Author Topic: Unsigned Interstates Discussion  (Read 3335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bejacob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Last Login:Today at 04:28:27 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #45 on: February 09, 2021, 10:16:51 am »
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.

This might be the best solution.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 146
  • Last Login:November 21, 2021, 10:06:56 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #46 on: February 09, 2021, 12:06:24 pm »
How OCD do you want to get with the systems?

Which is why the best long-term solution may just be "include everything and let people turn off what they don't like", because everyone's definition is different. When we've started having arguments about what does/does not count as "signed" and what is significant enough to be included in the "select named freeways", it might be time to include everything someone wants to draft up/review and let people filter.

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.

This might be the best solution.

Agreed, at least in the short term. While I'd like a long-term functionality to turn off systems (cough...National Parks and Historic US Routes), which would thus allow for unsigned routes to be added and people who dislike the concept to just ignore them, any major changes in the short term that result in a major change to how things are done will just piss people off. It's the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3295
  • Last Login:Today at 03:58:20 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #47 on: February 09, 2021, 12:19:01 pm »
How OCD do you want to get with the systems?

Which is why the best long-term solution may just be "include everything and let people turn off what they don't like", because everyone's definition is different. When we've started having arguments about what does/does not count as "signed" and what is significant enough to be included in the "select named freeways", it might be time to include everything someone wants to draft up/review and let people filter.

THIS!



Excluding systems would be not that hard. 427 systems (active+preview only) just need to be marked with whatever we define*.

Marking currently 68,449 routes all around the world being signed or unsigned would be hard. And... what about routes which are only signed on mileposts? Distinguish signed/milepostsigned/unsigned? And what about partially signed routes? Do we need to mark every... waypoint in wpt files?

And over a million waypoints.

*If we ever agree on any definition :D

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Last Login:November 26, 2021, 05:36:13 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #48 on: February 09, 2021, 09:12:12 pm »
You've totally and utterly missed my point that this site isn't a game  to win

Yet it has all the trappings of a game:
  • Leaderboard
  • Challenges, with demonstrated progress towards a goal
  • The word "clinched", with its connotation of "goal met", featured prominently on every page with a map and many without
All it's missing are daily prizes and a way to earn extra lives!

Quote
and that, even if it was a game, 100%ing usai is not just winning, but the gold-plated epic challenge win that's equivalent of completing all the achievements

Maybe, maybe not. Undoubtedly it's a goal for many users, but equivalent of completing all? The fact that Oscar's still driving years after completing (at the time) usai shows that the other achievements are just as compelling.

Quote
Quote
Living in (or near? hard to say now) Europe, you may not realize there are people with the means to travel extensively
I'm very aware of that, being someone without the means to travel extensively - I've added only a couple of hundred miles to my travels since the site relaunched (obviously more has been mapped as systems have been added) and only a few 'long' trips (at least wrt clinching) that have all been only a day long (I've under 10 days more than 100 miles from home in the last decade).

Those without the means to travel extensively, are clearly not people who will consider travelling to 49 states + DC and driving 45,000 miles plus as doable. It doesn't matter to them whether or not there's not the added difficulty of trips to Alaska and Puerto Rico, because not only is Hawaii something just as excluding, but the dozen or more cross-continental road trips are too!

It seems you may have misunderstood me. My comment was that there are people *with* the means to travel all over the States, but who find language barriers to be enough of a deterrent. Including Puerto Rico is a barrier to their completion. Of course we're only having this discussion because signs with PR1, PR2, and PR3 on them are fantasy; should the DTOP choose to post them, there's no arguing anymore. They're in.

Quote
And, lets say someone has travelled so extensively over the lower-48 and Hawaii that they have clinched all the signed interstates. Surely they have both the time, money, and sense of adventure, to make trips to Alaska and Puerto Rico should they wish to do so in order to get that 100% bragging rights?

You greatly underestimate the allure of xenophobia in this country, as well as the ease with which such an attitude may be maintained. I have taught these people. Upon my return from a trip to Mexico, I was showing slides and talking excitedly about my adventures, and one student who I knew to be well-travelled was clearly interested and asked many thoughtful questions. I began making suggestions for when he crossed the border for himself, and he stopped me. Not going to happen; he only travels in THIS country. He hasn't even visited Ontario, less than three hours from his home! Can't expect someone like that to give PR a second thought.

Quote
So what you are saying is that the "flagship epic challenge" shouldn't challenge those, whom you feel sad for because they don't step out of their comfort zone and travel to places like PR, to step out of their comfort zone and travel to PR? What a weird argument.

No, that's not the core of my argument at all. My argument is that we shouldn't *arbitrarily* increase the difficulty of that particular challenge while using a different set of rules for all other challenges in North America. It's inconsistent, and, in light of the "flagship epic" nature of the interstate challenge, unfair.

Which brings us back to the words of SSOWorld in the first reply to this topic:

Remove unsigned Interstates or add unsigned routes of all other systems.  The choice is yours.

That's as concise as anyone can make this argument. And I think plenty of evidence has been presented above to show that adding the unsigned routes of all other North American systems would be madness. And it would need to be ALL of the systems unless we want to revive this debate again and again.



