User Discussions > Other Discussion

Unsigned State Routes

(1/20) > >>

Duke87:
Since this idea does keep coming up, and there seems to be at least some support for it, figure it's not a bad idea to have a master thread for it.

Given the strong desire of some users to exclude unsigned state highways, I do think resolving the toggle feature (see: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3247.0) is a necessary prerequisite to actually activating any unsigned state routes for use. Beyond that... I would envision the drafting of unsigned routes proceeding not as any sort of urgent mandate, but rather as something that could be done state by state as there is demand for or interest in it.

Indeed, for various reasons, I do not envision every stretch of state-maintained road in the country being mapped. I would propose the following criteria for consideration:
1) The set of unsigned routes in a given region must be manageable in scale. States where unsigned routes includes every residential cul-de-sac that's not within an incorporated city... no, we're not going there.
2) The route must have a number. Roads that are state-maintained but inventoried only by name would not be included.
3) The route must be open to general public travel by car. Any roads behind the gates of a state prison, drivers license testing courses, busways, etc. would not be included.
4) The route must be a road or segment of road in its own right. Route numbers applied to interchanges, wye roadways, rest areas, parking lots, etc. would not be included. Ferries are also out of scope here (though this is another item for separate future consideration)
5) The route must not duplicate an existing route already mapped in another system. Hidden internal designations for US and interstate highways would not be included. Nor would roads already in usasf, though in some cases the unsigned system may be deemed a better home for the route than usasf.
6) The main focus should be on unsigned routes that are officially in the same system as signed routes which are already mapped. Administratively separate systems that are entirely unsigned should be excluded unless there is particular community interest to include them.

Below is some (incomplete, need to do more research to fill out list) idea of how things would stack up against the above criteria in different states.

AL: Has a modest number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. However all except one (AL 300) run afoul of criteria 5. Map this one.
AK: Unsigned routes includes basically every road outside of an incorporated city. Do not map.
AR:
AZ: Does not currently have any unsigned routes since 989 was deleted in 2012. No action needed.
CA: Has a modest number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5.
CO: Has a modest number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5.
CT: Has a fairly extensive system of unsigned routes which is administratively distinct, but all are public roads in their own right. Consider mapping.
DE: Unsigned routes includes basically every road outside of an incorporated city. Do not map.
DC: Unsigned routes includes, inherently, every single city street. Do not map.
FL: Has a modest number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5 (many will run afoul of criteria 5).
GA:
HI:
ID:
IL:
IN:
IA:
KS:
KY: Has a fair number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5.
LA: Has a fair number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5.
ME: Has exactly two unsigned routes with numbers, both are already in usasf. All other state-maintained roads that aren't part of signed routes are unnumbered. No action needed.
MD: Has a large number of unsigned routes, many of them of vanishing significance. However, not administratively distinct from those signed. Consider mapping (maybe only some of them?)
MA: All state-maintained roads that aren't part of signed routes are unnumbered. No action needed.
MI:
MN:
MS: Has a modest number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5.
MO: Has an extremely extensive secondary system which is mostly (entirely?) signed and not included, so continue not including these. Are there any unsigned primary routes?
MT: Has a modest number of unsigned secondary routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5. Also has an entirely unsigned administratively separate system of urban routes. Probably do not map these.
NE: Has a system of recreation routes which is entirely unsigned. Probably do not map these. Are there any unsigned primary routes or links/spurs?
NV: Has a modest number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5.
NH: All state-maintained roads that aren't part of signed routes are unnumbered. No action needed.
NJ: Has a modest number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5.
NM:
NY: Has a fairly extensive system of unsigned routes which is administratively distinct. Some will definitely run afoul of criteria 3-5, but there may be interest in others. Consider mapping.
NC: Has an extremely extensive administratively distinct system of unsigned routes which is pretty much every thru road outside of city limits. Do not map.
ND:
OH: Has a fair number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. However, most are of vanishing significance and those that aren't are already in usasf. Probably take no action.
OK:
OR: Has a modest number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. All are already in usaor due to an acknowledged intention of ODOT to add signs to them all eventually, so no action needed other than flagging which are currently unsigned in whatever manner we decide upon.
PA: Has an extremely extensive administratively distinct system of unsigned routes which is pretty much every thru road of any modest significance. Do not map.
RI: All state-maintained roads that aren't part of signed routes are unnumbered. No action needed.
SC: Has an extremely extensive administratively distinct system of unsigned routes which is pretty much every thru road outside of city limits. Do not map.
SD:
TN:
TX: Has a bunch of different systems as it is. Some unsigned routes exist but mostly in the park road and principal arterial systems which are not mapped. May not require much action.
UT: Has a modest number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5 (some will run afoul of criteria 3).
VT: Has a modest number of unsigned routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5.
VA: Has a modest number of unsigned primary routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map unless any run afoul of criteria 3-5 (some will run afoul of criteria 3). Many more unsigned routes are in the state's extremely extensive secondary system where we're not even including the signed routes, so the unsigned ones are out.
WA: Does not have any fully unsigned routes that aren't ferries, but does have exactly one route which is not in usawa due to... quirkiness. Map this one route (but it really should be classified as signed since it technically is).
WV: Has a couple of unsigned primary routes, not administratively distinct from those signed. Map these. Many more unsigned routes are in the state's extremely extensive secondary and tertiary systems where we're not even including the signed routes, so the unsigned ones are out.
WI:
WY:


