Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => In-progress Highway Systems & Work => Topic started by: yakra on January 22, 2017, 01:32:25 pm

Title: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on January 22, 2017, 01:32:25 pm
Prior discussion...
On AARoads, mapcat & Duke87 nominated (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16414.0) a few New York routes to consider adding to usasf.
I added the Cross County and Saw Mill Parkways, the latter of which needed immediate fixes, along with the pre-existing Henry Hudson Parkway.
From there (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17061.0), discussion moved on to the ideas of splitting New York Parkways off of usasf into their own system.
Si submitted a pull request (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/258) to split usanyp out of usasf. It was nixed on the grounds that new routes could be developed in this system in devel status, with activated routes staying separate, in usasf.

What gets included?
Highways listed in Appendix B, pages "57-59" (59-61 if you prefer) of the 2014 Traffic Data Report (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/hds-respository/NYSDOT_Traffic_Data_Report_2014.pdf) (TDR). I'm including just the stuff listed, on (for the most part, all of) the corresponding reference routes.
These reference routes are listed in the shapefiles with a "PK909E" style GEORTE attribute (indicative of NYSDOT considering these part of a discrete group/system of Parkways), with the exception of the Garden State Parkway Connector. That's SR982L (note the 3rd digit of '2', instead of the usual 7, 8, or 9 for a parkway).
Quote from: vdeane
Of course, no two sources listing NY parkways are exactly the same, which makes things interesting.
( http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17061.msg2113084#msg2113084 )
There's another list at "page 71" (page 75) of the NY Touring Route Book (https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/oom/transportation-systems/repository/2017%20tour-bk.pdf), which differs in that it doesn't list the Garden State Parkway Connector, and does list NY431. If I choose the list in the TDR as the definitive list for TM purposes, I feel less pressure to include the redundant NY431 route, and more justified including the Garden State Parkway Connector. (It's got the word Parkway in it. Most users will probably look for it in the Parkways system.)
Quote
There's also the question of what to do about parkways that are locally owned and don't have reference route numbers.
No reference # -> not on list -> not included in the system.

-----

Route-by-route comments...

909E - ny.baypkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.baypkwy) - Bay Parkway
The westernmost bits of "Bay Parkway" aren't part of reference route 909E, and thus not part of the parkway system, and were not included. Note @vdeane's comment (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/514#issuecomment-216500415) on #514 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/514).

987H - ny.bearmtnpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.bearmtnpkwy) - Bear Mountain Parkway
Should probably be listed as Bear Mountain State Parkway instead?

987H - ny.bearmtnpkwycro (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.bearmtnpkwy) - Bear Mountain Parkway (Crompond)
Crompond is a census-designated place, but not an incorporated town or village.
If I choose "Carlton" and "Porter" for the Lake Ontario State Parkway Spur and Robert Moses State Parkway Spur (see below), "Yorktown" may be more appropriate here instead.

907E - ny.betstapkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.betstapkwy) - Bethpage State Parkway
No comments here; straightforward enough.

907F - ny.bropelpkwy - Bronx-Pelham Parkway
907F - ny.pelpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.pelpkwy) - Pelham Parkway
Signed, and commonly known, as simply Pelham Parkway? Perhaps this should be changed to PelPkwy / Pelham Parkway.
I'd like to relabel NY US1 BosRd_S to reference Pelham Parkway, as something included in the HB, instead, but am holding off pending the final name of this route.

907J - ny.crobaypkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.crobaypkwy) - Cross Bay Parkway
No comments here; straightforward enough.

908B - ny.jacrobpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.jacrobpkwy) - Jackie Robinson Parkway
"One point per interchange" at the east end. :)

909C - ny.korwarpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.korwarpkwy) - Korean War Veterans Parkway
Yes, the south end overlaps NY440 to the Outerbridge Crossing toll booths.
The north end is a bit wibbly-wobbly. Although the reference route follows Drumgoole Rd to end at Richmond Ave, Drumgoole is signed as itself and not as the Parkway on blade signs, and there's an END sign just before the merge with Drumgoole. I chose to end the route at the Drumgoole merge.

948A - ny.lakeontpkwyspr (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.lakeontpkwyspr) - Lake Ontario State Parkway Spur
1.) If you look at the system (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/_systems/usanyp.csv) CSVs (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/_systems/usanyp_con.csv), you'll notice that "Spr" is included in the Route name, but not as a Banner. Perhaps my thinking is a throwback to the CHM era here: I'm taking the banner column literally; the idea is treating it as if it means "there will be a SPUR banner above this shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6935913,-93.0973223,3a,16.9y,202.39h,84.33t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sYckndQG0ftaKJMYIhGSHvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)", and that the Shield Generator will eventually, in theory, generate something accordingly. So, I just included it in the route name. Then, I went and left out the Abbrev. "Hey, this is just the 'Lake Ontario State Parkway Spur', as NYSDOT calls it. And there's only one of them," my thinking went. If there's loud enough consensus that this is kinda wrong, I can change it round. Or another option that I rather like would be to just leave the "Spr" off completely, and have another segment of vanilla "Lake Ontario State Parkway", with an abbrev and a specifier in the City field, "Lakeside State Park", or "Carlton" or something. (Kinda like what I did with the cannss system, although that one doesn't have "spurs" as such.)
See also: Robert Moses State Parkway Spur
Discuss.
2.) Mainline LakeOntPkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?u=yakra&r=ny.lakeontpkwy) is reference route 947A. It should be truncated to end at this route, with the NY LakeOntPkwy NY18 PicRd segment being part of this route instead.

987A - ny.lakeweldr (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.lakeweldr) - Lake Welch Drive
I guess it's officially/internally the Lake Welch Parkway, but it's signed as Lake Welch Drive.

908C - ny.looppkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.looppkwy) - Loop Parkway
No comments here; straightforward enough.

908F - ny.mospkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.mospkwy) - Mosholu Parkway
Interesting case here. The SouBlvd BroRivPkwy segment is included in reference route 908F, and signed for Mosholu Parkway from the Bronx River Parkway. The BroRivPkwy BroParkEast segment isn't shown on the BRP overhead BGSes; it's just included in the reference route.

909D - ny.ocepkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.ocepkwy) - Ocean Parkway (Long Island)
If preferred, I can leave the "(Long Island)" specifier out of the City field, leaving this as just the "main" bit of Ocean Parkway.

908H - ny.ocepkwybro (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.ocepkwybro) - Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn)
No comments here; straightforward enough.

917A - ny.promtnhwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.promtnhwy) - Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway
It's reference route 917A all the way to the loop at the summit. But the very end is posted Motorcycles only (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4234696,-73.746137,3a,18.3y,31.29h,89.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2kuMQaFEsOk3DDYUD6SWbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). As only a limited subgroup of travelers would be able to take the route all the way to the tippy top, I placed the endpoint at the parking lot / overlook.

957A - ny.robmospkwy - Robert Moses State Parkway
957A - ny.niascepkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.niascepkwy) - Niagara Scenic Parkway
This was apparently recently renamed Niagara Scenic Parkway (http://buffalonews.com/2016/06/09/cuomo-announces-niagara-scenic-parkway-new-name-robert-moses/). So yeah, I better get on renaming this, I guess. Also, waypoint labels on intersecting routes.

957A - ny.robmospkwynia - Robert Moses State Parkway (Niagara Falls)
957A - ny.niascepkwynia (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.niascepkwynia) - Niagara Scenic Parkway (Niagara Falls)
Same route name issue as above.
Would "(South) Niagara Falls" be the better descriptor? Meh...
Ongoing reconstruction makes the north end a bit wibbly-wobbly. Shapefiles, the TDV & TDR have the 957A designation extending to Buffalo Ave. But that data isn't new enough to reflect the reconstruction.
Is the stuff north of the roundabout not part of the parkway, but part of John Daly Boulevard instead? FWIW, OSM seems to think so at least. Shrug.

958A - ny.robmospkwyspr - Robert Moses State Parkway Spur
958A - ny.niascepkwyspr (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.niascepkwyspr) - Niagara Scenic Parkway Spur
1.) Same "Robert Moses State Parkway" vs "Niagara Scenic Parkway" issue as above.
2.) Terminus: The data in the shapefiles put the endpoint here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.265023957&lon=-79.051410989). The TDV agrees. I suppose a nicer-looking tweak would be to recenter the endpoint at the turnaround before the fee booth, and not make anyone think they have to pay the fee and enter in order to clinch the route. :)
I thought for like half a second about 1PPI-ing the endpoint back to NY18F, but nay -- someone coming from the mainline parkway would have to proceed past NY18F to some other point anyway. This solution allows travelers to use NY18F and clinch a nonzero, non-100%, amount of the route.
3.) If you look at the system (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/_systems/usanyp.csv) CSVs (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/_systems/usanyp_con.csv), you'll notice that "Spr" is included in the Route name, but not as a Banner. Perhaps my thinking is a throwback to the CHM era here: I'm taking the banner column literally; the idea is treating it as if it means "there will be a SPUR banner above this shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6935913,-93.0973223,3a,16.9y,202.39h,84.33t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sYckndQG0ftaKJMYIhGSHvA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41)", and that the Shield Generator will eventually, in theory, generate something accordingly. So, I just included it in the route name. Then, I went and left out the Abbrev. "Hey, this is just the 'Robert Moses State Parkway Spur', as NYSDOT calls it. And there's only one of them," my thinking went. If there's loud enough consensus that this is kinda wrong, I can change it round. Or another option that I rather like would be to just leave the "Spr" off completely, and have different segments of vanilla "Robert Moses State Parkway", with an abbrev and a specifier in the City field, "Fort Niagara State Park", or "Porter" or something. (Kinda like what I did with the cannss system, although that one doesn't have "spurs" as such.)
See also: Lake Ontario State Parkway Spur
Discuss.

