Author Topic: usaush: United States Historic US Routes  (Read 58303 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1474
  • Last Login:Today at 08:29:36 am
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #240 on: January 01, 2021, 02:15:00 pm »
We essentially have to rely on field signage, which is of wildly varying quality, and often close to non-existent.
But we actively (and somewhat aggressively) remove routes that are on the map, officially defined, whatever because they aren't signed. Whether or not a route is signed on the ground is literally the criteria for inclusion for every single state system in the US (and other systems as well) isn't official definition or how it's mapped, but what's on the signs.

If you want to know what routes on TM are clinchable - a map isn't reliable, unless it has our database overlaid on it. We all know what CA710 is (to use a route that I lost travels on during usaca review purging it as unsigned) - it's on maps, it's in state DOT documents, etc, etc. But the only way of knowing without resorting to having a look at TM as to whether its on TM is to actually drive it and field check it for signage itself (it's far easier to check TM!) and find that its completely unsigned. A missing shield at a junction is something, but you don't know about signage elsewhere on the route, stuff going the other way, etc - the lack of one sign doesn't render a route unsigned...

Official definitions are not (usually - eg usai) definitive for TM purposes. Maps, paper or digital, don't actually show what travels you can actually map on TM. Many routes are not easily identifiable in the field as to whether they are signed and thus included - missing shields on certain approaches, perhaps its signed along part of its full length, etc? Field checking is pretty much just as irrelevant as everything else as there's usually routes that slip through the net (cf the many updates saying such a route is unsigned and should be removed from the database!) and you also can't just declare a route unsigned by not seeing a sign in a likely place - the only definitive way to know if something is TM clinchable is whether its on TM to be clinched.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 144
  • Last Login:May 10, 2021, 05:45:41 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #241 on: January 01, 2021, 05:40:47 pm »
I think grab-bag systems are a plague and should be avoided as such.

There are grab-bag systems and then there are well-signed national tourist routes. IMO, a system including Historic 66, the Lincoln Highway, Great River Road, the signed Circle Tours, other national scenic byways would be analogous to eurtr, nzltr, and sctntr. Most of these are very well signed and all fall under "tourist routes".

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:59:33 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #242 on: January 01, 2021, 06:35:11 pm »
Wisconsin County Trunk Highways are incredibly well signed and they aren't included (for good reason). Same it true for all the "letter" routes in Missouri which are technically "state supplemental routes." See https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=127.msg601#msg601.

The point is, a route being signed or not is not the sole criteria for inclusion in the HB.

Some of the disjointed sections of US66His in Missouri are hard to follow. When I drove it in late 2018, there was no signage on US66HisLaq other than "P" and "AA" though there was signage for Historic US66 on MO17 in the same area. If US66HisLaq had not been in the HB, I would have never known it was an old alignment of Route 66. If being signed it the determining factor, this 2.52 mile segment needs to be removed.

There are clearly some strong opinions on either side of this issue. I stick by my original thought. usaush is NOT a system. It is a list of old alignments of routes that have been moved or decommissioned. Routes like US20His in Ohio or Nebraska can go and most of us would never miss them. Many of the historic routes (though not all) are signed as state routes. Take the system out of TM and the question of whether it is TM clinchable or not is moot. If I decided at some point to clinch all the Wisconsin County trunk highways, I could do that despite the fact that are not in (and should not be in) TM.

I'm open the idea of a "select" system of significant US tourist routes of which Historic US66 could be a part. Most of the rest of the usaush would either be covered by concurrent routes (i.e. WA US99HisFed) or could be eliminated with minimal impact to TM.

Perhaps it's time to engage all the people who maintain the various states and come up with a consensus whether to keep or kill this system?

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3196
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:53:45 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #243 on: January 01, 2021, 06:57:42 pm »
My point is that we as contributors must rely on field signage to know what a route is, and what there is to include.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 386
  • Last Login:Today at 03:30:47 am
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #244 on: January 01, 2021, 08:47:11 pm »
As for Oregon, ODOT tends to view 30H as defacto 30, whether overlaid with mainline 30 (30H Rowena Crest, part of 30H Cascade Locks), and will omit signing mainline 30 in those respective segments (such as zero 30 reassurance shields on 84 despite mainline 30's overlap).
I'm disinclined to agree to a wholesale removal of usaush because of this.