mapmikey:
I agree with the characterizations of NC, SC and VA. 

SC does have a few unposted primary routes of length (US 52 Spur and some of the CONN routes which are not short Wyes)

For the secondary systems of these states I would never want to attempt putting these into TM as full systems.  NC does have a special secondary system that is more prominently posted (10xx routes) which could realistically be added someday, though it would still be 300-400 routes to add.   The only secondary routes one could consider for SC and VA would be a select group of former primary highways.  This is far in the future kind of stuff if at all.

I don't maintain MD but that will be full of decisions on which unposted primary routes to add.  Ones with sole numbers (no suffixes) could be one way to weed out.  Some are not driveable roads anyway.

neroute2:
KY has a number of minor routes in the main numbering that happen to be unsigned. Sometimes someone drives past and reports that a route is now signed where it previously was not. Some of these numbers are assigned to old covered bridges to keep them state maintained.
KY also has (unsigned) 6xxx routes, which are rural frontage roads built next to parkways to continue to provide public access to other minor county roads.

OR has at least one highway that's not currently mapped due to ODOT not assigning it a route number: Highway 50 east of Merrill to Malin.

Markkos1992:
I agree with PA and DE.  I would state that PA 299 would violate rule 4 as it is only a railroad bridge in Erie at this point.


--- Quote ---The only secondary routes one could consider for SC and VA would be a select group of former primary highways.  This is far in the future kind of stuff if at all.

--- End quote ---

I have thought about adding very select secondary routes with very high importance such as SR 620 (Braddock Rd-Fairfax County), SR 604 (Courthouse Rd/Genito Rd-Chesterfield County), SR 653 (Courthouse Rd-Chesterfield County), etc.; however, I would admit that this is mostly out of self-interest and nostalgia.

If only VA 147 was extended south along SR 653 to US 360 years ago...

formulanone:
I think putting it into its own inactive system might be the best option.

Alabama has an SR 300 which hasn't been signed since it's adoption by ALDOT 2016. I'm not aware of any others, though "304" is expected to be applied to an existing route after it gets widened. (See the town of Fosters at the bottom-left corner of this ALDOT PDF for details.)

Edit: Alabama SR 100 is another. 1.67 miles; located entirely in Andalusia and links US 29 to US 84, but curiously not signed.

Tennessee might have a few; sometimes mile markers display on some short unsigned or moved route. TN 389 in Chattanooga is unsigned.

Mississippi might have a lot of these; some sections are partially county-maintained, some are fully county-maintained, and others just don't have a sign even though MDOT lists them with start and endpoints with a map.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version