987E - ny.sevlakdr (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.sevlakdr) - Seven Lakes Drive
I guess it's officially/internally the Seven Lakes Parkway, but it's signed as Seven Lakes Drive.
Yes, this is the south endpoint. The shapefiles and TDV agree. The 2014 TDR description looks a little screwy, but saying it ends here is a valid interpretation of the mileage figures.
  South of the endpoint, and north of Waldron Terrace, Seven Lakes Drive is not a reference route.
  South of Waldron Terrace, Seven Lakes Drive is reference route 981G, and not part of the Parkway system.
The north terminus doesn't have a corresponding point on US9W/202 yet. Before adding it, I just want to be 100% confident the label should be SevLakDr, and not SevLakPkwy or something.

908L - ny.shofropkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.shofropkwy) - Shore Front Parkway
957B - ny.soupkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.soupkwy) - South Parkway
957C - ny.westrivpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.westrivpkwy) - West River Parkway
No comments here; straightforward enough.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways, "official" thread
Post by: yakra on February 01, 2017, 11:49:52 pm
• Necessary or proposed changes to existing routes (all active systems)
  US1: BosRd_S +-> BroPelPkwy or PelPkwy
  US9W/202: add SevLakDr, or whatever it ends up getting called
  Lake Ontario State Parkway intersecting labels
  Robert Moses / Niagara Scenic intersecting labels
  (intersecting labels for other/all existing usasf routes?)
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways, "official" thread
Post by: yakra on February 05, 2017, 02:44:35 am
Existing usasf routes: termini, changes, etc.
fee booths, location within park, interchange, end of ref rte, other

###! - ny.beltpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.beltpkwy) - Belt Parkway
907A, 907B, 907C, 907D
  W: Good.   /   E: Good.

907H - ny.brorivpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.brorivpkwy) - Bronx River Parkway
  S: Good.
  Wow, evidently the reference route ends at the Bronx/Westchester line. I'll just walk away yelling LA LA LA holding my hands over my ears, and grandfather this one in.
  N: Northernmost segment, between Kensico Circle and NY22, shown in TDV & shapefiles as Taconic Parkway Road. Signed TO Bronx Pkwy / TO Taconic Pkwy (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.0746529,-73.7613671,3a,15y,244.1h,92.55t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sWNUWWBdAmA1Qs_n4F6a6lw!2e0!5s20160801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41). This may be worthy of a truncation, OTOH.
  Get Exit 10s, Oak St, Yonkers Ave sorted.

907K - ny.crocoupkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.crocoupkwy) - Cross County Parkway
  W: Good.   /   E: Good.
907A - ny.croislpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.croislpkwy) - Cross Island Parkway
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.

907L - ny.fdroodr (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.fdroodr) - Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive
  S: Good.
  N: Truncate to Exit 17, Triborough Bridge

982L - ny.garstapkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.garstapkwy) - Garden State Parkway
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.

907M - ny.gracenpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.gracenpkwy) - Grand Central Parkway
  E: Good.
  W: TDV & shapefiles both show an endpoint at the 27th St overpass, AKA the west end of the footprint of the 31st St interchange. TDR: The 2014 edition, in what I'm sensing to be a bit of a theme, looks a bit screwy; the 2011 edition is more human-readable. My takeaway from it all supports an endpoint here as well. GMSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7697453,-73.9164362,3a,50.1y,104.01h,91.88t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sVFrTFDGkQf4x_O97cgoXQw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41).
  I suppose the world wouldn't END! if I were to extend this route; I'm sure everyone already has I-278 marked (or not) as appropriate.

907P - ny.harrivdr (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.harrivdr) - Harlem River Drive
  S: Extend to Exit 17, Triborough Bridge
  N: Good.

907V - ny.henhudpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.henhudpkwy) - Henry Hudson Parkway
  S: The 2014 TDR description looks a little screwy, but a milepost of 1.14 for "W 79TH ST UNDER" is a very close fit for (1.13 mi) a terminus at Exit 8, as we have it now. GMSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7713193,-73.9936564,3a,15y,297.46h,100.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smLELPnx2aMZd4aq8tiIc8g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) suggests (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7663366,-73.9970594,3a,15y,36.49h,94.18t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s8xHMVLZmEv6CyMTdkolw0w!2e0!5s20150801T000000!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41) that it's parkway this far down too. Leaving as-is.
  N: Good.

###! - ny.hutrivpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.hutrivpkwy) - Hutchinson River Parkway
907W, 908A
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.

947A - ny.lakeontpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.lakeontpkwy) - Lake Ontario State Parkway
  W: Truncate to 947A, Lake Ontario State Parkway Spur. Truncated segment (0.2 mi) gets transferred to that route.
  E: Good.

908E - ny.meastapkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.meastapkwy) - Meadowbrook State Parkway
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.
908G - ny.norstapkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.norstapkwy) - Northern State Parkway
  W: Good.   /   E: Good.
987C - ny.palintpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.palintpkwy) - Palisades Interstate Parkway
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.
908J - ny.robmoscswy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.robmoscswy) - Robert Moses Causeway
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.
908K - ny.sagstapkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.sagstapkwy) - Sagtikos State Parkway
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.
987D - ny.sawmillpkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.sawmillpkwy) - Saw Mill River Parkway
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.

908M - ny.soustapkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.soustapkwy) - Southern State Parkway
  W: Good.
  E: Extend to turnaround just before fee booth, and then...
  Split: Southern State/Heckscher Parkway (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/56)

987F - ny.sprbropkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.sprbropkwy) - Sprain Brook Parkway
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.

908K - ny.sunmeapkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.sunmeapkwy) - Sunken Meadow State Parkway
  S: Good.
  N: Truncate to NY 25A (exit SM5)
     Sunken Meadow State Parkway (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/514)

987G - ny.tacstapkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.tacstapkwy) - Taconic State Parkway
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.
908T - ny.wanstapkwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.wanstapkwy) - Wantagh State Parkway
  S: Good.   /   N: Good.
Title: NY Parkways (usanyp)
Post by: Duke87 on February 10, 2017, 12:16:53 am
I could not locate a specific thread for this anywhere. And I may be jumping the gun on the peer review here, but bear with me, I'm an opinionated local. :P
 
So, some things I noticed that I would recommend changing:

- Mosholu Parkway unambiguously ends at a T intersection with Southern Blvd, and always has. Reference Route 908F does turn up Southern Blvd to end at Bronx River Parkway exit 8, but this section of road is not in any way part of Mosholu Parkway and therefore should not be plotted as part of the route

- the full name of Pelham Parkway is "Bronx and Pelham Parkway", not "Bronx-Pelham Parkway".

- Also, I would argue that the eastern endpoint of Pelham Parkway should be at the point where the ramp from Bruckner Blvd merges in (right about where the divided highway ends), not at I-95 itself. A "one point per interchange" argument could be made to the contrary, but I would counterargue by saying that "ramp" isn't really a ramp - it's part of Shore Rd, and it predates the construction of both Pelham Parkway and I-95 (it used to be two way). Therefore, Pelham Parkway ends at Shore Rd where the two meet.

- Bear Mountain State Parkway could use a point at Carhart Ave (it's a signalized intersection, so major enough to warrant)

- I disagree with including Bay Parkway since it's not signed with any shields anywhere, but if we are including it... why only the eastern half?

- The following also lack any shields and would not by any local be thought of as a "parkway": Shore Front Parkway, Cross Bay Parkway, Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn). I can't comment on the two parkways on Grand Island since I'm not local to there but they also seem suspect to me.
Title: usanyp: New York Parkways, "official" thread
Post by: yakra on February 10, 2017, 03:33:21 pm
Placeholder post...
While I write a system description and comments for each route.
Please bear with me.
Title: Re: NY Parkways (usanyp)
Post by: vdeane on February 20, 2017, 10:21:31 pm
I imagine the definition of the Bay Parkway is based on the reference route, which ends at either the fee booths near the cloverleaf or at the cloverleaf itself.
Title: Re: NY Parkways (usanyp)
Post by: vdeane on July 06, 2017, 07:02:43 pm
The Robert Moses State Parkway should be renamed to the Niagara Scenic Parkway.
Title: Re: NY Parkways (usanyp)
Post by: yakra on July 07, 2017, 12:09:06 pm
I know. Please be patient and bear with me. I need to get together a proper discussion on this system.
Title: Re: NY Parkways (usanyp)
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 23, 2017, 11:34:46 pm
Bay Parkway is only signed at its interchange with the meadowbrook, its not limited access at all. From the Wantagh its signed as Jones Beach Field 10/West End Beach

Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn is just a fancy city boulevard basically, same with Pelham Parkway.

Also I cant find this system anywhere on the website. The US Selected named freeways is missing Koren War Vets Parkway which is all limited access in Staten Island NY
Title: Re: NY Parkways (usanyp)
Post by: Jim on July 24, 2017, 09:30:28 am
The usanyp system isn't currently loaded into the DB, as it's not far enough along to be included.  It will appear as a "devel" system when work gets going on it at some point in the future.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways, "official" thread
Post by: yakra on July 25, 2017, 12:17:30 am
Big Topic Merge!

