all the way out on McPherson would result in two dead-ends. Now that 6 has been removed from Broadway in CB, I can creating a segment from I-480 to I-80 - but then does the on-Kanesville off-Broadway segment get included, omitted, or is there a second file? (That is, the piece currently there becomes "US 6 (Historic)(1934-82)"
We're not following what is the actual historic alignment, but what is signed as such (and AFAICS, this bit isn't signed). This isn't a documentation of the past alignment, but a documentation of the present. Certainly with 66 there's cases where the signed route is on the wrong frontage road as the freeway chopped the original roadway in two.

Date banners only should be used if they are on the actual signs (and I've dropped some when including them in a larger route).
Quote
I doubt that Historic 6 signs will be placed in Des Moines, since it's still alive on the post-1934 Hickman/Euclid alignment and this seems ripe for ROW/maintenance issues.
Sure - we're only included signed sections, so if it doesn't get signed, even if designated (I believe US6 in Iowa
Quote
Extension to/past Grinnell: Would completely overlap existing 6. (This is historically accurate, as the River-to-River Route in Grinnell followed 4th Avenue instead but almost certainly was moved to 6th when US 32 was paved in 1928.)

<snip>

Overall, I believe only Cass and Poweshiek counties specifically put up Historic 6 shields where it overlaps the existing route. Everywhere else, it's marked only where current 6 is not. I don't see any Historic 6 shields in West Liberty, for example.

I believe it is best to stick with segments of Historic 6 where it is NOT overlapping the modern route. For example, the Atlantic segment should end at the 71/83 intersection, because right now it's redundant to Oakland.
I agree it is stupid to sign Historic 6 on current 6 (unless for short bits linking sections off US6, such as that brief bit leaving Davenport). But it is signed, so surely we include it?

Also, Pottawattamie County signs it along vanilla US6 (at least partially): 1 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.2889578,-95.4038282,3a,75y,298.36h,80.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR6BwDlkSEcaW4sMiEl1twg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 2 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.2889618,-95.4039325,3a,75y,129.5h,72.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJFIBhWfLYGaFlfMhBx-Eg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656),3 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.2891142,-95.403462,3a,75y,6.49h,80.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siTqlE__dS3rlsgiLuE6jNg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 4 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.2895234,-95.4034588,3a,28.8y,213.3h,79.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6QgOig-3uEK-YReTWshUxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 5 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.3176388,-95.3851111,3a,36.5y,315.69h,84.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFxMuuLP3nJIP8YdsEmDbZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: bejacob on September 13, 2019, 01:08:48 pm
This system won't have official sources. If no one cares, that's fine.
But you and froggie do care - "There's no background system source" is your complaint.

Are you saying you are revoking your objection? If so, great!

If sources aren't needed, then yes, I revoke my objection.

Do you believe the system is ready for activation?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 14, 2019, 08:57:48 am
Do you believe the system is ready for activation?
Not quite - it needs a formal review first, but given the number of reviews ongoing (including of my system), it won't be this month that I ask for it. Not least as I've not finished the checking to make sure it's ready.

I expect we can activate before the end of the year though!
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: yakra on September 14, 2019, 10:23:13 am
Nebraska has US6His signs off US6 either end of Gretna (Angus Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1396175,-96.2401176,3a,75y,275.04h,92.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sF53Xnzsz3rPnw3q7hn2F0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 216th St (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1335028,-96.2533796,3a,36.4y,63.33h,85.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq76wRRhQ53sHVfiL1POJ3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
I see you've already got it in the HB. Fair play.
I would have used that same routing, because:
 • the main thru alignment curving around the corner at 216thSt_N and SouSt_E
 • this avoids 2 at-grade RXRs
 • in satellite view, McKenna Ave does look like the business center of town's main street
...but not been 100% confident in it.
I don't see signage in GMSV for any of the turns. (Ecch, this is like, cannss-level lack of clarity...)
Si, do you have any sources on the alignment/turns, or did you just come to pretty much the same conclusions I did?
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 14, 2019, 01:39:25 pm
Si, do you have any sources on the alignment/turns, or did you just come to pretty much the same conclusions I did?
The latter.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: Highway63 on September 15, 2019, 01:26:38 pm
I agree it is stupid to sign Historic 6 on current 6 (unless for short bits linking sections off US6, such as that brief bit leaving Davenport). But it is signed, so surely we include it?
Not as long as it's entirely redundant, because we don't know where the endpoint should be.

Quote
Also, Pottawattamie County signs it along vanilla US6 (at least partially): 1 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.2889578,-95.4038282,3a,75y,298.36h,80.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sR6BwDlkSEcaW4sMiEl1twg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 2 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.2889618,-95.4039325,3a,75y,129.5h,72.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUJFIBhWfLYGaFlfMhBx-Eg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656),3 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.2891142,-95.403462,3a,75y,6.49h,80.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siTqlE__dS3rlsgiLuE6jNg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 4 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.2895234,-95.4034588,3a,28.8y,213.3h,79.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6QgOig-3uEK-YReTWshUxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), 5 (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@41.3176388,-95.3851111,3a,36.5y,315.69h,84.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFxMuuLP3nJIP8YdsEmDbZg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
All of those pictures, save for one that's two miles away, are at the same intersection. Historic 6 is not marked with reassurance signs elsewhere in the county. It's a bare-minimum required for the one turn 6 makes there. Between there and Atlantic, the only sign is at IA 48. It's not signed at the IA 83 or south US 71 intersections, which makes me think I was wrong in saying that Cass does the whole thing.
Title: Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
Post by: si404 on September 15, 2019, 02:37:18 pm
I agree it is stupid to sign Historic 6 on current 6 (unless for short bits linking sections off US6, such as that brief bit leaving Davenport). But it is signed, so surely we include it?
Not as long as it's entirely redundant, because we don't know where the endpoint should be.
The next waypoint after the signs run out? It might not be massively accurate, but it's better than nothing. We don't want to throw in points for city/county line because one city/county decides to sign and one doesn't - easier just to end it at the next highway. And the end points are arguably state lines, the current route, or a parallel interstate (depending on what state, what route, etc), just with large sections that aren't signed that we're not including.

Or we could go with a logical terminus concept - so, in the absence of info to the contrary, the route stops at the next major junction (similar to what you have asked for in OK extending routes to a more logical terminus like another route) rather than some minor road that happens to be the next point along.
Quote
All of those pictures, save for one that's two miles away, are at the same intersection. Historic 6 is not marked with reassurance signs elsewhere in the county. It's a bare-minimum required for the one turn 6 makes there.
True, they merely sign one interchange well, and put one other sign, but - as you say - they clear that bar of 'bear minimum'.

I was replying to "I believe only Cass and Poweshiek counties specifically put up Historic 6 shields where it overlaps the existing route." and said that Pottawattamie County "signs it along vanilla US6 (at least partially)" - that's surely undeniable.

Additionally, I don't see why it has to be signed loads. Especially as you take the opposite view for US66 and asked for it to extend through 4 TOTSOs with US281/US281Spr despite just one sign for all that navigation - a reassurance one just off US281Spr (where El Reno's section begins):
OK US 66 Weatherford: Again, wondering about the abrupt stop for the east end. I would encourage extending this to join El Reno's Hist 66.
But I'd be fine with chopping historic routes at their parent when there is a long signed (at least partially) concurrency with them, despite the existence of signs. Ditto not including sections entirely concurrent with their parent. I'd prefer to include such sections, despite them being silly, but...