User Discussions > Other Discussion

Unsigned State Routes

<< < (5/20) > >>

SSOWorld:
Certainly, but it's maintainer's discretion as to whether unsigned routes are included - most have chosen not to include them and getting a consensus either way is hard.

I imagine they're all sitting back and enjoying their popcorn while we bicker about it. 🍿

yakra:
James Brown says YEAH.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpAPXUMpO_Y

--- Quote from: vdeane on February 10, 2021, 09:12:56 pm ---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.

--- End quote ---
That could well be part of it. Having objective criteria for inclusion certainly has advantages in heading off long trips down the rabbit hole.
But another big part of it that got discussion at the time was keeping the site accessible and relevant to Joe Traveler.

The average driver can see US1A shields or ME25 shields and know what they are and where they go (or at least, be able to figure that out by looking at the trusty ol' DeLorme or Rand McN. You get it.). Fewer people are going to even notice reference markers as they zip around New York. Fewer still will know what they mean. Now how about Connecticut's secret routes? Is there even any indication on them that the driver is on a road of any kind of significance, any mileposts or anything? They may be an open secret in the roadgeek community, to be sure, but they're called "secret" for a reason -- their existence is transparent to the traveling public.

They're special to roadgeeks because the DOT put a number on them. If that hadn't happened, would we care about Camp Meeting Rd? I bet not.
DOTs number roads all over the place. When they maintain them, or just keep track of them and inventory them. The OP misses the mark a bit in New England: Every public road in ME, NH or MA has a number. Even if that number is 2300435. Do we include all of these? Is it not sensible to at some point be satisfied that enough is enough?
[Cue "X all the Y" meme]

The example of "Touring Routes" from New York is instructive. Of all the stuff the DOT maintains & tracks, NYSDOT decided that these were useful for people who are Touring. They serve a useful purpose in getting they-uh from he-uh. They're relevant to Joe Traveler.

Signage is as good an objective criterion as any for deciding what to include. Or better, even. Yes, it will be imperfect. Yes, there will be annoying side effects. Like Maryland.
That will be the case of *any* system of deciding what to/not to include.

Yes, some "high profile readgeeks" will have less use for the site, and even choose to not participate. That's okay. The site will not ever be able to be everything to everybody, and its maintainers should not have to feel pressure to reach any particular niche audience. Even if that niche audience is the same ultra-specific internet subculture we come from ourselves.
Sorry if this disappoints some of my roadgeek friends. ;(

UT 900/901 is the very poster child for why going all-in on including unsigned routes just because a DOT has attached a number to it is... in some senses ridiculous. From its description, it sounds like little more than a Goat Track. We all know where Goat Tracks are located.

I invoke the hypothetical "Sagadahoc County Summer Townways Starting with 'B'" system as a cautionary tale about going too far down the rabbit hole. In some ways, US900/901 is not all that dissimilar from what this system would include.

froggie:

--- Quote from: cl94 on February 10, 2021, 06:16:06 pm ---VT: Almost all of these are interchange connectors, but the few that have a greater purpose (i.e. Berlin State Highway) may be worth including.

--- End quote ---

All of these run afoul of Criteria 2.  I cannot think offhand of any NUMBERED state routes in Vermont that are not at least partially signed and thus already included in usavt.

cl94:

--- Quote from: yakra on February 11, 2021, 02:00:16 pm ---The example of "Touring Routes" from New York is instructive. Of all the stuff the DOT maintains & tracks, NYSDOT decided that these were useful for people who are Touring. They serve a useful purpose in getting they-uh from he-uh. They're relevant to Joe Traveler.

UT 900/901 is the very poster child for why going all-in on including unsigned routes just because a DOT has attached a number to it is... in some senses ridiculous. From its description, it sounds like little more than a Goat Track. We all know where Goat Tracks are located.

--- End quote ---

A couple things here:

1) Regarding New York touring routes: as far as NYSDOT is concerned, NY 990V and NY 961F are functionally equivalent to touring routes. They are purposely signed according to some of our NYSDOT sources. By that metric, wouldn't they be included?

2) Per Corco, UT 900/901 are not part of the state highway system and have completely separate enabling legislation. He also reports that 901 is unclinchable (part of the defined route no longer exists). He would be against including 900 and 901 and, as the one known person who has actually clinched 900/901 to the extent possible, he doesn't think they are necessary to clinch. The better example here is MD 856, which is a short sidewalk highway on the eastern shore.

bejacob:

--- Quote from: yakra on February 11, 2021, 02:00:16 pm ---… big part of it that got discussion at the time was keeping the site accessible and relevant to Joe Traveler.

The average driver can see US1A shields or ME25 shields and know what they are and where they go …

--- End quote ---

As a "Joe Traveler," albeit one who does go a little "road geek" at times, I'm fully in support of the above concept.

I don't think I've make a trip in the last couple years without consulting the relevant area for roads I might want to drive/clinch. When in the field, I rely on signage to follow a route. I sometimes take printouts from TM with me to help, but trying to follow an unsigned route is just impractical when behind the wheel.


It's not unreasonable to decide that some road are out of scope, i.e. county roads. Nothing wrong with doing the same with unsigned routes.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version