Please refer to first post in this new merged thread, to find the notes I compiled while drafting the routes in this system.
These notes should do a lot to answer & explain some of the questions & comments other forum members have posted in the meantime.

I think I'm finally at a point where I can give the usanyp system the attention it deserves, and get back to work on moving it along to Preview status.
Another concurrent task will be a review and cleanup of existing parkways in the usasf system, making sure their endpoints are in the right places, etc. (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1928.msg5229#msg5229)

I'll uncomment usanyp's line in systems.csv, and make it visible in the HB again as of Jim's next site update.
For now though, I need a break from TravelMapping tonight. :)
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on July 25, 2017, 10:30:55 pm
A general overarching thought here:

Parkways in New York, generally, are signed with some sort of special shield. In Long Island it's the lighthouse shield. In Rockland and Orange counties it's the stylized circles. In Westchester county and upstate, it's the state highway shield shape but green. And in the 5 boroughs it's a mishmosh of inconsistent standards but there *are* shields.

It occurs to me that every road I am having the "wait that's not a parkway, why are we including it?" reaction about has something crucial in common: a lack of shield-based signage. So this would not only provide an objective cutoff for excluding them, it would also be arguably consistent with our general policy on excluding unsigned routes.



Also, with regards to your comment on Pelham Parkway, yes, it is commonly known and signed as simply that. I would support the name in the system being such.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: mariethefoxy on July 27, 2017, 01:57:23 am
A general overarching thought here:

Parkways in New York, generally, are signed with some sort of special shield. In Long Island it's the lighthouse shield. In Rockland and Orange counties it's the stylized circles. In Westchester county and upstate, it's the state highway shield shape but green. And in the 5 boroughs it's a mishmosh of inconsistent standards but there *are* shields.

It occurs to me that every road I am having the "wait that's not a parkway, why are we including it?" reaction about has something crucial in common: a lack of shield-based signage. So this would not only provide an objective cutoff for excluding them, it would also be arguably consistent with our general policy on excluding unsigned routes.



Also, with regards to your comment on Pelham Parkway, yes, it is commonly known and signed as simply that. I would support the name in the system being such.

I'd go with if it has a NYSDOT reference route or not. as for NYC they use the green shields as well on:
Korean War Vets Pkwy
Hutchison River Parkway
Bronx River Parkway
Moshulu Parkway

Grand Central Parkway has its own shield
Henry Hudson Parkway uses NY 9A and a white shield.

Cross Island Parkway has a green shield on the time to destination signs in Nassau County, so I'd go with that
Belt Parkway has its own variation of the Long Island lighthouse shield design

Jackie Robinson Parkway as far as I know doesnt have any shields, nor does Pelham Parkway and the Brooklyn Ocean Parkway, as both are treated more as just boulevards rather than a parkway in the sense the limited access ones are.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on July 29, 2017, 07:12:25 pm
917A - ny.promtnhwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.promtnhwy) - Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway
It's reference route 917A all the way to the loop at the summit. But the very end is posted Motorcycles only (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4234696,-73.746137,3a,18.3y,31.29h,89.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2kuMQaFEsOk3DDYUD6SWbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). As only a limited subgroup of travelers would be able to take the route all the way to the tippy top, I placed the endpoint at the parking lot / overlook.
There is a bus that takes people up on that road, and people walk it as well, so it is still possible to clinch (as long as one is OK with walking a clinch or being a passenger).  Overall, it strikes me as similar to routes ending at military bases, like I-H3, or that truck route in PA that bans cars.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on July 30, 2017, 02:17:06 am
When I drafted VT65, the Brookfield Floating Bridge was closed to vehicular traffic. (Don't know whether it has since reopened.) I still included the whole route as a single file, figuring that anyone who wanted a full clinch could do as I did: get out and walk. :) (Jumping off for a swim is not required.)
So, there's that precedent. I'll consider extending ProMtnHwy along the full length of 917A.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on August 07, 2017, 02:53:27 pm
Up-D*te!
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1521

Robert Moses and Bronx-Pelham Pakways renamed to Niagara Scenic and Pelham Parkways respectively.
Intersecting point labels changed to match route names as shown in the HB, for both new and existing (usasf) parkways. (AltLabels retained as needed.)
SevLakDr endpoint added to US9W/202.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on August 08, 2017, 02:25:14 am
Jumping up & down making ape noises, and hitting my computer with a femur.

Code: [Select]
27thSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.772283&lon=-73.919830
45 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.770564&lon=-73.917475
+X981717 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.770028&lon=-73.916252
*31stSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.769476&lon=-73.912936
31ST-STREET http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.768639&lon=-73.906965
EXIT-5-ACC-ASTORIA-BLVD http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766851&lon=-73.896972
+X159377 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766258&lon=-73.892691
+5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766867&lon=-73.887734
EXIT-6-94TH-ST http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.770284&lon=-73.879538
2014

Code: [Select]
31-ST-EX-STRT-I-278-OLP http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.772283&lon=-73.919830
+45 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.770564&lon=-73.917475
+X981717 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.770028&lon=-73.916252
+31stSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.769476&lon=-73.912936
EX-4-END-OLP-I-278-WEST-B-Q-E-PKY http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.768452&lon=-73.906123
EXIT-5-ACC-ASTORIA-BLVD http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766770&lon=-73.896441
+X159377 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766258&lon=-73.892691
+5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766867&lon=-73.887734
EXIT-6-94TH-ST http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.769951&lon=-73.880133
2011

I mean, uhh... saving these code blocks in case I want to reference them in the future.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on August 09, 2017, 03:12:38 pm
Another concurrent task will be a review and cleanup of existing parkways in the usasf system, making sure their endpoints are in the right places, etc. (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1928.msg5229#msg5229)
Click on the link for a post detailing what I've found after looking at the termini of each usasf parkway.
I just checked the termini; there may be other points along the routes' length still needing attention, but I'm not focusing my attention there right now.

I'll hold off on making any changes until usanyp is ready to go live. I figure that with the excitement & attention over its activation, people will be going over their .lists to make edits, and can look at what's changed in existing parkways and make any needed edits at the same time.

The biggest inconvenience I see is the FDRooDr / HarRivDr endpoint change; HarRivDr travelers will lose 100% clinches and need to edit .list files.  Reminiscent of the issue (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17061.0) with HenHudPkwy when SawMillPkwy was first added to the system.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on August 13, 2017, 02:13:01 pm
Thinking a few things through here...

Names:
Even NYSDOT sources aren't consistent in how the names of some parkways are presented. For instance, the TDR lists "Bear Mountain Parkway", whereas the Touring Route Book lists "Bear Mountain State Parkway". Thus I'll be going with what's commonly known and signed, I.E. "Bear Mountain Parkway", "Pelham Parkway", etc.

Spurs:
TMK there are no existing instances of "Spr" being part of the "route" field in a CSV, and not part of the "banner" field. I don't really want to break with precedent here & start doing this for no good reason. Take the example of the Interstates in Maryland. There are a few routes apparently considered spurs by MD DOT. Since the CHM days, these have had "Spr" in the banner field, and thus the shields show up in the CHM HB (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/selecthwys.php?sys=usai&rg=usa.md&gr=p#r) with the "Spur" banner, even if they're not signed like that in the field. So, there's that precedent.
ETA:The way the TM shield generator works now, the route name is shown as "LakeOntPkwySpr", which does look wrong. OK, I've made up my mind; Spr goes out of the "route" field and into the "banner" field.
The standard for bannered routes is they all get a city/abbrev, even if they're the only bannered route of a particular designation. Thus the Lake Ontario State & Niagara Scenic Parkway spurs would get a city & abbrev.
As for the option I floated of omitting the Spur designation and just having a vanilla route segment with city/abbrev specifiers, I'm cooling down on that a bit. Take the Maryland precedent again -- there's another segment, of I-395, not marked as a spur, considered as a different segment of a mainline route. The M.O. seems to be to recognize spurs as spurs. This will better highlight the distinction from other mainline segments with a city/abbrev specifier, such as BearMtnPkwyCro and NiaScePkwyNia.

Cities:
I consider it best practice to use a city as a city name when practicable, and not another specifier such as a state park, and maintain as much consistency here as we can here. (I suppose that if a parkway can change names, it's possible for a state park to do so too. A town/city/village, probably less likely. So why not use naming that will head off accounting for this (admittedly remote) possibility).
Thus right now I'm leaning more toward "Carlton" and "Porter", and not "Lakeside State Park" and "Fort Niagara State Park" for the Lake Ontario State & Niagara Scenic Parkway spurs.
ETA: I found some assurance in an unexpected place recently when looking over the NS Scenic Travelways. Seeing I consistently used town/city/village names there helps me feel more confident in standardizing around that approach.
Similarly, for consistency, thinking of changing Bear Mountain Parkway (Crompond) to Bear Mountain Parkway (Yorktown).
(Ocean Parkway (Long Island) -> Ocean Parkway (Babylon)? Brooklyn *is* on Long Island, after all...) Or maybe just leave it blank...
NiaScePkwyNia: "Niagara Falls" is good enough for a city specifier. I'm not a fan of unnecessary parenthetical bits in the city field. "(South) Niagara Falls" would add a second set of double parentheses to the name in the HB display. Yecch.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on August 13, 2017, 02:32:39 pm
(Ocean Parkway (Long Island) -> Ocean Parkway (Babylon)? Brooklyn *is* on Long Island, after all...) Or maybe just leave it blank...

