Author Topic: Unsigned Interstates Discussion  (Read 3329 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 146
  • Last Login:November 21, 2021, 10:06:56 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2021, 09:27:46 pm »
Oh crap, yeah, those Connecticut ferries shoulda come out years ago.
Am oan it!

That's not what I meant. I support leaving the ferries in...because the route officially uses them.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:50:26 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2021, 09:38:30 pm »
Ferries are like unsigned routes in that you will never gain a consensus on whether or not they should count. Some people want to count them, others do not.

To this end, I support it continuing to be standard policy to break routes at ferries and only map roads. For people who want to count the ferries, well... perhaps a future todo item can be mapping those separately, like with unsigned routes. Let users toggle them as they please. The only way to make everyone happy ultimately will be to allow either option.

Offline US 89

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Last Login:November 21, 2021, 06:20:37 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2021, 09:52:20 pm »
I posted this in the other thread, but I would fully support the addition of unsigned routes. It's a rather arbitrary decision that doesn't seem to have much basis beyond "we've always done it this way". It doesn't make sense to me why routes that are official in every way except for lacking posted signs are left out, while national park roads that are completely arbitrary in many cases are included.

I should also note that TM's definition of "signage" is itself arbitrary. Take NJ 64 as an example: even though it is signed on street blades, that is still considered "unsigned" as far as this site is concerned and is excluded as a result.

Should TM decide to go the way of including unsigned routes, I would be happy to help with the work of drafting and/or maintaining them.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2021, 09:55:04 pm by US 89 »

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 146
  • Last Login:November 21, 2021, 10:06:56 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #33 on: February 08, 2021, 10:01:38 pm »
I also think it should be noted that, while pretty much anything maintained by NPS can go in the HB, regardless of importance, unsigned other routes cannot. That seems a bit absurd. NPS 602 and NPS 615 in NJ are extreme examples of this: they are county routes that happen to be maintained by NPS, but go in because of who maintains them. I don't see how a random NPS road is different from an unsigned state highway.

Offline vdeane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Today at 09:51:16 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2021, 10:06:08 pm »
(CT, for example) where unsigned routes are administratively a separate system from signed ones, and thus would logically be a separate system not in the HB
FTFY. :D
Lol yeah... I'd been thinking of, what if this led to demand for a New York Select Reference Routes? ::) (To be clear: I do not want to see this.) Majority would be unsigned, with signed as the exception...
Yeah, I'd rather not see that either, to the point that I'd rather see the unsigned interstates go away (even in Alaska and Puerto Rico) than have that appear.  Too many service roads, wyes, etc. - not to mention a route that requires NEXUS to clinch (and another that crosses the border but can't be sight clinched; there's also one that enters a state park and goes past the fee booths just to end at a random point in the park).  Even a "select" system would likely have me clinch all the ones I legally can just to avoid the possibility of having another route added to the "select" system and an unclinched route appearing in my map/stats as a result.

Unsigned routes elsewhere have other issues.  Maryland have some for old pieces of concrete.  Utah has them on non-public roads.  And so on.  It's a bit of a mess, although I do admit it could solve some issues with routes blipping in and out as signage changes (it seems like there are constant additions/deletions to usaky for that reason).  I could be persuaded if there was some way of placing clear criteria to just add routes that behave like the signed routes currently in the system but just happen to lack signage, but I'm not sure there's a clear, air-tight standard for such.

Not really a fan of adding ferries either.  I'm not sure that a toggle that would only affect my view would be satisfying... kinda like cleaning up by sweeping the dust under the rug.  Especially as I do link to my page from my website, and because I don't feel like "signing in" to view my page.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 146
  • Last Login:November 21, 2021, 10:06:56 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2021, 10:19:51 pm »

Unsigned routes elsewhere have other issues.  Maryland have some for old pieces of concrete.  Utah has them on non-public roads.

But we have also included signed routes on non-public roads, as well as Maryland stubs that are as pointless, but get a sign for some reason. The presence of a standalone shield (or lack thereof) does not mean a road is/is not "clinchworthy".

Offline vdeane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Today at 09:51:16 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2021, 10:33:59 pm »

Unsigned routes elsewhere have other issues.  Maryland have some for old pieces of concrete.  Utah has them on non-public roads.

But we have also included signed routes on non-public roads, as well as Maryland stubs that are as pointless, but get a sign for some reason. The presence of a standalone shield (or lack thereof) does not mean a road is/is not "clinchworthy".
I'm not a fan of those either, but it also wouldn't feel right to take out part of a signed system.  We certainly don't need more of them.

How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched?  The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch.  Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY!  As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 146
  • Last Login:November 21, 2021, 10:06:56 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2021, 10:51:02 pm »
How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched?  The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch.  Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY!  As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.

There are quite a few others, if I'm remembering correctly. At minimum, North Carolina has a couple. (EDIT: NC 172 is the one I was thinking of)

Sometimes, you just need to get inventive to finish a system or be okay leaving an asterisk. Makes clinching more exciting.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2021, 10:59:43 pm by cl94 »

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 146
  • Last Login:November 21, 2021, 10:06:56 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2021, 11:16:28 pm »
I will mention, though, that I would be 100% behind excluding any and all segments that a "normal person" cannot legally traverse. Roads on military bases would fall under things that should be excluded in such a scenario, because it's not like any person can just get clearance to go on.

