Author Topic: usaak (Alaska State Highways)  (Read 3185 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Last Login:Today at 08:08:44 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #45 on: February 19, 2018, 12:07:52 am »
In any case, since he would now look at the HB and see a split route, he'd think he clinched it unless he somehow knew better (and unless he follows Alaska roads I doubt it; for most jurisdictions, TM is the only source I have on where routes go), and he'd get a VERY nasty surprise when the bridge reopened.

In many ways, this situation resembles the more common lower-48 scenario of a road with planned extensions. Sometimes, like with the various mutations of I-69, it's well known that any clinches of the segments now in the HB could be undone by new construction. In other cases, the future extensions are not as obvious. All the HB can do is to show what's currently open (subject to winter snow closures and the like), and leave it to the traveler to inquire about scenarios where the highway might get extended or (more rarely) truncated.

In this case, the HB as just updated does all that really can be done, by highlighting that something weird is going on with AK 10 in the Copper River delta, and that travelers should inquire further. They could start with checking the HB's Mapnik map, which shows the bridge that currently ends mid-river where its east end was scoured away. Smart Alaska travelers will also buy and review the annually-updated Milepost travel guide to Alaskan and other Arctic highways. Its Cordova writeup explains the route interruption in the delta, and provides info on how to get yourself (sans vehicle) around the closure in order to visit the Childs Glacier and the nearby historic Million Dollar Bridge.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 05:29:44 pm by oscar »

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Last Login:Today at 10:49:15 pm
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2018, 11:21:13 pm »
In any case, since he would now look at the HB and see a split route, he'd think he clinched it unless he somehow knew better (and unless he follows Alaska roads I doubt it; for most jurisdictions, TM is the only source I have on where routes go), and he'd get a VERY nasty surprise when the bridge reopened.

That's a less nasty surprise than finding out you had to clinch something you weren't able to, due to it being closed & inaccessible, in order to mark off AK10 as clinched.
In any case, when the bridge reopens and AK10 is reconnected, people will not have clinched 100% of it. The only ones immediately able to mark it clinched would be those who traveled it years ago, before the closures. C'est la vie.
But if the route's split beforehand, at least some folks will be able to mark it clinched until then.

As Oscar notes, it best matches what's there on the ground.
The point about I-69 & its ilk is well-made; disconnected route segments getting connected by new construction is a common occurrence.

Offline vdeane

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:22:51 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #47 on: March 03, 2018, 03:32:27 pm »
I guess we have different definitions of what counts as clinched.  I would not count such a clinch even though TM would.  As such, the map would no longer be a guide as to what I consider clinched and not, and I'd need to keep a note somewhere else to come back.

Meanwhile, there's precedent for having unclinchable systems in TM - just look at the truck route in PA that bans cars.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 557
  • Last Login:Today at 10:34:30 pm
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #48 on: March 03, 2018, 09:02:18 pm »
I guess we have different definitions of what counts as clinched.  I would not count such a clinch even though TM would.  As such, the map would no longer be a guide as to what I consider clinched and not, and I'd need to keep a note somewhere else to come back.
I'm in the same boat but prefer Oscar & Eric's solution. Better to have TM count something as clinched that I don't (I keep a list) than have TM count something as unclinched when I consider it clinched.
Clinched:

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 120
  • Last Login:June 15, 2018, 07:05:47 pm
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2018, 05:51:00 pm »
Meanwhile, there's precedent for having unclinchable systems in TM - just look at the truck route in PA that bans cars.

Well, that's not unclinchable. There have been cases where all traffic gets routed down US 219 Truck due to an incident or construction. And it's possible theoretically for anyone to clinch it in a truck (a rented U-haul can be driven without a CDL but would be required to go that way, for example).
Or... you could just defy the "no cars" sign and drive down that way. Multiple people have done this. ;)

A better example is the Crater Rim Drive oscar brought up on page 2. It's in the HB, despite being indefinitely closed and physically impassable due to volcanic activity.

On the other hand, the 4 1/2 mile segment of CA 39 that's been closed and in general limbo since 1978 is not in the HB, and it is theoretically traversable on foot or by bike.

Meanwhile M-185, which is physically impossible to clinch by car and must be done on foot or by bike, is in the HB.

So it seems to me there isn't a fully consistent precedent here... these types of situations are handled on a case by case basis. Ultimately I guess I'm okay with the decision to bifurcate AK 10... since it's more than just a bridge that's closed, apparently.

