Author Topic: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)  (Read 8487 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 175
  • Last Login:December 08, 2018, 09:11:47 pm
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #90 on: December 05, 2018, 10:22:32 pm »
I would just as soon sidestep this by 86ing MS TourRd entirely. Looks to me like more of a path to follow for a self-guided tour of the park than a "route" per se. The existence of multiple loops generally supports this.

On the other hand, it does appear to have a shield of sorts. So, another case of stupid truck routes.

Offline dfilpus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 07:13:28 pm
    • Filpus Roadgeek
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #91 on: December 06, 2018, 09:05:45 am »
I would just as soon sidestep this by 86ing MS TourRd entirely. Looks to me like more of a path to follow for a self-guided tour of the park than a "route" per se. The existence of multiple loops generally supports this.

On the other hand, it does appear to have a shield of sorts. So, another case of stupid truck routes.
I agree with removing this route. There are many such touring routes in battlefields all over. I have driven similar routes in Gettysburg, Antietam, Chickamauga, Yorktown, Valley Forge, among others. Why single out Vicksburg for a routing without including all of the others?
There was a trial routing of the Gettysburg auto tour in the system which was removed due to its complexity.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 753
  • Last Login:Today at 06:15:15 pm
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #92 on: December 06, 2018, 12:27:07 pm »
Froggie, you maintain MS - your call. I'll happily delete it if you think it should go. Or you can do it.

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 393
  • Last Login:Today at 02:04:39 pm
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #93 on: December 06, 2018, 07:39:26 pm »
Given the precedent with Gettysburg, might as well ditch it.

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 226
  • Last Login:Today at 06:19:36 am
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #94 on: December 08, 2018, 07:15:48 am »
I was reviewing some ODOT maps, and OR 62 follows the pattern of other state highways in national parks: It doesn't exist in Crater Lake National Park.
But since Oregon's two-tiered systems can muddy the waters, it could be that OR 62 is signed within the park and it's really ORH 22 that's split into two segments. Field checking this will be required.

Ultimately, I believe OR 62 will need to be split into two, with a new intervening CraLakeHwy route tieing the two segments together.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 753
  • Last Login:Today at 06:15:15 pm
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #95 on: December 08, 2018, 08:26:25 am »
From GMSV

At the west entrance of the NP, there are OR62 reassurance shields in both directions as the county boundary is marked - link. The pavement changes roughly here too (suggesting a maintenance border).

At the south entrance there's no OR62 shields. Though there are reassurance markers for the Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway. One might expect begin/end signs if Oregon didn't view the road as continuing through the national park.

Where the main road to the lake turns off, there's this sign which says "Highway 62 Jct".

NPS's maps of the NP mostly don't have OR62 marked in the park, but this one does mark it.

I'm going to say that, while there's a break in state maintenance, the gap in OR62 is merely administrative, with both Oregon and the NPS viewing the road through the park as being part of Highway 62.