Author Topic: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)  (Read 6827 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 699
  • Last Login:Today at 08:38:09 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #45 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 (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.

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Last Login:September 18, 2018, 09:44:55 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #46 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 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. 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  ;)).

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Last Login:Today at 11:52:19 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #47 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

Offline Barefoot Driver

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:October 20, 2017, 02:43:14 pm
  • always barefoot, wear least possible
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #48 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.
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!
drive barefoot—it’s safer and more comfortable!
(i am always barefoot.)
whenever possible also, find a new highway to clinch!

Online Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 167
  • Last Login:Today at 11:51:11 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #49 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, IL,

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.

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Last Login:September 18, 2018, 09:44:55 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #50 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.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 699
  • Last Login:Today at 08:38:09 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #51 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??

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Last Login:September 18, 2018, 09:44:55 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #52 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.

Online oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
  • Last Login:Today at 11:54:33 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #53 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.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 12:02:15 pm by oscar »

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1273
  • Last Login:Today at 11:18:24 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #54 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.

Offline vdeane

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:September 15, 2018, 04:40:44 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #55 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).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Online Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 167
  • Last Login:Today at 11:51:11 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #56 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.

Online yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1548
  • Last Login:Today at 11:52:19 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #57 on: February 10, 2018, 02:38:46 am »
Route66 Historic Alignments
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

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 699
  • Last Login:Today at 08:38:09 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #58 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
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.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Last Login:Today at 09:45:18 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #59 on: February 11, 2018, 12:50:16 am »
There's a spur route of 66 in Illinois along the road leading up to the old Chain of Rocks Bridge.
Clinched: