Author Topic: usaca: California State Highways  (Read 74466 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rmatley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Last Login:March 15, 2022, 11:30:13 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #375 on: February 22, 2022, 11:36:22 pm »
I did not take any pictures, but I did find on google street view that there are street signs saying Highway 74 at the intersection of CA111 and CA74and at the intersection of Haystack and CA74 in Palm Desert.

Maybe the situations is similar with that other stretch of 111. I don't remember seeing any green/white sign markers but I sure remember the road being referred to as CA111 in that stretch.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:24:29 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #376 on: April 01, 2022, 12:03:43 am »
The thing is a street sign blade saying "Highway 74" or "Highway 111" in plain text doesn't count - it just stipulates that is the legal name of the road, it's not a route sign.

I can note since I was just there that there is not signage for CA 74 within the limits of Palm Desert, though there also isn't an end sign. 111 meanwhile is properly and thoroughly signed as making the turn onto 66th Ave at Mecca to end at 86, and not continuing on its historical alignment (likewise, was just there).


Anyway while I'm here let me throw out an additional note: the "CA29" label on CA175 should probably be CA29_E

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Last Login:Today at 12:10:08 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #377 on: April 16, 2022, 05:17:09 am »
The thing is a street sign blade saying "Highway 74" or "Highway 111" in plain text doesn't count - it just stipulates that is the legal name of the road, it's not a route sign.

I can note since I was just there that there is not signage for CA 74 within the limits of Palm Desert, though there also isn't an end sign. 111 meanwhile is properly and thoroughly signed as making the turn onto 66th Ave at Mecca to end at 86, and not continuing on its historical alignment (likewise, was just there).

Most recently, before CA 111 was relinquished between Palm Springs and Mecca, CA 111 was routed along the CA 86 expressway and a small part of I-10, with Golf Center Parkway in Indio providing the connection to old 111. That CA 111 signage is gone, including in particular on the Golf Center connector needed for travelers to follow that version of the old alignment.

A more basic problem is that even if the overhead Highway 111 street blades (which can be hard for motorists to see anyway, if they're trying to follow old 111) were good enough, they don't cover the entire long gap between Palm Springs and Mecca. Highway 111 street blades exist in Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Indio (but not Golf Center Parkway), but not in Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Coachella, or Thermal. With no signage continuity between the unrelinquished 111 segments in Palm Springs and from Mecca southward, or other ways for travelers to follow the connection on either of the old routings, ISTM most reasonable to break 111 in two, following the legal and clearly-signed definition of the route.

As for 74 in Palm Desert, if 111 were still adequately signed between Palm Springs and Mecca, we might stretch to use the Highway 74 signs to preserve the connection. But since we're not including in the HB the disconnected Palm Desert(/Indian Wells/Indio) segment of old 111, there's no connection to preserve.

Quote
Anyway while I'm here let me throw out an additional note: the "CA29" label on CA175 should probably be CA29_E

Change made in my local copy, pending some Nevada fixes.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2022, 12:33:15 pm by oscar »

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Last Login:Today at 12:10:08 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
« Reply #378 on: April 21, 2022, 07:24:01 pm »
175: why CA29_S but E/W for BotRockRd?

CA29_S is sub-optimal, should be CA29 (with existing CA29 point renamed to CA29_E). But CA29 is a label in use, so kept and hidden it where it was, with CA29_S left as is, to avoid breaking several list files.

Other changes to CA 175 included in https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5731
« Last Edit: April 21, 2022, 10:04:19 pm by oscar »

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3472
  • Last Login:Today at 06:16:04 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #379 on: April 22, 2022, 11:47:20 am »
Just out of curiosity, what about dealing with the 2019 peer-review? Any chance to activate the system in the foreseeable future

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Last Login:Today at 12:10:08 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #380 on: April 22, 2022, 02:07:41 pm »
Just out of curiosity, what about dealing with the 2019 peer-review? Any chance to activate the system in the foreseeable future

I've been addressing the peer-review edits piecemeal as time permits, either as part of updates/cleanups of some of the longer state routes, or when I need to make other changes to a shorter route like CA 175 I'll also work in peer-review changes while I'm at it.

The biggest obstacle has been with dealing with partial relinquishments of state routes (for one example, see the recent discussion started by rmatley), which was a hot trend among state lawmakers but seems to have slowed down lately. I've settled on the general approach to handling relinquishments, as outlined here and there in this topic. I just need to catch up with any new relinquishments and details on old ones in southern California (some of which may also require tweaks to preview historic U.S. routes).

Activation of the less complicated canqc system (peer-reviewed at the same time as usaca) moved quickly, since I was stuck at home for several months due to the pandemic, so I just made that my "pandemic project". Then I got busy with other projects, including some more field checking and resulting updates for usaca as well as usanv.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3472
  • Last Login:Today at 06:16:04 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #381 on: April 22, 2022, 02:44:12 pm »
Just out of curiosity, what about dealing with the 2019 peer-review? Any chance to activate the system in the foreseeable future

I've been addressing the peer-review edits piecemeal as time permits

Thanks.

Activation of the less complicated canqc system (peer-reviewed at the same time as usaca) moved quickly, since I was stuck at home for several months due to the pandemic, so I just made that my "pandemic project".

Yep, activated in May 2020.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 650
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:24:29 pm
Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
« Reply #382 on: April 23, 2022, 11:52:50 pm »
CA29_S is sub-optimal, should be CA29 (with existing CA29 point renamed to CA29_E). But CA29 is a label in use, so kept and hidden it where it was, with CA29_S left as is, to avoid breaking several list files.

So... seeing as usaca is still a preview system it should be okay to break list files, and I wouldn't let this get in the way of making labels what they should be. This is why the preview/active distinction exists.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Last Login:Today at 12:10:08 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca (California State Highways), preview system
« Reply #383 on: April 24, 2022, 12:50:51 am »
CA29_S is sub-optimal, should be CA29 (with existing CA29 point renamed to CA29_E). But CA29 is a label in use, so kept and hidden it where it was, with CA29_S left as is, to avoid breaking several list files.

So... seeing as usaca is still a preview system it should be okay to break list files, and I wouldn't let this get in the way of making labels what they should be. This is why the preview/active distinction exists.

I agree list files can be broken as needed for preview systems. But it's not really needed in this instance.

Several users have CA29 in their list file entries for CA 175. You are one of them. At least one of the others doesn't update list files nearly as often as you and I.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2022, 12:56:01 am by oscar »

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3472
  • Last Login:Today at 06:16:04 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #384 on: April 24, 2022, 02:05:45 am »
So... seeing as usaca is still a preview system it should be okay to break list files, and I wouldn't let this get in the way of making labels what they should be. This is why the preview/active distinction exists.

We (should) always try to avoid breaking list files. If we have to break list files, changes to active routes are newsworthy, changes to preview route are not (some of us indicate it on the forum or Github though).

For users, the only difference between preview and active systems are update entries - which are very important IMO.
For highway data managers, active systems are usually peer-reviewed and thus deemed correct and complete to the best of our knowledge according to our TM rules.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3816
  • Last Login:Today at 10:07:59 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #385 on: April 24, 2022, 12:55:10 pm »
I second what Duke87 said. It's another part of why the preview/active distinction exists.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Last Login:Today at 12:10:08 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #386 on: May 04, 2022, 01:21:45 pm »
CA 187 (Venice Blvd. in Los Angeles) has apparently been relinquished in its entirety to the city of Los Angeles, removing the route from the state highway system. This has been in the works for some time (authorized by the state legislature in 2015, agreement between Caltrans and the city in 2016), but it took awhile to carry out the agreement. CA 187 has disappeared from Caltrans' Postmile Query Tool, which indicates the relinquishment finally has taken effect.

I'll remove CA 187 from the HB, after checking whether I need to make other such changes.

UPDATE: Change now in HB.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2022, 11:38:59 pm by oscar »

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Last Login:Today at 12:10:08 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #387 on: May 08, 2022, 07:15:37 pm »
The California Transportation Commission has approved the relocation of CA 58 between I-5 and CA 99, from the McKittrick and Rosedale Highways and part of CA 43, south to parts of the Stockdale Highway (county road) and the Westside Parkway (locally-maintained freeway, already in the usasf route set). See https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE058.html for all the mind-numbing details.

Part of the Westside Parkway hasn't yet been adopted into the state highway system (apparently because Caltrans thinks the part east of Coffee Rd. needs improvements before it can be adopted at a later date), and the easternmost part completing the Parkway's connection to CA 99 and the rest of CA 58 is still under construction. I'll take some time to figure out how and when to implement the reroute in the HB. That might include a split of CA 58, a Buttonwillow segment between US 101 and Coffee Rd. in Bakersfield, and a Tehachapi segment between CA 99 and I-15, until the gap between those segments is filled.

Is there a chance it could be like other routes that despite having non-Caltrans gaps, are still signed by a local jurisdiction & this included as one piece?

Caltrans' Postmile Query Tool now shows CA 58 following the two-lane Stockdale Highway from I-5 to the Westside Parkway, and most of the Westside Parkway (previously a county freeway) to the Coffee Rd. interchange. However, multiple freeway entrance signs shown in March 2022 GMSV indicates CA 58 not only includes the Parkway to Coffee Rd., but continues one more interchange east, to Mohawk St.

The PQT is consistent with Caltrans' formal adoption of the Westside Parkway into the state highway system only to Coffee Rd., as well as the Stockdale Hwy. from I-5 to the Westside Parkway. But while the PQT shows the Stockdale Hwy. as part of route 58, March 2022 GMSV imagery shows no CA 58 signs on the Stockdale Hwy., or on I-5 at or north of the Stockdale junction. This might be that the existing Stockdale Hwy. is planned to be just a temporary CA 58 alignment, to be replaced someday with a new alignment between I-5 and the Westside Pkwy.

Most of the existing CA 58 (Hageman Rd. and Rosedale Hwy.) between I-5 and CA 99 has been relinquished to the city of Bakersfield or Kern County, except the short section between Mohawk St. and CA 99, and the shorter section concurrent with CA 43. This confirmed by the PQT. State law includes the usual requirement that the local government maintain continuation signage to the rest of route 58. Some CA 58 signage has been removed, but some remains on the concurrency with CA 43 about midway between I-5 and CA 99. There also are no End signs confirming that the relinquished segments are no longer part of CA 58, like the one on CA 160 at the southern Sacramento city limit.

There remains an unbuilt gap between the east end of Westside Parkway and the southern CA 58/99 junction. This segment, called the Centennial Corridor, is being built for Caltrans, with expected completion in mid-2023.

For more, see Daniel Faigin's California Highways page on route 58.

My suggested fixes:

-- In keeping with yakra's suggestion, leave the existing CA 58 route file as is, to maintain route continuity while the Centennial Corridor is under construction.

-- Add a separate new CA 58 segment (ca.ca058wes), including the part of the Westside Parkway west of Coffee Rd., but not the Stockdale Hwy. between I-5 and the Westside Pkwy.

-- Leave the Westside Pkwy. in the HB as an active route in the U.S. Select Named Freeways (usasf) route set, partly concurrent with the new CA 58 segment.

All this will change (hopefully next year) with the completion of the Centennial Corridor, linking the Westside Pkwy. to CA 99 and points east on existing CA 58. This would create a continuous state-maintained CA 58 from US 101 to I-15, bypassing CA 58's old Rosedale Hwy. alignment.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2022, 07:23:52 pm by oscar »

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Last Login:Today at 12:10:08 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #388 on: May 13, 2022, 11:39:45 pm »
UPDATE: Above CA 58 changes now in HB.