I guess we have different definitions of what counts as clinched.  I would not count such a clinch even though TM would.  As such, the map would no longer be a guide as to what I consider clinched and not, and I'd need to keep a note somewhere else to come back.
I'm in the same boat but prefer Oscar & Eric's solution. Better to have TM count something as clinched that I don't (I keep a list) than have TM count something as unclinched when I consider it clinched.

See I solve this problem by just matching what I do or don't count with what TM does. Then I don't need to keep track of exceptions anywhere else. :)

Of course, this presents opportunities for indigestion to be created if things are added to the HB in an area I had previously clinched, thus robbing me of my clinch since the goalposts were moved (see: Stupid Truck Routes).
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 05:54:32 pm by Duke87 »

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Last Login:Today at 10:49:15 pm
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #50 on: March 05, 2018, 04:02:21 am »
Meanwhile, there's precedent for having unclinchable systems in TM - just look at the truck route in PA that bans cars.

Well, that's not unclinchable. There have been cases where all traffic gets routed down US 219 Truck due to an incident or construction. And it's possible theoretically for anyone to clinch it in a truck (a rented U-haul can be driven without a CDL but would be required to go that way, for example).
Or... you could just defy the "no cars" sign and drive down that way. Multiple people have done this. ;)
My opinion = this is a legitimate route. Wanna clinch it? Rent a U-Haul or help a friend move if need be. :) :(

This post reminded me of MI185, which you beat me to posting about. As that one punk rock band said, "RIDE A (*%#&(#ING BIKE!" :)
And then there's the VT65 Brookfield Floating Bridge, clinchable by foot or presumably bike.
And the in-devel NY ProMtnHwy, clinchable by bus, motorcycle, or on foot.

A better example is the Crater Rim Drive oscar brought up on page 2. It's in the HB, despite being indefinitely closed and physically impassable due to volcanic activity.
I recall skimming over mentions of this route. Admittedly not 100% up on the details here, but if it's closed, barricaded off & 100% inaccessible, then I'd advocate for it's removal from the HB.

On the other hand, the 4 1/2 mile segment of CA 39 that's been closed and in general limbo since 1978 is not in the HB, and it is theoretically traversable on foot or by bike.
This, I think is a good call to be left out of the HB.
For the sake of argument though, what separates it from VT65?
Well, VT65 still looks pretty doable for someone in a wheelchair. ;) (I'm not disabled though, and should definitely defer to those who are.) That could potentially separate VT65 from MI185 though. Uhh... HAIL ERIS! (Pedicab?)

See I solve this problem by just matching what I do or don't count with what TM does. Then I don't need to keep track of exceptions anywhere else. :)
That's more or less my approach. Back before CHM existed, I didn't count NY I-278 as clinched, because I was missing the mainline between the ramp gores @ NY440. Now? *Shrug!*
Best not to think about my clinch of USA I-90, maybe... LA LA LA LA!!

Of course, this presents opportunities for indigestion to be created if things are added to the HB in an area I had previously clinched, thus robbing me of my clinch since the goalposts were moved (see: Stupid Truck Routes).
Perhaps, but there's always this possibility. A relocation of ME25 here, an extension of ME166 there...

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 120
  • Last Login:June 15, 2018, 07:05:47 pm
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2018, 09:26:54 pm »
And then there's the VT65 Brookfield Floating Bridge, clinchable by foot or presumably bike.

That bridge is perfectly driveable so long as the gross weight of your vehicle is not over 6000 pounds.

Quote
On the other hand, the 4 1/2 mile segment of CA 39 that's been closed and in general limbo since 1978 is not in the HB, and it is theoretically traversable on foot or by bike.
This, I think is a good call to be left out of the HB.

I agree as well. The road cannot be driven and will, barring any crazy turn of events, never will be able to be driven again. Since we're not in the business of mapping clinches for bike and pedestrian trails, it therefore doesn't belong in the HB.

As for M-185, this is part of why I say this is a case by case basis sort of thing. M-185, like that segment of CA 39, cannot and never will be able to be traversed in a car. However, there is longstanding precedent within the roadgeek community of it being "the only M-route you need a bike to clinch", and it's actually signed with shields and actively maintained - unlike the closed segment of CA 39, which is abandoned in every way except on paper. So I would not advocate for M-185 to be removed from the HB.




Quote
Of course, this presents opportunities for indigestion to be created if things are added to the HB in an area I had previously clinched, thus robbing me of my clinch since the goalposts were moved (see: Stupid Truck Routes).
Perhaps, but there's always this possibility. A relocation of ME25 here, an extension of ME166 there...

