User Discussions > Other Discussion

Unsigned State Routes

<< < (3/20) > >>

rickmastfan67:

--- Quote from: Duke87 on February 10, 2021, 02:53:47 am ---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).

--- End quote ---

Many? I would think 98% would that are unsigned to be honest.

Only 100% true unsigned highway that comes to mind right now in FL, is FL-5054.

US 89:

--- Quote from: bejacob on February 10, 2021, 08:26:02 pm ---Is there a point of adding unsigned state routes that are entirely concurrent with routes already in another system (see the aforementioned GA401)?

--- End quote ---

See my post above - it allow users to track all the numbered routes they've been on. Although the mileage is covered already, a lot of people are also interested in keeping track of their route numbers.


--- Quote from: Duke87 on February 10, 2021, 07:37:58 pm ---Well, because we're not excluding GA 401... it's already mapped as I-75. Why map it twice? This is clutter and extra work to maintain (any adjustments to I-75 would now also need to be made to GA 401 too).

--- End quote ---

Not like this isn't already an issue for every single US highway in the state, of which there are many...


--- Quote from: Duke87 on February 10, 2021, 07:37:58 pm ---Also, while this isn't an issue for GA, it would be a huge can of worms for FL, TN, and possibly another state or two where you have routes that are mostly hidden designations for interstates or US highways except for a short section or two where the routes diverge and the state route is signed. Take FL 400 for example. The signed portion east of I-95 is already in usafl, but internally the designation also covers the entire length of I-4. Do we extend FL 400 to cover its entire paper length, and if so do we mark it as a signed route? Do we leave the unsigned portion out? Do we create a separate route for the unsigned portion? This is a mess that I at least do not care to wade into.

--- End quote ---

Personally I think it would be really nice to have TM available as a resource to track unsigned portions of routes. This becomes even more of a benefit when a route has multiple signed sections separated by unsigned portions. TN 8 is a good example here - it has two signed sections separated by an unsigned portion where it is concurrent with US 127, and then another unsigned portion concurrent with various US highways to the Georgia line. It would be really nice to have a visual for TN 8 through Chattanooga that doesn't involve perusing and deciphering Wikipedia descriptions (which may not exist for all routes) or hunting down DOT maps that aren't necessarily in great detail.

vdeane:
So, count me as someone who prefers the status quo (I guess it's true what they say about not being able to put the genie back into the bottle, as a whole plethora of threads got started regarding potentially significant changes to the site all originated from a little misunderstanding I had regarding I-676!).  That said, since we have a list for the US... anyone familiar enough with Canada to put together a list for there?

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason unsigned routes in North America other than interstates aren't included is because Tim didn't want to deal with all this when running CHM.

oscar:

--- Quote from: vdeane on February 10, 2021, 09:12:56 pm ---That said, since we have a list for the US... anyone familiar enough with Canada to put together a list for there?

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason unsigned routes in North America other than interstates aren't included is because Tim didn't want to deal with all this when running CHM.

--- End quote ---

Actually, Tim included A-920 in Quebec, as an unsigned Autoroute. We later determined that Autoroute didn't exist, which is why there were no signs, so out it went. I'm not sure there is any completely unsigned primary route in Quebec, though for some the route signage is borderline (QC 136 in Quebec city, and the short A-930 south of Montreal, come to mind).

At least in the southern part of the province, Saskatchewan is really reliable about signing its primary routes. Every time I heard about an unsigned southern primary route, it turned out that it wasn't an official route at all. I'm unsure about the northern primary routes, but then I haven't omitted any of them from the HB. There are other provincially-maintained systems (unnumbered access roads, 900-series northern secondary highways) not in the HB at all, even those known to have some route number signage.

British Columbia, I'd need to do some checking later.

Yukon has two unsigned primary routes, YT 14 and YT 15, plus a multitude of probably unsigned secondary routes (but I never had occasion to drive any of them, except one that got absorbed into YT 6). While I'm inclined to cut some slack on the unsigned routes rule in the Arctic, Yukon has the best route signage in the North American Arctic, and junction signage for YT 14 and YT 15 seemed to go out of its way to avoid posting a route number for those routes, so I was comfortable leaving them out of the HB.

Northwest Territories has only one current numbered but perhaps unsigned route, NT 10, but it's in the HB anyway. It wasn't signed by the time I got up there. At that point, construction crews were still busy reconstructing the road after it turned into a quagmire the spring after the road opened, and I guess route markers were way down on the list of priorities.

Nunavut? No territorial highway system (the few, short roads, outside territorial parks and Federal installations, are all municipally-maintained), so we don't have any route sets for that territory.

I need to curl back to my U.S. jurisdictions (AK, HI, CA, NV, NM) later this week.

cl94:
Just thinking out loud here, some other things that might streamline unsigned routes if we ever get to that point:

1) To make things easy, unsigned routes should probably go in a system titled "US select unsigned state highways" or similar. Put routes for every state in that one system (similar to the national park highways, Europe tourist routes, etc.) to make it easy to turn the system on/off. There will probably be few enough routes for a single system to handle it.

2) It would be ideal for the "unsigned highways" system to have a dedicated maintainer who is actively interested in having unsigned highways on the site. Keep the maintenance separate from the other systems. This would eliminate the problem of people uninterested in unsigned highways being forced to maintain them. This might also work for systems like the historic highways and national parks that have more limited interest- have somebody actively interested in the system to do all the associated work. There's a similar debate going on with those two systems and the same solution may work for those, too.

3) The "select" aspect is key. Using the criteria set forth by Duke87 (which I generally agree with), there are probably less than 200 routes across the country that would qualify (excluding the mess known as Maryland, which is its own can of worms), maybe even under 100. Almost all of these are well-defined with GIS shapefiles, straight line diagrams, enabling legislation, route logs, and/or various markings in the field (mileposts, etc.).

4) Signed routes that become unsigned but remain official would automatically qualify as a "select unsigned highway". A benefit of this is that it would allow us to quickly move routes between the signed and unsigned systems if the status changes and people wouldn't suddenly run into list file errors or lose credit for something they drove.

5) For the states where numbered but unsigned routes are considered to be in a different system by the state DOT but may still be worth including (NY and CT come to mind), maybe set length or notability criteria for inclusion (i.e. reference routes and SSRs/SRs over a certain length qualify, expressways/limited-access highways qualify, signed reference routes qualify, etc.). Such would allow us to have the "important routes", but ignore the short connectors that serve little purpose on their own.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version