User Discussions > Other Discussion
Unsigned State Routes
bejacob:
--- Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 20, 2021, 09:10:54 am ---Oh gosh, don't make me have to redo all of usafl again. It took awhile just to split out the unsigned segments in the first place. I don't want to have to go back and redo all the unsigned routes under the US highways & Interstates again. :-X :pan:
--- End quote ---
That's one of the points I've been trying to make since this topic first started. There is nothing wrong with usafl or any of the other state systems that have chosen to not include unsigned segments that are concurrent with existing routes in the HB. Such 'gaps' in the routes don't add any new clinchable mileage. The decision was made to exclude them and had been the generally accepted principle when drafting new systems. As near as I can tell, the sole reason for adding them seems to be a sense that omitting them somehow makes the state systems incomplete. In my opinion, that's not a very compelling argument.
Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.
In the end, the decision will likely have to come from those who maintain the state routes. I'm not even sure there has to be consistency. I can see why that would be preferable, but if some states include such unsigned routes concurrent with others already in the HB while others don't, it won't change significantly how we create our list files. Unsigned routes that don't follow other existing routes might be another story though.
si404:
--- Quote from: bejacob on February 20, 2021, 04:32:11 pm ---Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.
--- End quote ---
I've disliked the status quo for over a decade, but I've tolerated it as long as there's been exceptions. The recent stirring up is due to the status quo being disputed by those who viewed the exceptions as unacceptable and wanted them removed. When that was challenged the assumption was, wrongly, that this means that all unsigned state routes should be added.
Just because I'm passionately against the proposal for more aggressive removal of existing active routes that aren't signed, doesn't mean I'm anywhere near as passionately for adding missing routes that have been excluded due to not being signed.
My view is as follows:
1) excluding unsigned routes was not only a bad decision, but created a load of busy work finding unsigned routes to remove them
2) re-adding unsigned routes might give a better user experience, but creates a load of work (with the added annoyance of making all that busy work removing them in the first place pointless) and its not necessarily worth it - I'd like it if they are added, but am not fussed if they aren't.
cl94:
--- Quote from: bejacob on February 20, 2021, 04:32:11 pm ---Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.
--- End quote ---
The status quo has been controversial for years. The proposed change to allow blades and EMMs would eliminate half of the controversy right there, because one of the biggest sticking points for people was that a single standalone shield counted as "signed" but half a dozen shields on blades and EMMs didn't count as "signed", a la New Jersey.
--- Quote from: si404 on February 20, 2021, 05:26:20 pm ---I've disliked the status quo for over a decade, but I've tolerated it as long as there's been exceptions. The recent stirring up is due to the status quo being disputed by those who viewed the exceptions as unacceptable and wanted them removed. When that was challenged the assumption was, wrongly, that this means that all unsigned state routes should be added.
--- End quote ---
Bolded for emphasis. This only became a big discussion because a group of people wanted unsigned Interstates removed from the site.
SSOWorld:
--- Quote from: cl94 on February 20, 2021, 10:22:12 pm ---
--- Quote from: bejacob on February 20, 2021, 04:32:11 pm ---Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.
--- End quote ---
The status quo has been controversial for years. The proposed change to allow blades and EMMs would eliminate half of the controversy right there, because one of the biggest sticking points for people was that a single standalone shield counted as "signed" but half a dozen shields on blades and EMMs didn't count as "signed", a la New Jersey.
--- Quote from: si404 on February 20, 2021, 05:26:20 pm ---I've disliked the status quo for over a decade, but I've tolerated it as long as there's been exceptions. The recent stirring up is due to the status quo being disputed by those who viewed the exceptions as unacceptable and wanted them removed. When that was challenged the assumption was, wrongly, that this means that all unsigned state routes should be added.
--- End quote ---
Bolded for emphasis. This only became a big discussion because a group of people wanted unsigned Interstates removed from the site.
--- End quote ---
No.
The big discussion was about I-676 in PA and where it ends on the east side.
US 89:
--- Quote from: SSOWorld on February 21, 2021, 08:16:14 am ---
--- Quote from: cl94 on February 20, 2021, 10:22:12 pm ---
--- Quote from: bejacob on February 20, 2021, 04:32:11 pm ---Up until recently, the default has been to exclude unsigned routes (with some exceptions). I don't understand why the status quo has suddenly become so controversial.
--- End quote ---
The status quo has been controversial for years. The proposed change to allow blades and EMMs would eliminate half of the controversy right there, because one of the biggest sticking points for people was that a single standalone shield counted as "signed" but half a dozen shields on blades and EMMs didn't count as "signed", a la New Jersey.
--- Quote from: si404 on February 20, 2021, 05:26:20 pm ---I've disliked the status quo for over a decade, but I've tolerated it as long as there's been exceptions. The recent stirring up is due to the status quo being disputed by those who viewed the exceptions as unacceptable and wanted them removed. When that was challenged the assumption was, wrongly, that this means that all unsigned state routes should be added.
--- End quote ---
Bolded for emphasis. This only became a big discussion because a group of people wanted unsigned Interstates removed from the site.
--- End quote ---
No.
The big discussion was about I-676 in PA and where it ends on the east side.
--- End quote ---
... which then morphed into the discussion on unsigned interstates.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version