Clinched:

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 #49 on: February 09, 2021, 10:03:30 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.

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.
Depends on how willing one is to sight clinch from the last exit.  That's what I did for I-89 and I-91 (although, as I mentioned, I'm getting a bit less comfortable with that) and the surface routes that lead to the border (though I really should get US 11 properly at some point, given the distance).  My rule has traditionally been for a land border, if you can see customs/the border, and it's straight, it's OK (bridges, on the other hand...).  Thus, I-5 would be fine (still straight NB, good sight lines from the overpass).  My understanding is that I-69W really does end at the last U turn before the border, which is good, because its crossing is truck-only.  That leaves just I-110 on the US/Mexico border.

Not a fan of truck US 219... but that one's PennDOT's fault, and since it's both official and signed, we're kinda stuck with it.
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 #50 on: February 09, 2021, 11:39:53 pm »
My understanding is that I-69W really does end at the last U turn before the border, which is good, because its crossing is truck-only.

Not a fan of truck US 219... but that one's PennDOT's fault, and since it's both official and signed, we're kinda stuck with it.

I-69W Mile 0 is before the "point of no return", as is I-110. TxDOT considers the routes to end where their maintenance responsibilities end.

US 11...yeah. I'd say to make sure you have a decent excuse to be using that crossing to avoid a grilling, but it's 3/4 mile between customs and the border. That's one where it's 50-50 as to whether you'll be waved through or grilled and it all depends on who is manning the booth. On that topic, my metric for a valid "sight clinch" is seeing the other country's customs, something in the other country, or some other marker of the actual border. The only numbered border crossing in NY where you cannot do that without passing through customs is 11.

219 Truck...yeah. I purposely timed my clinch of it when the normal NB lane was closed for construction, but a ton of people have clinched 219 Truck in cars with no issue and I'll leave it at that.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3564
  • Last Login:Today at 11:54:20 am
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #51 on: February 11, 2021, 11:39:33 am »
That's as concise as anyone can make this argument. And I think plenty of evidence has been presented above to show that adding the unsigned routes of all other North American systems would be madness. And it would need to be ALL of the systems unless we want to revive this debate again and again.
Well said. The fact that there's been actual, serious talk of adding UT 900 or 901 or whatever should be setting off alarm bells. That route is the poster child for why including unsigned routes is a bad idea. From its description, it sounds like it is physically nothing more than a goat track. And we all know where goat tracks are located.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline osu-lsu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
  • Last Login:Today at 12:00:46 am
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #52 on: February 11, 2021, 04:38:19 pm »
And we all know where goat tracks are located.

Yes. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
http://www.roadfan.com/man4.html

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3564
  • Last Login:Today at 11:54:20 am
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #53 on: February 11, 2021, 07:36:40 pm »
I do believe you have just won the internet. :D
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

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 #54 on: February 11, 2021, 10:12:51 pm »
That's as concise as anyone can make this argument. And I think plenty of evidence has been presented above to show that adding the unsigned routes of all other North American systems would be madness. And it would need to be ALL of the systems unless we want to revive this debate again and again.
Well said. The fact that there's been actual, serious talk of adding UT 900 or 901 or whatever should be setting off alarm bells. That route is the poster child for why including unsigned routes is a bad idea. From its description, it sounds like it is physically nothing more than a goat track. And we all know where goat tracks are located.
It is both forbidden and required to add them.  To clinch them, always remember to have your I-94 form of entry, which is also an I-69 form of entry, while driving I-366 at 85 miles per hour.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 656
  • Last Login:Today at 06:55:37 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #55 on: February 12, 2021, 12:56:32 am »
I feel some members of this thread are having Alanland withdrawl...

Offline Jim

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
  • Last Login:Today at 10:44:12 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #56 on: February 12, 2021, 12:09:52 pm »
I would contend that there is no such thing as a "high-profile roadgeek".

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3564
  • Last Login:Today at 11:54:20 am
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #57 on: February 12, 2021, 02:51:56 pm »
Well spoken.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2026
  • Last Login:Today at 08:03:09 pm
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #58 on: February 12, 2021, 03:23:13 pm »
Quote
It is both forbidden and required to add them.  To clinch them, always remember to have your I-94 form of entry, which is also an I-69 form of entry, while driving I-366 at 85 miles per hour.

I recently clinched the now full freeway I-366.  I would not recommend driving 85 at the southern end at I-66 that still has construction going on. 

On a more serious note, I doubt that Duke87 is planning to add UT 900 and UT 901.  I would not even recommend the addition of NJ 324.  (as much as I want to walk clinch that eventually)

If we are going to add unsigned routes, we need practical routes that make sense to be included normally.

Offline osu-lsu

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
  • Last Login:Today at 12:00:46 am
Re: Unsigned Interstates Discussion
« Reply #59 on: February 12, 2021, 04:12:29 pm »
I would contend that there is no such thing as a "high-profile roadgeek".
I disagree. Barefoot_driver & wadsteckel drive "high-profile" vehicles, err trucks, to collect their miles on here.  ;D :P