I don't think the two circumstances are comparable. I accept changes being made in the HB to reflect physical changes or installation of new signage in the field. It happens. And if you can't go clinch the new road you can at least still say you clinched things as they existed in year X.

On the other hand, when a road has existed all along and nothing about it has changed other than that someone suddenly decided it was worthy of adding to the HB when no one deemed it worthy before... that is what irks me. These types of changes reflect a lack of foresight or organizational lapse on our part and would not happen if we were able to maintain a more consistent vision as to what should and should not count.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 07:34:28 pm by Duke87 »

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
  • Last Login:Today at 05:00:27 pm
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #52 on: March 06, 2018, 08:18:06 am »
Well, that's not unclinchable. There have been cases where all traffic gets routed down US 219 Truck due to an incident or construction. And it's possible theoretically for anyone to clinch it in a truck (a rented U-haul can be driven without a CDL but would be required to go that way, for example).
Or... you could just defy the "no cars" sign and drive down that way. Multiple people have done this. ;)
Indeed - clinched doesn't have to be in-a-car. I've got over 100 miles that I've only covered on-foot, and maybe 20 miles only done on-bike.

If you want a narrower description of clinched, then make it so on your stats, just don't force everyone else to obey your narrower concept.
Quote
A better example is the Crater Rim Drive oscar brought up on page 2. It's in the HB, despite being indefinitely closed and physically impassable due to volcanic activity.
Which I originally drafted without the closed bit, but there were complaints.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Last Login:Today at 08:08:44 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #53 on: March 06, 2018, 09:52:35 am »
A better example is the Crater Rim Drive oscar brought up on page 2. It's in the HB, despite being indefinitely closed and physically impassable due to volcanic activity.
Which I originally drafted without the closed bit, but there were complaints.

That road's still there, was partially reopened after the initial closure, and can fully reopen at any time if volcanic activity shifts back to where it was until recently, at Pu'u O'o a few miles away from the road network.

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Last Login:Today at 10:49:15 pm
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #54 on: March 06, 2018, 12:17:01 pm »
Or... you could just defy the "no cars" sign and drive down that way. Multiple people have done this. ;)
Indeed - clinched doesn't have to be in-a-car. I've got over 100 miles that I've only covered on-foot, and maybe 20 miles only done on-bike.[/quote]
I've clinched ME25 (well, all except for the bit bypassed by ME25BusWes) by bike.  100 miles on foot, though? Not bad!

If you want a narrower description of clinched, then make it so on your stats, just don't force everyone else to obey your narrower concept.
Indeed. I remember back in the CHM days, for a while there was bogdymol.list & bogdymol_passenger.list.

That bridge is perfectly driveable so long as the gross weight of your vehicle is not over 6000 pounds.
Dat Jersey Barrier tho'.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 01:08:50 pm by yakra »

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 120
  • Last Login:June 15, 2018, 07:05:47 pm
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #55 on: March 06, 2018, 07:32:42 pm »
That bridge is perfectly driveable so long as the gross weight of your vehicle is not over 6000 pounds.
Dat Jersey Barrier tho'.

That picture depicts the previous bridge which was closed to vehicular traffic in 2008 because, well, it was starting to sink into the lake.

A replacement bridge opened in 2015 and it's open to vehicles again.

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Last Login:Today at 10:49:15 pm
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #56 on: March 06, 2018, 07:36:03 pm »
Oh! Disregard what I've said then. :)

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Last Login:June 14, 2018, 11:12:57 am
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #57 on: March 07, 2018, 02:11:43 pm »
A better example is the Crater Rim Drive oscar brought up on page 2. It's in the HB, despite being indefinitely closed and physically impassable due to volcanic activity.
Which I originally drafted without the closed bit, but there were complaints.

That road's still there, was partially reopened after the initial closure, and can fully reopen at any time if volcanic activity shifts back to where it was until recently, at Pu'u O'o a few miles away from the road network.

This is still listed as a temporary closure (or at least it was on my last visit in March 2017). While it might never reopen, the possibility exists that it will at sometime if there is a change in volcanic activity. Besides, as one of the drivers who clinched this before it closed, I'm still in favor of keeping it. Admittedly, I'm a bit biased on that last count.  :D

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 528
  • Last Login:Today at 08:08:44 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #58 on: March 20, 2018, 08:10:13 am »
yakra, were you planning on additional review of this system? Otherwise, I'd like to go ahead and activate.

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Last Login:Today at 10:49:15 pm
Re: usaak (Alaska State Highways)
« Reply #59 on: March 22, 2018, 01:14:30 pm »
Not planning on additional review.