And if you want to be super technical about it, this Ocean Parkway *is not* on Long Island - it is on Jones Beach Island. ;D
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on August 16, 2017, 04:08:29 pm
And if you want to be super technical about it, this Ocean Parkway *is not* on Long Island - it is on Jones Beach Island. ;D
Works for me. "Ocean Parkway (Long Island)" is out, and either "Ocean Parkway (Babylon)" or just plain "Ocean Parkway" is in.
Any preferences as to which?
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on August 26, 2017, 11:54:30 pm
I'd go with plain "Ocean Parkway".

If there is a desire for some parenthetical name, "Jones Beach" would be best - that is the location most people would associate with the road. "Babylon" is undesirable since while much of the road is technically within the town of Babylon, towns in Long Island are purely political entities - people don't think of geography in terms of them. You say "Babylon" and people will think of the village of Babylon, which Ocean Parkway does not serve.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on August 28, 2017, 12:27:16 am
Vanilla "Ocean Parkway" it is.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on September 03, 2017, 03:58:26 am
Up-D*te!
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1581

ProMtnHwy extended from overlook to summit.
BearMtnPkwy (Crompond) -> BearMtnPkwy (Yorktown)
LakeOntPkwySpr -> LakeOntPkwySpr (Carlton)
NiaScePkwySpr -> NiaScePkwySpr (Porter)
...these last two have "Spr" in the Banner field of the CSVs, instead of the Route field.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: dave1693 on September 10, 2017, 04:28:31 pm
Regarding 907V - ny.henhudpkwy - Henry Hudson Parkway
"S: The 2014 TDR description looks a little screwy, but a milepost of 1.14 for "W 79TH ST UNDER" is a very close fit for (1.13 mi) a terminus at Exit 8, as we have it now. GMSV suggests that it's parkway this far down too. Leaving as-is."

I can add personal confirmation for GMSV's suggestion, having traveled down 9A/HHP from the GWB to exit 8 last winter. It's definitely a parkway at least that far.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on January 15, 2018, 01:46:31 am
- Bear Mountain State Parkway could use a point at Carhart Ave (it's a signalized intersection, so major enough to warrant)
Agreed, this is a significant enough intersection to include.
That, and it gives me an excuse to tweak the shaping. Sure, it's already within tolerance, but I don't like the way it looks. 8)
Committed (https://github.com/yakra/HighwayData/commit/8b10921c96f9dedea88904559f11d840b63666ad) to my fork of the HighwayData repo, though I'm not feeling rushed to open a pull request yet.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on January 15, 2018, 05:21:55 pm
A general overarching thought here:

Parkways in New York, generally, are signed with some sort of special shield. In Long Island it's the lighthouse shield. In Rockland and Orange counties it's the stylized circles. In Westchester county and upstate, it's the state highway shield shape but green. And in the 5 boroughs it's a mishmosh of inconsistent standards but there *are* shields.
I'm inclined to give less weight to shields & shield styles for a system such as this.
• Some existing systems have multiple shield styles, E.G. usavt, usatn, (more debatably, cannb before its split into cannba/cannbc/cannbl), and the toll roads in usapa, usafl, & usatx* systems.
• More importantly, I view this as more of a system of named routes, akin to usasf. Think of that system's "Text on a BGS" style of display in the HB, in either TM or CHM. Some-but-not-all of these routes will bear shields.

It occurs to me that every road I am having the "wait that's not a parkway, why are we including it?" reaction about has something crucial in common: a lack of shield-based signage. So this would not only provide an objective cutoff for excluding them,
Aah, but did you have that reaction about the Jackie Robinson Parkway? That one could throw a wrench in the works. As mariethefoxy noted, it doesn't seem to have any shields.

it would also be arguably consistent with our general policy on excluding unsigned routes.
Excluding unsigned numbered routes, we do, yes. But for a system of named routes? These by their nature play by somewhat different rules. Something can be signed by text on a BGS, on a glorified blade sign, on a vanilla blade sign...

When starting development of this system, I foresaw a lot of difficulty in defining "Just what IS a Parkway?"
This gets into the murky philosophical definition of...
What is the Sunken Meadow State Parkway? Is it the route that bears a certain reference number (908K)? Or is it all the roadway that is just named "Sunken Meadow State Parkway"? (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/514#issuecomment-216429093)
After some consideration, I decided to go by what's included in NYS reference routes. It just seems to be the most even, objective cutoff I can make. This allows us to decisively pin down routes' ends, include obvious additions like BetStaPkwy, JacRobPkwy, KorWarPkwy, and allow for a little bit of the expected "This was added, why not this? It's a Parkway, innit?", while keeping it sensible & providing a clear cutoff to keep us from getting carried away & going too far down that rabbit hole.

- Also, I would argue that the eastern endpoint of Pelham Parkway should be at the point where the ramp from Bruckner Blvd merges in (right about where the divided highway ends), not at I-95 itself. A "one point per interchange" argument could be made to the contrary, but I would counterargue by saying that "ramp" isn't really a ramp - it's part of Shore Rd, and it predates the construction of both Pelham Parkway and I-95 (it used to be two way).
My take is that Shore Rd used to be there, but moved. TDV & GIS list the northern path, to the cloverleaf, as Shore Rd itself, and the ramp as a ramp.
TDR, TDV & GIS all three clearly show PelPkwy ending at the I-95 underpass. Thus PelPkwy gets its end here, a step before 1PPI even comes into play.

Quote
Pelham Parkway ends at Shore Rd where the two meet.
I agree with this statement, because I consider Shore Rd to end at at a different point (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ny.i095). 8)

- Mosholu Parkway unambiguously ends at a T intersection with Southern Blvd, and always has. Reference Route 908F does turn up Southern Blvd to end at Bronx River Parkway exit 8, but this section of road is not in any way part of Mosholu Parkway and therefore should not be plotted as part of the route
I'm not sold on this. TLDR, Mosholu Parkway is clearly signed @ BRP Exit 8, in both directions.
vdeane, what's your take here?
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on January 17, 2018, 07:50:24 pm
I looked at the exit list I made for the northern end of the Mosholu Parkway and it appears that I decided to count the mileage beginning with the BRP.  It's certainly an odd case - maybe the sign designers were asking themselves the same question?
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on January 19, 2018, 02:48:48 am
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.mospkwy
Quote
beginning with the BRP
Quote
maybe the sign designers
I see two kettles of fish to fry here...
BroParkEast vs BroRivPkwy, one of those annoying cases where "One Point Per Interchange" really matters, at the end of a route
SouBlvd vs something else farther southeast (see above)
I don't really wanna get into the TDLR of it here, but... due diligence... maybe I gotta?
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/26730644_10100489651396792_2630138400826747392_n.jpg?oh=51451b563950e43997217789f3359a01&oe=5AE02BFD)
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on January 20, 2018, 01:14:07 am
I will see your signage from the BRP and raise you this signage from Bronx Park East. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8653135,-73.8705732,3a,31.5y,9.67h,93.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIgaBLwJOZuHv-PGTBoTOfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I would interpret the signage for Mosholu Pkwy - both from the BRP and as seen in that image below the street signs - as missing  a "to", or having one implied.

Ultimately though, this is another episode of "What is..."

The name of that section of road is "Southern Blvd". It is signed as such, and Hagstrom always knew it as such. The road named "Mosholu Parkway" ends at a T intersection with the road named "Southern Blvd"

But, what is the Mosholu Parkway? Is it the road named "Mosholu Parkway"? Or is it a route defined by some other measure (e.g. the NYS reference route number), which is not necessarily coterminous with the road named "Mosholu Parkway"?

The former seems to be more in line with what exists in the real world, while the latter may be more in line with what exists on paper.

Of course, if we've already concluded we're going to define parkways by reference routes, including that section of Southern Blvd in our Mosholu Parkway file would at least be consistent with the established methodology.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on January 20, 2018, 11:59:58 pm
I will see your signage from the BRP and raise you this signage from Bronx Park East. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8653135,-73.8705732,3a,31.5y,9.67h,93.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIgaBLwJOZuHv-PGTBoTOfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I would interpret the signage for Mosholu Pkwy - both from the BRP and as seen in that image below the street signs - as missing  a "to", or having one implied.
Agreed. It's a fair cop.
Considering this in combination with the signage @BRP, let's say then that at the very least, BroParkEast is out as an endpoint. We can have the "One Point Per Interchange" rule wibble its wobble that way.
Think of the traveler who approaches from the BRP, takes the MosPkwy exit, and thinks he's all set, only to find upon checking the HB that...

Ultimately though, this is another episode of "What is..."

The name of that section of road is "Southern Blvd". It is signed as such,
Definitely the case at the SouBlvd intersection.
That's probably my biggest problem here, the lack of signage at that point for a continuation Mosholu Parkway to the south...

and Hagstrom always knew it as such.
3rd-party cartographers, Hagstrom, RMcN, and the like, I would put less stock in, in favor of direct gov't sources such as the TDV, TDR, or shapefiles...

The road named "Mosholu Parkway" ends at a T intersection with the road named "Southern Blvd"
The MilepointRoute2015 shapefiles have an RIS_NAME attribute for the section in question of "MOSHOLU PKWY", not Southern Blvd, "DR KAZIMIROFF BLVD", or anything else. So in some sense...

But, what is the Mosholu Parkway? Is it the road named "Mosholu Parkway"? Or is it a route defined by some other measure (e.g. the NYS reference route number), which is not necessarily coterminous with the road named "Mosholu Parkway"?

The former seems to be more in line with what exists in the real world, while the latter may be more in line with what exists on paper.

Of course, if we've already concluded we're going to define parkways by reference routes, including that section of Southern Blvd in our Mosholu Parkway file would at least be consistent with the established methodology.
Of course, there's not a 1:1 correspondence between parkways and reference routes.
Belt Parkway is 9087A, 907B, 907C, and 907D. But forget about that, becase this situation is more like...
Reference route 908K is partly SagStaPkwy and partly SunMeaPkwy.
• 908K is SagStaPkwy, and some other stuff that's not SagStaPkwy. And,
• 908K is SunMeaPkwy, and some other stuff that's not SunMeaPkwy.
It's listed in the Touring Route Book as "Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow State Parkways", but the TDR just calls it "Sagtikos State Parkway".
Similarly, Reference route 908M is in the HB now as just SouStaPkwy. It's been proposed (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/56) to split the Heckscher Parkway off into its own file, and I agree there.
Touring Route Book = "Southern State Parkway/Heckscher State Parkway"; TDR = "Southern State Parkway".

Hm... So, the Touring Route Book does tend to list both Pkwy names for a ref rte if there's more than one... What to make of 908F just being "Mosholu Parkway"? :-\

Also of note is that TMK, every bit of reference route on the Parkways list is included in something in the HB, with the one exception -- full disclosure? :) -- of the Drumgoole Rd section of 909C.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on January 21, 2018, 10:43:50 pm
For what it's worth, I asked my grandfather (a lifelong Bronx resident) today where he thinks the Mosholu Parkway ends. He said that it ends at that intersection (SouBlvd).

Also pointed out that at one point the road was supposed to be extended from there to the Bronx River Parkway  - a fact which Steve Anderson's page confirms (http://www.nycroads.com/roads/mosholu/), although this is interesting:
Quote
In the 1950's and 1960's, Moses, who served as New York City's parks commissioner and arterial coordinator, advanced plans to reconstruct the Mosholu Parkway into a controlled-access route. The $13.5 million reconstruction project was to not only cover the 3.0-mile distance of the parkway proper, but also include the construction of a 1.2-mile link to the Bronx River Parkway along the existing Dr. Theodore Kazimiroff Boulevard.

So basically, there were plans to extend the parkway along that alignment - perhaps thus explaining its inclusion in the reference route. Which sounds rather similar to the situation with 909C and Drumgoole Rd (parkway is stub, was planned to extend along that alignment).

Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on January 27, 2018, 04:06:04 pm
I could see a case for treating it similar to the Drumgoole Rd section of 909C given the signage outside of the BRP and the info from NYCRoads.com.  It would certainly be consistent.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: neroute2 on June 15, 2018, 08:50:28 pm
Am I misremembering, or did the Mosholu have shields at one time pointing along Southern Boulevard?
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on June 16, 2018, 02:22:56 am
Am I misremembering, or did the Mosholu have shields at one time pointing along Southern Boulevard?
Unless you mean before the era of GMSV, I don't know of anything, other than green signs for the BRP.
It would be nice, though -- Procrastinating about making some kind of decision in my mind to justify either including or excluding the Southern Blvd section of MosPkwy is pretty much all that's been holding me back from moving this system into Preview.
OTOH, when GMSVing around looking for historic imagery, I did find this (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8698079,-73.8806199,3a,15y,186.82h,92.88t/data=!3m11!1e1!3m9!1sSwEq7OhbrkzuRRgF6a3O8g!2e0!5s20171001T000000!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DSwEq7OhbrkzuRRgF6a3O8g%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D155.39383%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i41), which may be enough to finally convince me to agree with Duke87, and cut MosPkwy back to SouBlvd.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on June 25, 2018, 10:55:19 pm
usanyp (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?sys=usanyp) is now in preview status in the HB!

While you're making changes to your .lists, please note that seven existing usasf parkways (items in green text in this post (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1928.msg5229#msg5229)) have been update (http://travelmapping.net/devel/updates.php?syscount=1&updatecount=8)d. Of particular note:
• The northernmost segment of FDR Dr (http://travelmapping.net/hb?r=ny.fdroodr) has become the southernmost segment of Harlem River Dr (http://travelmapping.net/hb?r=ny.harrivdr). The former was truncated & the latter extended; they now meet at the *AHEM* Triborough Bridge at Exit 17.
• Heckscher Parkway (http://travelmapping.net/hb?r=ny.hecpkwy) has been split off from the Southern State Parkway (http://travelmapping.net/hb?r=ny.soustapkwy) into its own route.

Hit me with some of that funky funky peer review!
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on June 30, 2018, 12:30:46 am
One other suggestion, something I just noticed now that all this is visible in mapview...

Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn) has its north end marked at Church Avenue. However:
- NY 27, in approximating the difference in its eastbound and westbound routings, does not have a point here.
- the named road Ocean Parkway, albeit not the reference route the drafted route is following, continues north of this point (as the service roads to the Prospect Expressway).

It seems to me that Ocean Parkway should be extended at least to point "5" on NY 27, since the two routes logically intersect and therefore should on our maps as well. Potentially even extend it all the way to Park Circle, which is where it actually begins (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6510564,-73.9726181,3a,15y,221.7h,94.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sSODpqdPdIdJ9DH4FIBfelQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DSODpqdPdIdJ9DH4FIBfelQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D89.39767%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192). (see also) (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6507138,-73.9736486,3a,15.3y,26.17h,100.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssIYVxEE41QvH_xtI5dKWtg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on July 01, 2018, 01:59:08 am
The reference route ends at Church Ave. If I break my "Just Use the Reference Route" rule, that opens the door to similar questions for the Bay Parkway (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/issues/514#issuecomment-216500415), Seven Lakes Drive, and perhaps more. I want to keep that can of worms firmly shut if I can. Hence settling on the reference route guideline. ("Just what IS a Parkway?" (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1928.msg8701#msg8701))

I dislike that there's this gap in the maps/graphs, but there we have it.
One thing I have considered, is adding Prospect Expressway to usasf in order to fill in the gap.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: neroute2 on July 01, 2018, 02:13:09 am
The reference route ends at Church Ave.
Which is NY 27 westbound. If we don't extend routes to the "medians" of routes they end at, we need to truncate the south end of RI 2 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ri.ri002).
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on July 01, 2018, 12:48:28 pm
Which is NY 27 westbound.
Ah yes, this changes things. I had missed that due to sparse signage, and no clues in shapefiles/TDV, but now I've found enough signage in GMSV to convince me this is the case. I'll reevaluate what I've done with NY27 & OcePkwyBro here.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on July 16, 2018, 05:43:29 pm
Where NY27 joins/leaves the Prospect Expy, there's a bit of a "reverse couplet", where traffic going one direction is to the left of traffic going the other.
Compare NY16's north end (brown, bottom right) in Buffalo (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2042).

Original:
NY27 as it originally existed on TM followed the westbound half of the couplet.
FWIW, NYSDOT inventories NY27 in the eastbound direction, so this isn't what we see in the TDR, TDV, or shapefiles.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on July 16, 2018, 05:43:36 pm
Normally I try to avoid tracing a route via one side of a couplet, though I make the occasional exception (same link as above). (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2042) Instead, I'll often do some variation of "cutting across the diagonal".
Not liking the sharp angle, and finding the westbound routing confusing, I made some edits in 2016 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/b828cd45f23fca990713acb220a71826affb3070)...

Current:
At the time, Exit 6 looked like it was just included in order to have the full length of the Prospect Expy.
Mistakenly assuming the WB routing to be via Park Circle, I cut directly from ConIslAve to Exit 5, which I left in place on "One Point Per Interchange" grounds.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on July 16, 2018, 05:43:41 pm
Had I known then about westbound 27 via Church Ave, I may have gone about things differently...

Proposed:
A "median" point at the Expy & Caton Ave, while not my first choice for an Exit 5 point location from the standpoint of mapping the Prospect Expy, looks good from a graphing perspective. It does a good job of capturing where NY27 jumps off one road and onto another.
EB passes thru here on the overpass, via 5th St and Caton Ave.
WB passes thru here on the underpass, via Church Ave and the Expy.
It helps me to think of the ramp/street geometry here as a bit of a nonstandard parclo. :)
It avoids extending Ocean Pkwy all the way up to Exit 5 @ Fort Hamilton Pkwy to gain a graph connection, which I rather dislike.


...Thoughts?
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2018, 05:22:55 pm
The Proposed one looks like it's probably the best compromise given that sheer oddness of the area.  I can't really think of anything better.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on July 19, 2018, 07:23:52 pm
So do I assume correctly that:
- the proposed routing would name the point at the Caton Ave Overpass "OcePkwy"
- Ocean Parkway in usanyp would be extended to have its northern terminus at the same coordinates
- the point name for said northern terminus would be "NY27"
?

If so then... yeah that's a reasonable enough solution.

