User Discussions > Other Discussion
Unsigned State Routes
vdeane:
--- Quote from: US 89 on February 21, 2021, 01:42:14 pm ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, it may have started with a misunderstanding about I-676 in PA (I thought PA had it on the Vine Street Expressway and FHWA on the bridge; turns out it was the reverse and my discovery of the FHWA map showing it on the Vine Street Expressway was not new information), but it the discussion quickly grew like a California wildfire.
Jim:
I do think this is a discussion that was due to come up again, given the intent to allow users to restrict stats and maps in the not-too-distant future. As we've seen, TM isn't going to be exactly what each person wishes it could be, but this (including more unsigned routes but allowing you to omit them from your view) could bring us closer for some people.
kjslaughter:
--- Quote from: si404 on February 18, 2021, 10:42:50 am ---I think there's a difference between route designations that are of a sort that are not meant to used for navigation and only exist for internal administration*, and ones that are normal route numbers (in the range that signed numbers are, etc) that just happen to not be signed (perhaps appearing on mile markers).
--- End quote ---
Totally agree. Keeping up with all the unmarked state routes sounds like a nightmare. I vote to just map what's marked, especially if the unsigned route is a duplication of existing routes.
--- Quote from: si404 on February 18, 2021, 10:42:50 am ---GA900 seems to be a signed version of the former. But so is, arguably, GA400 - the 4xx series were for hidden designations to refer to interstates, but GA400 never got given its interstate number to be the public-facing number, so the DOT's admin number got shown. That's a difficulty.
--- End quote ---
Georgia freeway numbers are listed on some state maps for reference purpose and on the Georgia DOT page, but except for where they are not an interstate, they are not marked in state and not meant as travel signs. No reason to include in my mind. Sadly, some map publishers are showing on maps, like GA 401 on I-75 and it drives me up the wall.
Similar to the 9xx series, in Georgia, the 7xx and 8xx series are meant for internal projects and are almost never signed. And yet again, because of one map showing one time 40 years ago, GA 754 remains on many a map in Cobb County despite that road never being signed as such. Another example of insanity to try to map all of those roads as the list is constantly changing as projects are added and completed.
I know North Carolina also is a state that controls every county road, but except on some street signs, I've never seen marked with a shield or highway exit signs. Would I like those mapped to help show every little place I've ever been? Maybe. But the level of effort to do that seems excessive for this site. I asked once about mapping county roads and was told that was too down in the weeds and difficult to do. Many of these unsigned state highways feel like the same and a bottom tier road.
I get the impression that making new systems is more fun than maintaining the old so there is a constant pressure to add systems. I get that. In my life and job, I hate the maintenance tasks like mowing the grass. Much more fun to plant new bushes. But at some point, all that's left to do is just mow the grass, trim the bushes and enjoy the beauty of what you have made.
michih:
--- Quote from: kjslaughter on March 01, 2021, 11:20:51 am ---I get the impression that making new systems is more fun than maintaining the old
--- End quote ---
Yep 8)
mapmikey:
I have done the wpt file work for several of Virginia's quasi-posted routes.
It seems to me based on this thread that the general consensus is these should be on TM. The majority of primary routes in Virginia have this posting style in the field - these additional routes happen to have it as their only posting.
Sending them in unless somebody has a convincing reason not to.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version