Author Topic: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)  (Read 11451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 205
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:36:43 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

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:07:17 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: 825
  • Last Login:Today at 06:16:26 am
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: 417
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:13:34 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: 249
  • Last Login:Today at 03:25:17 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: 825
  • Last Login:Today at 06:16:26 am
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.

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Last Login:Today at 06:50:28 am
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #96 on: December 10, 2018, 10:09:12 pm »
I think the I-80 point for PA RivRd (River Road, Delaware Gap NRA) should be removed.  It was lined up with the I-80 "310" label(it will not be since I just moved it), but I would not consider River Rd itself as the main focal point of the interchange.

On a second note, I moved the RivRd point on US 209 to the following location:

RivRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.078132&lon=-75.027874

Ouch, yeah. That point really has no business being there at all.

I decided to go ahead and take care of this.  I have had some issues with how I do things in Github tonight so I hope everything comes out correctly.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2412

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
  • Last Login:Today at 06:16:26 am
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #97 on: December 17, 2018, 06:14:01 am »
Rather than these add hoc corrections, does anyone want to do a systematic review of the system?

Offline dfilpus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:07:17 pm
    • Filpus Roadgeek
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #98 on: December 18, 2018, 04:01:12 pm »
Part 1 of review, by state:
AK, AL, AZ: No comments.
CA BigOakRd:
CA GenHwy: Add a waypoint at Crescent Meadow Road.
CA KinCanRd: Add a waypoint at Grant Tree Road.
CA LasPeakHwy: Are both Summit Lake Camp waypoints necessary?
CA MinSumRd: DevPosAccRd => DevPosRd
CA TioPassRd: Western hidden waypoint => TuoGro
CA WawRd: Add waypoint at Tunnel View
DC BeaDr: Remove "NW" suffixes from all waypoints. These are equivalent to directional prefixes that are not used on waypoints.
DC RockCrkPkwy: Ditto.
DC SuiPkwy:
     SCapSt -> CapSt
     Remove "SE" suffixes from all waypoints.
FL MainParkRd: Amp-> End
GA: No comment.
HI CraRimDr: The road is open to Kilauea Military Camp.
KY MamCavePkwy:
     GreRivFerRd  -> GreRivRd
     FliRidRd should be moved to the parking lot and renamed End.







Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Last Login:Today at 05:52:37 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #99 on: December 18, 2018, 05:02:06 pm »
HI CraRimDr: The road is open to Kilauea Military Camp.

I noticed this too when I was out there in October. That said, I'm OK with truncating Crater Rim to the most important part (connection between HI 11 and Chain of Craters Rd.), rather than try to keep up with what volcano goddess Madame Pele does next to the road. Crater Rim once was a complete loop in TM, but we gave up on that when part of the loop collapsed into the Halema'uma'u Crater.

I'll look over the CA comments (on routes that I drafted, or snipped out of usaca) after the holidays.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2018, 05:04:55 pm by oscar »

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 825
  • Last Login:Today at 06:16:26 am
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #100 on: December 18, 2018, 06:09:28 pm »
DC BeaDr: Remove "NW" suffixes from all waypoints. These are equivalent to directional prefixes that are not used on waypoints.
DC RockCrkPkwy: Ditto.
DC SuiPkwy:
     SCapSt -> CapSt
     Remove "SE" suffixes from all waypoints.
The suffixes were added after this specific request.

Second, and impacting 3 of the 4 lists, is that the city quadrant is very prominent in DC signage, waymaking, and usage.  Because of this, they should have been included.  This doesn't affect the GW Pkwy list, but it does affect the other three.  In the case of the Suitland Pkwy list, the western endpoint should be "SCapSt", as the South is very prominent in that streetname to distinguish it from North Capitol St and East Capitol St.

I'm easy either way.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 770
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 03:47:30 pm
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #101 on: December 18, 2018, 08:33:54 pm »
I'm in favor of dropping the suffixes (and prefix for CapSt), especially since none of the DC routes in this set exists in more than one quadrant, making it unnecessary to differentiate among streets with slightly different names. ISTM that the only times the directional affixes are needed is either when there are two separate, similarly-named roads nearby (such as S River Rd along one bank of the river, and N River Rd on the opposite side), or when the directional term is part of the name (such as DC's North Carolina Ave & South Carolina Ave, which are not the same street).
Clinched:

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1822
  • Last Login:Today at 02:21:15 am
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #102 on: December 18, 2018, 11:56:43 pm »
Also favor dropping the suffixes.

Offline dfilpus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:07:17 pm
    • Filpus Roadgeek
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #103 on: December 19, 2018, 10:28:16 am »
Part 2 of review, by state:

MD BalWasPkwy: MD201 has a waypoint for MD295/BaltWash, but there is no waypoint on MD295 or BalWasPkwy.
ME SchLpRd: What does Win/Gou mean as the east terminal?
MS NatTraPkwy:
     US61_PG -> US61_N
     US61_Ad -> US61_S
MT: No comments.
NC BlueRidPkwy: CirRidRd is not an intersection. Move waypoint to Mt Lyn Lowry viewpoint or make hidden.
NC LinFalRd: LinFalDisCen -> End or VisCen
ND, NE, NJ: No comments.

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 417
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:13:34 pm
Re: usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)
« Reply #104 on: December 19, 2018, 11:39:18 am »
Quote from: dfilpus
DC SuiPkwy:
     SCapSt -> CapSt

I disagree with this.  South is specifically part of the street name here.  Surprised Oscar didn't mention it since he still lives in the area.  I'm guessing those who suggest its removal are unaware of the peculiarities of D.C.'s street system.

Quote from: mapcat
or when the directional term is part of the name (such as DC's North Carolina Ave & South Carolina Ave, which are not the same street).

The "Capitol Streets" in D.C. operate under this same principle.  North Capitol St ≠ South Capitol St ≠ East Capitol St.

Quote from: dfilpus
MD BalWasPkwy: MD201 has a waypoint for MD295/BaltWash, but there is no waypoint on MD295 or BalWasPkwy.

There's a waypoint...it's simply labeled differently because the waypoint is also coincident with US 50.  IMO, the solution here would be to relabel the BalWasPkwy list point to match that of the MD295 list (label it as "US50/201").
« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 11:49:29 am by froggie »