It still leaves the northernmost 3 blocks of Ocean Parkway (which are part of the named road "Ocean Parkway" but not part of reference route 908H) unmapped, but... that's short enough that I'm not terribly bothered letting it get lost in the noise in the area.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on July 21, 2018, 01:13:15 am
So do I assume correctly that:
- the proposed routing would name the point at the Caton Ave Overpass "OcePkwy"
I'm thinking, leave it labeled "5", and just change its coords.

- Ocean Parkway in usanyp would be extended to have its northern terminus at the same coordinates
- the point name for said northern terminus would be "NY27"
Correct on both of these.

It still leaves the northernmost 3 blocks of Ocean Parkway (which are part of the named road "Ocean Parkway" but not part of reference route 908H) unmapped, but... that's short enough that I'm not terribly bothered letting it get lost in the noise in the area.
"OCEAN PWY svce rds" per GIS -- fudged in the field for simplicity?  ;D
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on July 25, 2018, 04:35:49 pm
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2078
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on September 22, 2018, 11:51:25 pm
LaSalle Expressway topic split:
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2701
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: charliezeb on September 24, 2018, 08:57:10 am
New, I suppose, information on West River Parkway (SR 957C) in Grand Island, Erie Co.

I attempted to clinch that road on Saturday, and most of it is now closed. The powers that be (presumably including the governor) have decided to convert the bulk of the parkway into a pedestrian and bicycle linear park. Two very short sections (neither of which is currently marked with a waypoint) remain open: from South Parkway to Park Road and from Bedell Road to I-190. Otherwise, traffic is detoured onto surface streets Oakfield Road and West River Road. From what I could see along the closed section (which was being repaved for a smooth path), there was perhaps one speed limit sign still up along with maybe one reference marker and a leftover PARKING AREA sign.

It may still be legislated as SR 957C, but since it's not driveable (except by bicycle), perhaps its inclusion should be reconsidered.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: mapcat on September 24, 2018, 09:26:27 am
It may still be legislated as SR 957C, but since it's not driveable (except by bicycle), perhaps its inclusion should be reconsidered.
Being closed to cars isn't always a deal-breaker. M-185 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?u=null&units=miles&r=mi.mi185) and part of Historic US 66 crossing the Mississippi River (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?u=null&units=miles&r=il.us066hissprcha), for example.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on September 26, 2018, 01:05:00 am
But there is also precedent for excluding closed portions of routes. See CA 39 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?units=miles&u=duke87&r=ca.ca039azu) and US 87 in Wyoming (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?units=miles&u=duke87&r=wy.us087).

Philosophically, I am opposed to including any roads or sections of roads that are permanently closed to motorized traffic.

M-185 is a bit of a special case since local custom among Michigan roadgeeks seems to be to accept it as a legitimate part of the state highway system. So I'm fine with deferring to that.


I would definitely vote in favor of killing West River Parkway on account of it being closed to auto traffic, though. Its inclusion was iffy to begin with, this is one of those roads that is reference numbered like a parkway but doesn't really fit the mold of what you'd typically think of as a New York parkway qualitatively.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on September 27, 2018, 10:32:39 am
Being closed to cars isn't always a deal-breaker. M-185 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?u=null&units=miles&r=mi.mi185) and part of Historic US 66 crossing the Mississippi River (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?u=null&units=miles&r=il.us066hissprcha), for example.
In this system, there's also the precedent of the top of ProMtnHwy (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.promtnhwy), discussed upthread.

Maybe @vdeane has the scoop on what will become of the reference route number, that could allow me to more easily make a decision? :)

But there is also precedent for excluding closed portions of routes. See CA 39 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?units=miles&u=duke87&r=ca.ca039azu) and US 87 in Wyoming (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?units=miles&u=duke87&r=wy.us087).
A different beast. These roads used to be open, then were closed to the general (motoring?) public overall, and aren't intended to be used for transportation now.
MI185, IL US66HisCha, and NY ProMtnHwy are intended to be used by the public -- just not by cars.

M-185 is a bit of a special case since local custom among Michigan roadgeeks seems to be to accept it as a legitimate part of the state highway system. So I'm fine with deferring to that.
Less a local custom and more MI DOT, innit?

doesn't really fit the mold of what you'd typically think of as a New York parkway qualitatively.
OI! Watch yr pronouns! ;)
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on September 27, 2018, 10:36:00 am
Leaving this here to potentially complicate matters in the future:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/repository/manuals/inventory/appendg.pdf
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on September 30, 2018, 10:58:41 am
Maybe @vdeane has the scoop on what will become of the reference route number, that could allow me to more easily make a decision? :)
Don't I wish.  I always assumed the whole parkway would be closed, and now it appears that this might not be the case.  Or maybe they're just constructing it one segment at a time.

Leaving this here to potentially complicate matters in the future:
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/repository/manuals/inventory/appendg.pdf
I think some of those might not be reference routes any more.  Or maybe they're reserved?  At the very least, I wasn't able to find them in the RIS shapefiles.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on July 27, 2019, 07:17:23 pm
https://www.dot.ny.gov/NSPRemoval
Quote
Project Overview

The approximately 2 mile long section of the Niagara Scenic Parkway within City of Niagara Falls, north of Main Street, will be removed and its footprint restored to a park-like setting. Parkway traffic will be accommodated by reconstructing Whirlpool Street and Third Street. After the Parkway is removed, city residents will have access to the Niagara Gorge, and area visitors will be able to pursue a variety of recreational opportunities in the newly created Niagara Gorge State Park.
...
Status: Under construction with completion scheduled – June 2020
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: cl94 on September 02, 2019, 05:56:45 pm
I just reviewed usanyp and I have a few comments and recent changes:
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on September 02, 2019, 07:46:29 pm
NiaScePkwy has been permanently closed south of FinDr for a few months. As such, point "NY104_Nia" should be deleted. They're obliterating the entire footprint of the road
Ah, the above is already in progress, and we're closed! Roger. I'll get on this.
Done (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3102), with a corresponding label change on NY104. No updates entry; noFinDr AltLabels for the preview system; I wanna see who's awake. ;)
I can always grep -i 'Waypoint label(s) not found in line: NY ' logs/users/*.log when we're ready to go active! :D

WestRivPkwy has been permanently closed except for stubs connecting to the Beaver Island SP traffic circle and Exit 20. I suggest we delete this route. This was always one of those "parkway in name only" roads and it is no longer maintained by the state as a parkway.
The semi-status of this limbo-route has been the biggest sticking point keeping usanyp from activation. There's the occasional route or segment on the site not open to motorized traffic (most notably MI185), so I haven't been able to fully justify removing it yet. Waiting & seeing. If we can confirm that Reference Route # 957C is no longer in use, I'll give it the axe.

If we're going as signed, BayPkwy begins at the West End turnaround loop.
Going by what's contained in the corresponding NYSDOT reference route.
What gets included? (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=1928.msg5080#msg5080)

There are a couple (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.korwarpkwy) cases (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.mospkwy) that don't include unsigned portions of a reference route, but nothing that's not on a reference route. Which brings us to...

SevLakDr, as signed, begins at NY 17.
"Stupid Truck Routes", n'at. Mapcat brought this up in person a bit back...
SR 987E ends at the JohRd point.
Yes, this is the south endpoint. The shapefiles and TDV agree. The 2014 TDR description looks a little screwy, but saying it ends here is a valid interpretation of the mileage figures.
  South of the endpoint, and north of Waldron Terrace, Seven Lakes Drive is not a reference route.
  South of Waldron Terrace, Seven Lakes Drive is reference route 981G, and not part of the Parkway system.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: cl94 on November 23, 2019, 10:27:35 pm
I have heard confirmation today that West River Parkway between Long Road and Baseline Road has been removed. I will try and check for myself when in town next week, but since this was basically the entire road, I propose axing it altogether.

A well-known user on AARoads and Wikipedia has photos from today that will be posted within the next couple of days showing that it has been completely removed. Once he posts them, I'll share them here.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on November 23, 2019, 11:56:16 pm
You mean physically removed, yes? Demolished (or, mostly so, like enough to become a bike path)?

A bit esoteric, but...
I want to be absolutely sure the reference number is gone, and we don't have another bikes-only situation like MI185 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=mi.mi185)
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on November 24, 2019, 10:51:27 am
As I understand, they only closed it to cars between Oakfield Road and Long Road.  From the photos, it appears they simply paved over the road and striped bicycle and pedestrian paths on top, so from that, we could have a MI 185 situation on our hands.  That said, the photos show that the signs at exit 20A have been changed to West River Road instead of West River Parkway.  If the south end is consistent with this, I could see removing it on the grounds that it isn't signed.  On the other hand, going by signage alone could open a can of worms on some of the other parkways.

It IS still shown on the Functional Class Viewer (https://gis3.dot.ny.gov/html5viewer/?viewer=FC) (which sees more frequent updates than Traffic Data Viewer, at the cost of not showing roads with a local functional class), but so is the physically removed section of the Niagara Scenic Parkway south of Findlay Drive (which from photos appears to have been realigned to feed directly into Whirlpool Street).
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on November 24, 2019, 02:30:06 pm
A bit esoteric, but...
I want to be absolutely sure the reference number is gone, and we don't have another bikes-only situation like MI185 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=mi.mi185)

M-185 is signed though. West River Parkway is not.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on November 24, 2019, 03:15:07 pm
On the flipside, parkways by their nature play by different rules; they don't all have route shields in the traditional sense.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: neroute2 on November 24, 2019, 03:19:23 pm
On the flipside, parkways by their nature play by different rules; they don't have route shields in the traditional sense.
Eh? The majority of parkways do have shields.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on November 24, 2019, 04:58:06 pm
Edited post.
I'll rethink my criteria for inclusion, and consider just including routes with traditional shields.
Not promising any particular conclusion, though.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: cl94 on November 24, 2019, 10:09:52 pm
Eh? The majority of parkways do have shields.