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 06:57:29 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #245 on: January 01, 2021, 09:23:03 pm »
As for Oregon, ODOT tends to view 30H as defacto 30, whether overlaid with mainline 30 (30H Rowena Crest, part of 30H Cascade Locks), and will omit signing mainline 30 in those respective segments (such as zero 30 reassurance shields on 84 despite mainline 30's overlap).
I'm disinclined to agree to a wholesale removal of usaush because of this.
Why are you so worried about 30?  It still routed just on the Interstate now (with exceptions).  usaush is a pain in the ass to maintain for the exact reason yakra mentioned - you rely completely on field work - who has time for that? who has money for that?
Completed:
* Systems: WI
* by US State: AR: I; AZ: I; DE: I; IA: I, KS: I; MN: I; MA: I; MO: I; NE: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WI: I,US,WI;

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Last Login:Today at 04:57:59 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #246 on: January 01, 2021, 10:30:27 pm »
usaush is a pain in the ass to maintain for the exact reason yakra mentioned - you rely completely on field work - who has time for that? who has money for that?

That doesn't really apply to US 30 Historic, since Bickendan lives there. Also, AIUI, US 30 Historic is also unsigned OR 100. That would mean ODOT would know where the historic route starts and ends, without much need for field checking.

Having no signed state route number, but with historic US 30 signage, it would fit better in usaush rather than usaor. And being a significant tourist draw for its awesome scenery and waterfalls (certainly lured me off the Interstate on my first visit to Oregon), it seems to me the kind of route that usaush is made for.

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 386
  • Last Login:Today at 03:30:47 am
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #247 on: January 01, 2021, 11:41:21 pm »
As for Oregon, ODOT tends to view 30H as defacto 30, whether overlaid with mainline 30 (30H Rowena Crest, part of 30H Cascade Locks), and will omit signing mainline 30 in those respective segments (such as zero 30 reassurance shields on 84 despite mainline 30's overlap).
I'm disinclined to agree to a wholesale removal of usaush because of this.
Why are you so worried about 30?  It still routed just on the Interstate now (with exceptions).  usaush is a pain in the ass to maintain for the exact reason yakra mentioned - you rely completely on field work - who has time for that? who has money for that?
Because of how ODOT signs it, if we have a user interested in the US highways but not the Interstates (setting aside the unlikeliness), if they wanted to follow 30 from Astoria to Ontario, they would diverge from 84, following 30H. (To be clear: this is what I did with US 14 through Wyoming and South Dakota with respect to I-90)
If usaush were fully pulled, that user would have effective gaps on their 30 tracking because signs directed them to take the Historic route. (Analog: My taking 14A from Cody into the Bighorns instead of taking 14/16/20 to the divergence, though I did backtrack slightly to visit Shell Canyon Falls).

Of course, Everyone Knows that 30 stays on 84 through the thrust of the Gorge, but as Oscar also notes, the main thrust of 30H is ORH 100, which is part of a system we're reluctant at including.

Unlike probably most USH routes, 30H is DOT sacntioned, signed, and maintained. It should remain with TM, though I can see it being moved to usausb, and frankly, that could be a better place for the verifiable USH routes.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3106
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:38:52 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #248 on: January 02, 2021, 03:24:22 am »
Perhaps it's time to engage all the people who maintain the various states and come up with a consensus whether to keep or kill this system?

Seconded! The discussion will never end...

As for this system, US-66 got enough attention in some states that it certainly deserves a look - because of its history.  It belongs more with routes that have history or tourist value (again debatable for the other historic US Routes) such as Lincoln Highway, Lewis and Clark Trail, Great River Road, Dixie Highway, etc.  There are so many it will taake time to track all of them down.  This would be more of a "Tourist Routes" system.

I think grab-bag systems are a plague and should be avoided as such.

