User Discussions > Other Discussion

Unsigned State Routes

<< < (2/20) > >>

Jim:

--- Quote from: formulanone on February 10, 2021, 11:31:54 am ---I think putting it into its own inactive system might be the best option.

--- End quote ---

There was mention in one of the recent threads that a route, I think something in Utah?, would be useful to have in TM as a reference for people to see its route plotted, but not something that would ever become "clinchable".

I suppose a new category for systems would be possible, mostly equivalent to devel, minus the expectation that it would some day be completed to gain preview status and finalized to gain active status.  But that kind of thing might make more sense as a separate instance of TM.

US 89:
Count me in as one of the users who would like to see unsigned primary state highways added.


--- Quote from: Jim on February 10, 2021, 12:35:01 pm ---There was mention in one of the recent threads that a route, I think something in Utah?, would be useful to have in TM as a reference for people to see its route plotted, but not something that would ever become "clinchable".

--- End quote ---

That would have been UT 900 and 901, which are a pair of designations for a set of BLM and county roads in the middle of nowhere that were added as "public safety interest highways" in order to prevent a nuclear waste carrying rail line from being constructed. Unlike every other state route in Utah, they are not state maintained but are still officially on the books.

I don't see why they shouldn't be clinchable, even though I personally believe one could claim a clinch of Utah without them. Perhaps routes like those could go in an entirely separate unsigned system that could be "turned off" should a user desire, separate from the other unsigned routes (most of which are relatively short routes serving various state parks and institutions).


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

--- End quote ---

I agree with almost everything in here except for criteria 5. What particular reason would there be to excluding a route like GA 401 (the state designation for I-75)? It is a state route just like any other Georgia state route, but GDOT just elects not to sign it (even while they sign every one of their SR underlays on US routes).

The benefit here would be to allow users to obtain a list of designated route numbers they've been on, not just mileage. Given the existence of a 17-page thread on this topic on the AARoads forum, this is probably something worthy of consideration.

cl94:
I would be in favor of adding at least some unsigned routes, both for my own purposes and to help consolidate this knowledge into one place on the internet as a reference to road enthusiasts.

Let me add my insight here:

NJ: Almost everything is a distinct route in its own right, with the notable exceptions of 444S and 445S, which are glorified ramps. Most of these "unsigned" routes are now signed in some fashion, either with enhanced mileposts or overhead street name signs, but not independent shields. 444, 445, 446, 446X, 700 already in usasf. Other than the aforementioned seven, worth including. Exact termini are shown on NJDOT SLDs.

NY: The reference route system...most of those are not worth including (nor do I think most are necessary to clinch the state), but there are a few exceptions that I will highlight and may warrant inclusion.

- NY 990V: everyone's favorite reference route, this bad boy is signed as well as a normal touring route. The history behind this is that Conesville wanted a signed route and NYSDOT didn't feel like changing the number. Worth including.
- NY 961F: the western version of NY 990V. Few (if any) signs pointing to it from intersecting roads, but the road itself is signed pretty well with shields. Story here is that NY 70 was moved to take over NY 70A and the former alignment was demoted to ref route status, but the town(s) involved didn't want to lose a signed route. Worth including.
- Walden Avenue (NY 952Q): This is notable as the longest non-parkway reference route in the state (14.08 miles). Major east-west arterial in Erie County that for some reason was not given a touring route number when transferred to the state in 1980. Arguably, it's more important than parallel NY 33 through Lancaster and western Alden. May be worth including due to length (it's longer than half of usany).
- Mount Read Boulevard (NY 940K): Expressway-esque arterial in western Rochester with multiple interchanges. Much of it is limited-access, roughly 4 miles long. Potentially worth including due to being partially limited-access.

Outside of these 4, I don't think any reference routes are notable enough to include, unless you wanted to toss in the stubs of the Northway (may theoretically be folded into I-87 in the long-long term, pay attention to any developments with Exit 24) and South Mall Expressway (mostly concurrent with US 20 anyway). There are a couple of freeway-grade county routes downstate, but I'll leave those aside for now because they are county routes and thus not required to claim a NY clinch.

OH: There is a series of unsigned primary routes, all designated with suffixes. These are almost exclusively minor connectors and not worth including. Almost anything significant is already in usasf. International Gateway in Columbus may be worth adding to usasf, but I will leave that open to discussion and have no real opinion.

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.

Duke87:

--- Quote from: US 89 on February 10, 2021, 04:29:02 pm ---Count me in as one of the users who would like to see unsigned primary state highways added.


--- Quote from: Jim on February 10, 2021, 12:35:01 pm ---There was mention in one of the recent threads that a route, I think something in Utah?, would be useful to have in TM as a reference for people to see its route plotted, but not something that would ever become "clinchable".

--- End quote ---

That would have been UT 900 and 901 {...}

I don't see why they shouldn't be clinchable, even though I personally believe one could claim a clinch of Utah without them.
--- End quote ---

Indeed. You will need a Jeep or an ATV, but UT 900 and 901 are driveable public roads. I would consider these as passing the criteria for inclusion, even if the definition of "car" is being forced a little for criteria 3.


--- Quote ---I agree with almost everything in here except for criteria 5. What particular reason would there be to excluding a route like GA 401 (the state designation for I-75)? It is a state route just like any other Georgia state route, but GDOT just elects not to sign it (even while they sign every one of their SR underlays on US routes).
--- End quote ---

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).

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.

"Allow people to track every route number they've been on" is a fair point I will acknowledge, but it doesn't seem to quite be worth all of the trouble of the above.


I've added some commentary to the OP about AL, KY, and OH based on what others have said. Feel free to keep the thoughts coming.

bejacob:
Is there a point of adding unsigned state routes that are entirely concurrent with routes already in another system (see the aforementioned GA401)?

Count me on the side of not including unsigned routes.

Might there be exceptions like the one being contemplated for unsigned Interstates? Possibly. The default position should be to exclude unsigned routes unless there is a very compelling reason to include them.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version