Offline vdeane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Today at 09:51:16 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2021, 11:44:51 pm »
How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched?  The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch.  Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY!  As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.

There are quite a few others, if I'm remembering correctly. At minimum, North Carolina has a couple. (EDIT: NC 172 is the one I was thinking of)

Sometimes, you just need to get inventive to finish a system or be okay leaving an asterisk. Makes clinching more exciting.
More exciting for you, maybe.  I'm already uncomfortable with the asterisks I have, and I only get more uncomfortable with them over time (I'm now debating whether to add I-89 and I-91 to my re-clinch list even though I previously never had an issue with sight clinching the border).  There's too much stuff on my todo list to find time to go back to places I've already been.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Last Login:Today at 09:06:32 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #40 on: February 09, 2021, 02:51:52 am »
How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched?  The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch.  Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY!  As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.

Interstate H-3 ends before the cross-street in front of the sentry station. Either do a legal U-turn in front of the sentries, or take a right into the parking lot for the replica Iwo Jima memorial then do your U-turn there.

There are tougher clinches out there. Like Interstates and U.S. routes ending at the Canadian and Mexican borders, currently closed to non-essential travel, and even in better times you need a passport and (for Mexico) an expensive temporary insurance policy unless you cross the border on foot. Or some of the more difficult unpaved highways (looking at you Yukon route 6, which is hundreds of km of constant potholes that will tear up most regular passenger vehicles, but other Arctic highways are no walk in the park either). Or US 219 Truck in Ridgway PA, which is one-way and technically closed to vehicles under 7000 lb. gross vehicle weight. All of these belong in TM, even if not accessible to everybody.

Offline SSOWorld

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
  • Last Login:Today at 07:11:55 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #41 on: February 09, 2021, 03:55:17 am »
How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched?  The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch.  Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY!  As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.

Interstate H-3 ends before the cross-street in front of the sentry station. Either do a legal U-turn in front of the sentries, or take a right into the parking lot for the replica Iwo Jima memorial then do your U-turn there.

There are tougher clinches out there. Like Interstates and U.S. routes ending at the Canadian and Mexican borders, currently closed to non-essential travel, and even in better times you need a passport and (for Mexico) an expensive temporary insurance policy unless you cross the border on foot. Or some of the more difficult unpaved highways (looking at you Yukon route 6, which is hundreds of km of constant potholes that will tear up most regular passenger vehicles, but other Arctic highways are no walk in the park either). Or US 219 Truck in Ridgway PA, which is one-way and technically closed to vehicles under 7000 lb. gross vehicle weight. All of these belong in TM, even if not accessible to everybody.
Even some of the border roads have turn arounds (Otay Mesa, I-110 TX, I-69W Texas, I-5 San Ysidro) that allow you to legally flip around and for those who are not insistant on crossing consider a sight clinch.
Completed:
* Systems: DC, WI
* by US State: AR: I&; AZ: I; DE: I; DC: I, US, DC; IL: I; IN: I; IA: I, KS: I; MD: I, MA: I, MI: I; MN: I; MO: I*; NE: I; NJ, I; OH: I; RI: I; SD: I; WA: I; WV: I; WI: I,US,WI; (AR, IN pending expansions.)

*Previously completed

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Last Login:Today at 09:06:32 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #42 on: February 09, 2021, 07:07:01 am »
There's nothing to filter there. The ferries are simply not included.

Ferries are included in Connecticut. In WA and CT (and US 9/10, for that matter), the ferry is legally defined as part of the route. If you don't want to include WA ferries, the CT ferries probably need to come out.

The Northwest Territories have two routes, NT 1 and NT 8, each with two ferry crossings. But in the winter the ferries are replaced by ice bridges, so you can safely drive across the rivers. That was felt sufficient to keep the routes undivided.

I considered applying that precedent to a ferry/ice bridge situation in Saskatchewan (SK 42, crossing Lake Diefenbaker), but was prevailed upon to confine the NT precedent to NT, and split SK 42 at the lake.

I've toyed with setting up a separate system for ferry routes, especially the longer ones like on US 9 and US 10, the extensive AK/BC/WA ferry systems, and other major ferry routes. Someday ...

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
  • Last Login:Today at 09:06:32 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #43 on: February 09, 2021, 07:50:44 am »
There are routes that have been added/deleted repeatedly because the amount of signage changed. See the ongoing debacle in Seattle.

I think that is not so much a problem with excluding unsigned routes, but rather being too quick on the trigger to remove routes once their signage disappears (perhaps temporarily). There are a few routes in California I just removed as unsigned. But I knew several years ago that their signage status was questionable, and waited until user reports or updated GMSV imagery could confirm that they were indeed unsigned.

I favor generally keeping unsigned routes out of the HB for US/Canada systems. But I'm OK with preserving the status quo for Interstates, and also with rare exceptions to keep specific unsigned routes in other systems. I've made a few such exceptions in my Arctic jurisdictions, where route signage customs are much different than in the lower 48 (up there, the public doesn't care about route numbers, and especially in remote areas, posting them is not a priority for the relevant department or ministry), but none in the rest of the U.S. and the Canadian provinces.

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 656
  • Last Login:Today at 06:55:37 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #44 on: February 09, 2021, 10:09:36 am »
This whole discussion boils down to one question:

How OCD do you want to get with the systems?