There are grab-bag systems and then there are well-signed national tourist routes. IMO, a system including Historic 66, the Lincoln Highway, Great River Road, the signed Circle Tours, other national scenic byways would be analogous to eurtr, nzltr, and sctntr. Most of these are very well signed and all fall under "tourist routes".


I think there are three options:

  • Remove all usaush routes from TM
  • Remove usaush system from TM and introduce a new "USA Select Tourist Routes" system similar to eursf (maintainer of each region decides whether routes are included or not) - either preview or active (now or intention to activate it)
  • Keep usaush in preview status - general clean-up but no activity for activation
  • Push usaush to activation


Are there more options?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2021, 06:03:56 am by michih »

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Last Login:Today at 04:57:59 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #249 on: January 02, 2021, 05:54:22 am »
I think there are three options:

  • Remove all usaush routes from TM
  • Remove usaush system from TM and introduce a new "USA Select Tourist Routes" system similar to eursf (maintainer of each region decides whether routes are included or not) - either preview or active (now or intention to activate it)
  • Keep usaush as-is in preview status - no activity for activation
  • Activate usaush as-is today

The last option should be modified, to fix Datacheck errors on several routes, remove some of the flakier routes, and make some fixes to the remaining routes (for example, perhaps the probably-unsigned CA US6hissan segment in Kern County, which neroute2 has suggested be removed). usaush is not ready to activate "as-is".

A new "Select Tourist Routes" system (option 2) would mean reinventing the wheel, to provide some guidance about selection of routes to go into the system rather than repeat the issues we've had with usasf with inconsistent selection criteria between regions. usaush at least seems to have some selection criteria in place.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3106
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:38:52 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #250 on: January 02, 2021, 06:07:22 am »
Thanks, I've modified my previous post.

A new "Select Tourist Routes" system (option 2) would mean reinventing the wheel, to provide some guidance about selection of routes to go into the system rather than repeat the issues we've had with usasf with inconsistent selection criteria between regions. usaush at least seems to have some selection criteria in place.

Do we really need criteria?

Trying to too formally define the "select" systems would be a Bad Thing IMO. Too restrictive. One size does not fit all.

Agreed. "Select" expressly states the system is not comprehensive, it's just some routes that have been deemed important enough to map.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 144
  • Last Login:May 10, 2021, 05:45:41 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #251 on: January 02, 2021, 02:01:40 pm »
A "select" system need not be comprehensive. Include the major things that we know are signed well and call it a day, particularly routes where a decent amount does not overlap other signed routes. Such a system could include, but would not be limited to:

  • Former US 66
  • The Lincoln Highway
  • The National Road
  • The Jefferson Highway
  • Great River Road
  • The Great Lakes Circle Tours (where signed)
  • The Great Lakes Seaway Trail (how NY/PA sign the Circle Tours and an extension along the St. Lawrence River)
  • Anything else of similar prominence (preferably crossing state/international lines) that is signed like a numbered route

I don't think anyone proposes including stuff like the Dutchess County Historic Tour, which includes most through roads in the county. A "select" system would be stuff of extra-regional or national/international interest.

Offline vdeane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:May 15, 2021, 06:53:39 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #252 on: January 02, 2021, 06:31:29 pm »
I would not favor turning off "Preview" due to the lengthy delays going on but I will not be mad if it is because this is due to the systems being in flux and not confirmed as this set will be in preview for quite some time for that very reason. 

As such, having the off-switch is better than nothing.
Yeah, I wouldn't want the preview systems turned off, but a toggle could work.  Might even be something for the "jump" menu, given that it would likely require reloading data.  Could also combine all the checkbox options into some menu that opens when you hover over a button, to save on space.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 06:00:02 pm by Duke87 »
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1474
  • Last Login:Today at 08:29:36 am
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #253 on: January 04, 2021, 07:54:42 am »
My point is that we as contributors must rely on field signage to know what a route is, and what there is to include.
And my point is that this applies to pretty much every system in North America. "Updates to Highway Data" has about as many threads on routes being unsigned and thus must be removed/routes now being signed and thus now can be included, as it does on construction occurring.

