Author Topic: usaush: United States Historic US Routes  (Read 58305 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Highway63

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Today at 02:49:29 am
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #255 on: January 05, 2021, 12:17:11 am »
I don't mind them being there. I moderately like them there. I wouldn't mind excluding them from total mileage, leaving them in perpetual "preview", or a toggle.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3196
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:53:45 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #256 on: January 07, 2021, 11:21:38 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".

I'm glad you said well-signed national tourist routes, and not systems. ;)
For usaush, the "well-signed" part may apply to some routes and some jurisdictions, or certainly doesn't extend to the system as a whole.

Do we really need criteria?
It certainly beats an "any old rubbish" approach...

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.
What sets usaush apart from the formal state systems is that we have only signage to go on. With the regular state systems, when signage is incomplete/inadequate, we at least have the "on paper" definitions to fall back on, to shed some light on where the route goes, what's "supposed to be" signed. With historic routes, we have no such luxury. When there's next to no signage, or just one lone sign in a random downtown, we don't have much of a definition of a route.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 06:57:29 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #257 on: February 01, 2021, 05:31:19 am »
Found this online regarding US 20 https://www.historicus20.com/index.html

I still maintain my stance that this "system" should be axed - but if it is able to be shown as a non-binding (can be turned off and doesn't count toward overall mileage) have at it.
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 Tolbs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Last Login:May 02, 2021, 11:53:07 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #258 on: April 19, 2021, 12:07:08 am »
US 28 used to exist. Where should that route number go?

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1161
  • Last Login:Today at 08:52:27 am
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #259 on: April 19, 2021, 10:09:31 pm »
US 28 used to exist. Where should that route number go?

It would not belong anywhere in this route set, unless there are signs in the field, explicitly marking a route as "Historic US 28" (similar to the many signs for "Historic US 66"). Do you know of any such signs?

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 465
  • Last Login:Today at 12:07:03 am
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #260 on: April 21, 2021, 12:47:31 am »
US 28 used to exist. Where should that route number go?

It would not belong anywhere in this route set, unless there are signs in the field, explicitly marking a route as "Historic US 28" (similar to the many signs for "Historic US 66"). Do you know of any such signs?
Last time I was on that stretch (I think I've been on the whole old route of US 28 from what I can tell) there was nothing about it whatsoever.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton

Offline osu-lsu

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Last Login:Today at 01:13:06 am
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #261 on: April 21, 2021, 11:52:36 am »
I think Tolbs misunderstood what the purpose of THIS forum is for.

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 #262 on: April 21, 2021, 05:02:06 pm »
I think Tolbs misunderstood what the purpose of THIS forum is for.
Or rather, what this particular system is about.  He probably thought it's for anything that's a former US route, unaware of the "Historic US XX" sign requirement.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 465
  • Last Login:Today at 12:07:03 am
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #263 on: April 21, 2021, 05:27:02 pm »
I think Tolbs misunderstood what the purpose of THIS forum is for.
Or rather, what this particular system is about.  He probably thought it's for anything that's a former US route, unaware of the "Historic US XX" sign requirement.
And even then it needs to be a well-defined historic route with lots of said signage.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton

Offline neroute2

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
  • Last Login:April 30, 2021, 11:56:42 am
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #264 on: April 21, 2021, 06:01:50 pm »
Tolbs was asking where we would put a new US 28. He can bugger right off.

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 248
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 12:21:56 am
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #265 on: April 27, 2021, 02:05:11 am »
So I finally got the chance this past weekend to get out to Eastern Washington and field check the various Historic US 10 routes. I can say that they are all pretty well signed, with signs at the exits from I-90 where Historic US 10 branches off of I-90 as well as reassurance markers along the routes. So here are my comments.

US10HisFre:
Since this is signed from I-90 at Exit 143, I think this route should be extended from the intersection with Silica Road to I-90. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether or not we want to include this part of Silica Road given that it was never part of US 10 in the first place.

US10HisRit:
Can confirm that it does indeed start at the exit with Rd Q NE; there is a sign from I-90 EB at Exit 184.

Needs an additional waypoint at the intersection of Baseline Road and Road Q NE (just south of the I-90 interchange).