As one of the more knowledgeable people in the community regarding NY roads, I should probably weigh in here. There are two distinctive features of a New York parkway: park-like features and a ban on trucks/buses/commercial vehicles (excluding Nassau/Suffolk south of NY 27). The NYSDOT "parkway list" is simply a listing of reference routes ending in 7, 8, or 9, which are assigned to "parkways". The majority of these are major routes worthy of inclusion. The problem is that a few of these are normal surface streets that just happen to have a reference route number because of how their construction was funded.

Any parkway worth including in the system has a shield. As far as what isn't signed with a shield, we have:

Bay Parkway (LI)
Cross Bay Parkway (Queens)
Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn)
Shore Front Parkway (Queens)
South Parkway (Grand Island)
West River Parkway (Grand Island)

Each of these is signed as a normal surface street. Cross Bay and Ocean Parkways are bus routes. Under the criteria for inclusion in state route systems, these would NOT meet the established TM criteria, as there is not a standalone/BGS shield with the name - they are signed as every other street would be signed. These aren't like "named freeways", because none of these are limited access and the significant majority of parkways are signed with shields. IMO, if we start including these parkways, we need to include routes like NJ 59 that are only signed with blades and routes like NJ 167 that are only signed with enhanced mile markers, because that's the level by which the six parkways listed above are signed.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on November 24, 2019, 11:17:39 pm
I don't think the Pelham Parkway is signed with a shield either.  At the very least, it's not on this list (https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/parkway-signs.shtml).  Nor is Prospect Mountain.

The spurs are another interesting issue - while the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur is pretty much a part of the parkway, the Lake Ontario State Parkway spur is functionally a connector road between the parkway, NY 18, and the park, no different from other connector reference routes like I-88 exit 24 or I-87 exit 33.  Neither one of those is signed with the shield and a spur banner either - the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur is signed as either "TO Niagara Scenic Parkway" or "Fort Niagara State Park" depending on direction, and the Lake Ontario State Parkway spur is signed as "TO Lake Ontario State Parkway", "Lakeside Beach State Park", and "TO NY 18".

Regarding reference route status, one could question why they were assigned parkway series reference route numbers if they weren't intended to be part of a parkway system rather than as a regular surface street.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on December 23, 2019, 04:56:30 pm
They've realigned the southern end of the northern section of Niagara Scenic Parkway to feed directly into Whirlpool Street, so FinDr should be moved to the intersection of Findlay Drive and Whirlpool Street.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on December 26, 2019, 12:34:25 pm
Downloading some semi-recent shapefiles, but I suspect they may not be recent enough. Those weren't even shapefiles! :(
Once I can get some good coords from an open source, I'll make the change.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on September 28, 2020, 02:00:17 pm
Checking the Simplified Streets shapefiles, the 957C designation has been removed between Long Rd & Oakfield Rd. Stubs between Oakfield Rd & South Parkway and between Long Rd and I-90 Exit 20A still exist.
If I'm fine with leaving out Drumgoole Rd & Kazimiroff Blvd, I'm fine leaving out these as well, if they're just stubs to a road that doesn't exist as such anymore. ...And isn't signed, as vdeane reports.

I wonder if this is uncharted territory for NYSDOT, or if there's precedent (other than the Niagara Scenic) for a parkway to be similarly downloaded or demolished, begging for changes to its reference route...
It could be they meant to retain these stubs as reference routes, don't consider them "Parkway" anymore, but didn't see a need for a corresponding ref# to change to something not ending in 7/8/9.
It could be that the person editing the shapefiles made some mistakes or omissions.
It could be many things.

But anyway.

WestRivPkwy is on its way out, and will be deleted soon.
Any other last comments?
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: cl94 on September 28, 2020, 07:56:35 pm
West River Parkway was my biggest concern with nyp.

One final comment: The LOSP spur. It's really no different from connector reference routes like I-81 Exit 12 and I-87 Exit 22, but was inventoried as a parkway because it connects to a parkway and state park. AFAIK, this and the Robert Moses...er, Niagara Scenic Parkway spur are the only cases of a ref route that exists solely to connect to a parkway.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on September 28, 2020, 11:05:36 pm
I'd argue that the LOSP spur is more like I-88 exit 24 than I-81 exit 12 and I-87 exit 22.  At least the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur is arguably a short freeway (and, functionally, it could be argued that the Parkway splits into two branches with the spur being one of them).  If it were up to me, I think I would remove West River Parkway and the LOSP spur, and keep the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: cl94 on September 29, 2020, 01:52:25 pm
If it were up to me, I think I would remove West River Parkway and the LOSP spur, and keep the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur.

I second this.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on November 09, 2020, 08:46:10 pm
The LOSP spur. It's really no different from connector reference routes like I-81 Exit 12 and I-87 Exit 22, but was inventoried as a parkway because it connects to a parkway and state park. AFAIK, this and the Robert Moses...er, Niagara Scenic Parkway spur are the only cases of a ref route that exists solely to connect to a parkway.
There's 943F (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.249696,-77.614771/43.247966,-77.608334/), and more arguably 981G (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.160975,-74.191795/41.162761,-74.185953/).

I'd argue that the LOSP spur is more like I-88 exit 24 than I-81 exit 12 and I-87 exit 22.  At least the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur is arguably a short freeway (and, functionally, it could be argued that the Parkway splits into two branches with the spur being one of them).  If it were up to me, I think I would remove West River Parkway and the LOSP spur, and keep the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur.
There are plenty of short routes, plenty of at-grade junctions (even in usasf), and plenty of parkways serving parks. Putting these together, I still see no reason to treat this route as less than other inventoried parkways that are included.

I'm holding pretty firm on the criteria for inclusion;  wanna minimize the potential "why this" and "why not that" slippery slopes.

Bing imagery finally shows the reconfigured NiaScePkwy tie-in to Whirlpool & Findlay. I've tweaked OSM's geometry there, and plan to update NiaScePkwy, then activate.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: yakra on November 13, 2020, 12:44:58 pm
We can't activate usanyp according to plan.
To quote the Comrade, there's a bip on the PIP!

Moving existing routes from usasf to usanyp reveals a problem:
ConnectedRoutes can only exist within a single system. All their chopped routes must be in the same system.

The Garden State Parkway and Palisades Interstate Parkway are interstate routes, crossing into NJ.
Leaving half of these ConnectedRoutes in usasf while moving half into usanyp breaks stuff.

Changing the criteria for inclusion to "7, 8, or 9 as the 3rd digit of the reference route number" would allow us to keep NY GarStaPkwy in usasf, but the PIP would still be a problem.

There are several options, none particularly appetizing:
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: si404 on November 13, 2020, 02:11:31 pm
  • Move NJ PalIntPkwy into usanyp. But it's not a New York Parkway, is it?
It's a Metro New York Parkway. :P

Depends how much it quacks like a duck in NJ - if its signed differently to similar roads in the Garden State, but similarly to similar roads in the Empire State...

We do, after all, have state highways that cross state lines. Though nowhere near as much as the 11 miles here. Only thing I can think of that's similar is Armenian roads pushing into Azerbaijan, but there they view (or viewed, given the recent treaty, but at least one road will remain) the bit of Azerbaijan as mostly not Azerbaijan and entirely under their control. Oh, and Russian systems extending into Crimea...
Quote
  • Move NY PalIntPkwy into usasf. But why should a route meeting all the criteria to be a New York Parkway be left out of the system and shunted over to usasf, just because it continues into another state?
Depends how much it quacks like a duck in NY - the name clearly makes it out to be 'interstate'.
Quote
  • Separate the PIP out into 2 distinct ConnectedRoutes, one in NJ and one in NY. I don't like this either. It'd seem to defy user expectation; it clearly is a connected route, darnit!
This is far worse than a route ill-fitting a system.
Quote
  • Rethink the ConnectedRoute concept, and maybe allow them to cover >1 system. Also a non-starter; the states pages and user logs are pretty reliant on the concept as it exists now. An inferior way to reinvent things for the sake of kluging in one new system...
A sledgehammer to crack a nut that doesn't really need cracking.
Quote
  • Scrap the usanyp system altogether, and move its routes over to usasf instead. A lot of these don't qualify as freeways though; an opportunity to remove a lot of the more contentious routes in this thread would probably be regarded as a Good Thing. Some routes might have a bit more discussion whether to keep or dump...
There's a deliberate reason why this system has been separated out from usasf. And it's more than just the usakyp thing of "well these usasf routes are a system in their own right". And part of why this is its own system are those non-freeway routes.


So I vote for PIP in whichever of usanyp or usasf fits the route best - both have problems, but its far less problematic than the other options. Gut based on a quick look as an outsider to that part of the world, and those roads, suggests that usanyp is the place for it.

As for the GSP - even the bit in NY does make much sense as a New York Parkway, as it's clearly a New Jersey one by the name!
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: cl94 on November 13, 2020, 11:41:53 pm
I vote for moving the PIP over to usasf. Internally, the PIP (as well as the Harriman State Park parkways, for that matter) is a different ballgame from most of the other parkways, and not just because it crosses a state line.

Frankly, if there was a "select state park highways" system, the PIP would belong in that given that it's owned and maintained by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission. But we don't have that, so usasf it is.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: si404 on November 14, 2020, 05:29:50 am
the PIP ... is a different ballgame from most of the other parkways,

Frankly, if there was a "select state park highways" system, the PIP would belong in that given that it's owned and maintained by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission. But we don't have that, so usasf it is.
OK, I change where I think it would fit best.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Markkos1992 on November 14, 2020, 06:21:10 am
I think the PIP should be in usanyp, and the GSP belongs in usasf. 

The part of the GSP in NY is minimal, and the PIP is practically a NY parkway IMO that happens to enter NJ.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Jim on November 14, 2020, 09:58:01 am
So what bothers people more?  A route that should be connected but isn't because it spans two systems, or a route or routes in a system where they don't really belong but properly connected?
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on November 14, 2020, 05:56:09 pm
I think the PIP should be in usanyp, and the GSP belongs in usasf. 

The part of the GSP in NY is minimal, and the PIP is practically a NY parkway IMO that happens to enter NJ.
I second this.  Especially as the GSP in NY is part of the Thruway system, allows trucks (except the part between the last interchange and the state line) (although so did the western end of the LOSP until about 10 years ago), and I believe is officially known as the Garden State Parkway Connector.  The PIP also has contiguous exit numbers and mileage, and uses the same shield as Seven Lakes Drive, so it would feel odd to have those in separate systems.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on November 14, 2020, 06:33:32 pm
I think the best and cleanest solution is to leave both the PIP and the GSP in usasf. This allows users to mark them clinched as connected routes, and can even be philosophically justified as "well, neither of those are purely New York parkways".

Indeed, the Palisades is specifically an Interstate parkway (says it in the name!), and the Garden State Parkway fundamentally is a New Jersey thing, it just happens to have an extension into New York at its northern end.

Also FWIW, neither is an NYSDOT maintained roadway in spite of their reference route numbers - PIP, as mentioned above, is maintained by a separate park commission, and the GSP extension is part of the New York State Thruway system (it even allows trucks between the Thruway mainline and the one NY exit).
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on November 16, 2020, 05:46:47 pm
One thing that's worth noting is that Seven Lakes Drive and the PIP have the (nearly) exact (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1855693,-74.0406374,3a,20.7y,100.06h,91.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJh0u4_AjJa4422zYBkqc9Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)  same shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2336993,-74.1119758,3a,15.7y,288.39h,82.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSmjdzZx04P_UUV5ZylreNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: cl94 on November 16, 2020, 09:28:44 pm
One thing that's worth noting is that Seven Lakes Drive and the PIP have the (nearly) exact (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1855693,-74.0406374,3a,20.7y,100.06h,91.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJh0u4_AjJa4422zYBkqc9Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)  same shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2336993,-74.1119758,3a,15.7y,288.39h,82.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSmjdzZx04P_UUV5ZylreNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).

Seven Lakes Drive is another one of the special cases that isn't a typical NY parkway. It's a state park road that happens to be on the parkway list. Indeed, PIPC maintains it as a park road.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: dave1693 on December 02, 2020, 02:06:30 am
Also FWIW, neither is an NYSDOT maintained roadway in spite of their reference route numbers - PIP, as mentioned above, is maintained by a separate park commission, and the GSP extension is part of the New York State Thruway system (it even allows trucks between the Thruway mainline and the one NY exit).

And NJDOT maintains neither the PIP nor the GSP in NJ, but both have official-but-unsigned state route numbers.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Markkos1992 on May 10, 2021, 12:59:28 pm
I guess this is mostly directed at vdeane and cl94, but does the general population of NYC consider the PIP as a NYC Parkway or not?
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Duke87 on May 10, 2021, 06:42:46 pm
I guess this is mostly directed at vdeane and cl94, but does the general population of NYC consider the PIP as a NYC Parkway or not?

The general population doesn't know the difference between a US highway and a state route. They're not going to draw any distinction between different types of parkways.


That said, this thought makes another potential solution occur to me: what if instead of "New York Parkways" we had "US State Named Parkways" (usasp)? Then the PIP and GSP could get both their NJ and NY portions included in this system without issue. The contents of usakyp could get dumped into it too, and you might be able to pluck a thing or two elsewhere out of usasf.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on May 15, 2021, 06:41:29 pm
Yeah, I would say most people in the area wouldn't differentiate the PIP from the other parkways, but pretty much the only people in NY who know the difference between a US route and a state route are roadgeeks and some DOT employees, and where I grew up, people didn't even differentiate interstates, so that doesn't say much either way.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Markkos1992 on May 16, 2021, 09:07:12 am
Yeah, I would say most people in the area wouldn't differentiate the PIP from the other parkways, but pretty much the only people in NY who know the difference between a US route and a state route are roadgeeks and some DOT employees, and where I grew up, people didn't even differentiate interstates, so that doesn't say much either way.

Yeah, this is the answer I was thinking would be the case. 
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on October 16, 2021, 02:21:37 pm
Street view now exists along West River Parkway.  It appears the north remnant is now signed West River Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.053759,-78.9932253,3a,28.7y,260.93h,87.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMOeix71W9Y4A09IA8cMEsw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DMOeix71W9Y4A09IA8cMEsw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D274.68976%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) and the closed portion is West River Trail (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0473281,-79.0012197,3a,15y,237.72h,89.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqxssaNC6crfgJJIrmyRL5w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) (so no M-185 situation, at least per signage), while the southern piece is still West River Parkway (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.9686763,-78.9680239,3a,27.5y,189.36h,85.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7IBdggjxsl6Olg4xAtWFmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Markkos1992 on May 10, 2022, 01:41:52 pm
I think the PIP should be in usanyp, and the GSP belongs in usasf. 

The part of the GSP in NY is minimal, and the PIP is practically a NY parkway IMO that happens to enter NJ.

I guess I am now at an either-or in the case of the PIP.  It really does not seem to be that big of a deal to me in regard to which system it is in.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Markkos1992 on March 19, 2023, 03:11:22 pm
I think the PIP should be in usanyp, and the GSP belongs in usasf. 

The part of the GSP in NY is minimal, and the PIP is practically a NY parkway IMO that happens to enter NJ.

I guess I am now at an either-or in the case of the PIP.  It really does not seem to be that big of a deal to me in regard to which system it is in.

After yesterday, I am leaning on the side of both being in usasf.  I think that I would be in that position if the PIP was anywhere else in NJ beyond the NYC area anyway, and technically the GSP enters the NYC area.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on March 19, 2023, 04:14:32 pm
^ I'm curious, what made you change your mind?  PIP in NY still feels to me like a NY parkway, and has the same shield style as Seven Lakes Drive, which is in usanyp.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Markkos1992 on March 19, 2023, 04:25:36 pm
Basically, that was the conclusion I came to while clinching US 9W in NJ yesterday before David Golub's Long Island Meet.

I had also thought about a usanep (United States Northeast Parkways) system briefly that could only make some sort of sense if CT 15 was unsigned.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Markkos1992 on April 05, 2023, 10:22:03 am
I am confused at why the Palisades Interstate Pkwy is shown as concurrent with Seven Lakes Dr.  I thought that the Palisades was never concurrent with it.

I think the Palisades should have the line go straight between both parts of Exit 18.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: neroute2 on April 05, 2023, 07:27:15 pm
I am confused at why the Palisades Interstate Pkwy is shown as concurrent with Seven Lakes Dr.
Because there's a pretty damn obvious overlap? Unless you're thinking Seven Lakes should be split?
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: Markkos1992 on April 05, 2023, 08:00:08 pm
I guess I am thinking that the 18 point on the PIP should be split into two to lessen the Seven Lakes Dr overlap.

This reminds me of the NC debate we had around Greensboro recently.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: vdeane on January 12, 2024, 09:40:23 pm
I happened to be looking at the NYSDOT Scenic Byways site for something and noticed that on their byways list (https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/programs/scenic-byways/lists) there's a link to a (slightly outdated, judging by the Robert Moses State Parkway) parkways list (https://www.dot.ny.gov/display/programs/scenic-byways/parkways-no-detailed-info), with a note that the are listed in the regulations of the Commissioner of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.  This list does include the NY portion of Palisades Interstate Parkway (notably, it does not include the NJ portion in the mileage total), if that affects the debate on which system that should be in.  A couple of other interesting findings:
-The Bay Parkway is listed as being its full length to where it turns around, not just the portion between the Meadowbrook and Wantagh.
-Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn is not listed.
-There is a Montauk Parkway included; not sure what that is referring to.  Google Maps just has it for the eastern portion of Montauk Highway (NY 27).

Some interesting food for thought.
Title: Re: usanyp: New York Parkways
Post by: webny99 on February 22, 2024, 03:32:30 pm
Browsing around TM today, this discussion came back to me. The concept of moving the freeways from usasf to usanyp once it is active makes total sense to me. Besides the PIP, is there anything else that needs to be worked out before the switch can occur? I won't be much help with the technical side of things, but glad to offer input on anything that has to be addressed.