----
There are grab-bag systems and then there are well-signed national tourist routes. IMO, a system including Historic 66, the Lincoln Highway, Great River Road, the signed Circle Tours, other national scenic byways would be analogous to eurtr, nzltr, and sctntr. Most of these are very well signed and all fall under "tourist routes".
Very open to this, but oscar's point about selection being an issue is a very valid one.

I will point out that 'National Scenic Byways' (in capitals) is rather a messy system, even just the more elite 'All American Roads' - with a lot of branches and bifurcating loops and stuff. There's perhaps a few routes that are coherent, signed reasonably well, and not fully part of other systems (a lot of routes are entirely concurrent with just one route) AARs/NSBs that might be worth considering. The 'Historic Columbia River Highway' AAR would be one to add (as US30His?) to a more grabbag system. Las Vegas Strip AAR, perhaps could be, despite its short length (in part because it is very well travelled) - though I don't think it's signed. On the other hand, there's at least a site with maps and legal definitions - the lack of which is one of the things that annoys people with usaush.

---
Some of the disjointed sections of US66His in Missouri are hard to follow. When I drove it in late 2018, there was no signage on US66HisLaq other than "P" and "AA" though there was signage for Historic US66 on MO17 in the same area. If US66HisLaq had not been in the HB, I would have never known it was an old alignment of Route 66. If being signed it the determining factor, this 2.52 mile segment needs to be removed.
Fair enough. Certainly, however, it wouldn't have been included if there wasn't at least one sign at one point - as the system has gone through several purges of unsigned routes.
Quote
I stick by my original thought. usaush is NOT a system. It is a list of old alignments of routes that have been moved or decommissioned.
Arguably it's no more a system than a collection of routes that all share similar shield signs. However it's not a list of old alignments of routes that have been moved or decommissioned - it's far more selective than that, relying (like most other systems) on signage, and there's many (thanks US20His! though also US6His too) bits where the historic route is sharing pavement with the current route.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 144
  • Last Login:May 10, 2021, 05:45:41 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #254 on: January 04, 2021, 04:28:52 pm »
There are grab-bag systems and then there are well-signed national tourist routes. IMO, a system including Historic 66, the Lincoln Highway, Great River Road, the signed Circle Tours, other national scenic byways would be analogous to eurtr, nzltr, and sctntr. Most of these are very well signed and all fall under "tourist routes".
Very open to this, but oscar's point about selection being an issue is a very valid one.

I will point out that 'National Scenic Byways' (in capitals) is rather a messy system, even just the more elite 'All American Roads' - with a lot of branches and bifurcating loops and stuff. There's perhaps a few routes that are coherent, signed reasonably well, and not fully part of other systems (a lot of routes are entirely concurrent with just one route) AARs/NSBs that might be worth considering. The 'Historic Columbia River Highway' AAR would be one to add (as US30His?) to a more grabbag system. Las Vegas Strip AAR, perhaps could be, despite its short length (in part because it is very well travelled) - though I don't think it's signed. On the other hand, there's at least a site with maps and legal definitions - the lack of which is one of the things that annoys people with usaush.

The thing with a "select" byways system is that we could restrict it to byways that are not 100% concurrent with signed routes. This would immediately eliminate the vast majority of national scenic byways and a handful of historic routes (cough...Historic 20 in Ohio). There's no use in having a route that entirely overlaps Utah SR 12. For example, there is only one national scenic byway in New York that meets this criteria (the Great Lakes Seaway Trail) even though the state has three of them.

But there is benefit to including things like the Great River Road and Columbia River Highway (as examples) that have significant segments on roads not already in the system, because not only are they signed routes, there is significant interest in driving and mapping them. I wouldn't necessarily restrict it to the America's Byways system, either, as this doesn't include significant portions of several named highways that are well-signed, nor does it include all of 66. Maybe stuff like the 49 Mile Scenic Drive in San Francisco, too (I think that's signed), because there's a lot of interest in that, but I know people are worried about scope creep.