Also, east of the WA21 waypoint, (I just submitted a pull request to add a corresponding waypoint to the WA 21 wpt file) there needs to be an additional shaping point so that the line for this doesn't cross over the line for I-90. (or you can just add a visible waypoint at Wahl Road)

The route seems to peter out at Paha Packard Road; there is no sign indicating that it turns south onto this road and then makes a left turn onto Heineman Road. In fact, Heineman Road is a gravel road, which is a clear indication that it was never part of US 10 or it would have been paved years ago! So US10HisRit needs to be split into two; the eastern section would start at I-90 Exit 220 and should still be named US10HisRit, but I'm not totally sure what to call the western section since there are no towns or anything along it. My idea is to call it US10HistSch since it runs on Schrag Road through Adams County, and there's a tiny locality named Schrag on Google Maps (and OSM) located sort of along the route.

In Ritzville, the route does indeed start up again at exit 220. It is actually signed better than I-90 BL; the business loop has no signage on I-90 (whereas the historical route does), and I would have gotten rid of it except that I saw two signs for it in the town of Ritzville. I know this is unrelated, but I guess this qualifies as being enough signage to keep the business route...what do you guys think?

Also part of my pull request is for the aforementioned I-90 BL to fix the NMP at the I-90BL_E waypoint at Schoessler Rd.

Finally, this route should extend beyond the western city limits of Sprague; there is a sign for this route in Sprague, and one just east of Sprague (I filmed a dashcam video on this route; I'd be happy to post some stills from my video if you need me to). There should be a waypoint added at B Street in Sprague since it connects to WA 23, and the route should end at I-90 exit 254.

US10HisChe: This route looks good to me; it is indeed signed.

Historic US 10 is signed in George, Washington.

I know I'm quoting an old post, but do you have any proof of this? Do you know what the route would be? I didn't see any signs as I was driving by George on I-90.

Also, I noticed that there are signs for Historic US 10 through Moses Lake; a sign can be seen from I-90 EB at Exit 176, and GMSV shows signs for this route along the same route as the I-90 BL in Moses Lake. So basically, you can just do a copypasta of the I-90 BL Moses Lake wpt file.

I know this is a lot of things that need to be changed in Washington. Si, do you want to be the one making these changes, or are you okay with me doing these edits? I'm totally fine if you want to do the edits since you're drafting this system.

And finally, I haven't really commented on whether or not to keep or get rid of this system or not. I am totally fine with it staying. I see this as being akin to Interstate business loops, which aren't really officially defined by the state DOT, at least not in Washington, but I'm not sure about other states. In both cases the issue is that with no official governmental source defining where these routes go, it means that you have to have the route be really well signed (i.e. more than just 1-2 signs somewhere along the route). I'd say that these routes just require more signage than an officially defined state or US route, and that if there aren't sufficient signs to enable a driver to follow a historic route, then delete the route from the 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 #266 on: April 27, 2021, 09:56:33 am »
Interstate business loops, which aren't really officially defined by the state DOT, at least not in Washington, but I'm not sure about other states.
Very much official in Texas.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline compdude787

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 248
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 12:21:56 am
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #267 on: April 27, 2021, 10:23:43 pm »
Interstate business loops, which aren't really officially defined by the state DOT, at least not in Washington, but I'm not sure about other states.
Very much official in Texas.

Interesting. Is that the case with most states you maintain? Washington doesn't list them in their state highway log, and to me that means they are not maintained by the state. Only two of the business loops in the state, I-90 BL in Spokane Valley and I-5 BL in Castle Rock, are signed from the freeway, while the other two have no signs from the freeway and barely have any signage along the route.

Online Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1497
  • Last Login:Today at 09:02:32 am
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #268 on: April 28, 2021, 11:17:54 am »
Quote
Also, east of the WA21 waypoint, (I just submitted a pull request to add a corresponding waypoint to the WA 21 wpt file) there needs to be an additional shaping point so that the line for this doesn't cross over the line for I-90. (or you can just add a visible waypoint at Wahl Road)

It looks like that this may have caused a duplicate label error on WA 21.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3196
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:53:45 pm
Re: usaush: United States Historic US Routes
« Reply #269 on: April 28, 2021, 12:58:28 pm »
Interesting. Is that the case with most states you maintain? Washington doesn't list them in their state highway log, and to me that means they are not maintained by the state.
9/12 states I maintain have no usaib routes at all.

Nebraska has only one, a continuation of one in Wyoming. No signage at all on the Nebraska side. The route log doesn't mention it specifically, only US30 & L53B which it's overlaid onto.
This one should probably be deleted.

In Oklahoma, they do seem to be official to whatever degree. They're shown on county/city maps and in shapefiles.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca