LCT has a connector on US 12 in Mobridge (east end, west end).
There is also one at Pierre (west end). Signage on the northbank between Pierre and Chamberlain is very sparse, and this sign implies it's not there, but there is this.
The LCT stays with SD 52 west of Yankton.
I can't find any LCT shields on I-29 south of SD 50, but there is this sign for a wayside exhibit.
LCT has a connector at Washburn (west end, east end).
There is also one on ND 810 in Bismarck (west end, east end). Finally this freeway gets added 
LCTKen does not pass thru Kennebec. Instead it uses SD 47 north from Reliance to BIA 10, and presumably goes via Lower Brule to SD 1806.
The Yellowstone Trail also has signs in SD, but I haven't looked into how common they are.
For the East River Chamberlain to Pierre segment, Lewis & Clark follows the (
BIA 4 cutoff to
Ft. Thompson, where it then presumably follows SD 47 and SD 34 to Pierre to link up with the rest (never seen signs along that stretch, but it's pre-existing mileage so including a poorly signed route isn't the end of the world).
As far as the link between
Gregory and
Ft. Pierre, I'd rather leave it on the current routing because the only evidence of the Lower Brule routing is the one sign that looks older than me, and that way we don't add any new mileage that doesn't have good signage to back it up. Still think it should be "Lewis & Clark Auto Trail (East River)" (SD LCTrl) and "Lewis & Clark Auto Trail (West River)" (SD LCTrlWRi), that way the cities can be used for the connectors/spurs.
Found a
sign in Montana! See below for more on badly signed official routings that are concurrent with existing mileage.
Si, I can handle the ND/MT/WY/CO issues that pop up on these routes, it'll give me something to do lol. If you want to keep em in those states, that's fine with me too.
To me, including such routes in a tourist route system is a waste of effort, both for whoever is developing the system, and also potential headaches for the maintainers of the concurrent routes.
I guess I'm fine with maintaining completely concurrent tourist routes, I have to deal with so many concurrencies anyway so what's one more? If there's a national tourist route with easily accessible maps, but one state/province doesn't sign it very well if at all (*cough* MONTANA *cough*) I'd include the legs in that state/province (so there's a cohesive national route) as long as they were concurrent with pre-existing mileage (that's just me though). This is kinda like US 87 in Colorado, which doesn't officially exist per CDOT but we have it in there anyway to link the national route together.
I guess on that note I'm gonna draft up the many Lewis and Clark routes in Montana now, sounds like fun!
Recent Posts