Author Topic: usaca: California State Highways  (Read 80513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #360 on: July 16, 2021, 11:52:34 am »
^ On second thought, I'll change the Fletcher Pkwy exit to 18D in my next pull request.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1397
  • Last Login:September 22, 2022, 06:11:37 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #361 on: September 04, 2021, 09:30:08 pm »
Looks like CA 259 has been discussed, but no photos of the markers were ever shared. Here are a couple from late August.



south end



east end
Clinched:

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #362 on: September 07, 2021, 11:43:26 am »
^ Thanks! I was concerned, from initial reports, that the CA 259 markers were part of temporary construction signs. But it looks like the markers are more permanent than that, unless the contractor or CalTrans goes out of its way to also remove the markers when it removes at year's end the orange overnight closure signs.

I plan to add CA 259 back to the HB later this month, once I recover from my latest road trip.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2021, 12:39:54 pm by oscar »

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3900
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:26:21 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #363 on: September 07, 2021, 01:07:59 pm »
unless the contractor or CalTrans goes out of its way to also remove the markers when it removes at year's end the orange overnight closure signs.
...or wait until this, out of an abundance of caution?
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 488
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:13:14 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #364 on: September 14, 2021, 04:17:29 am »
unless the contractor or CalTrans goes out of its way to also remove the markers when it removes at year's end the orange overnight closure signs.
...or wait until this, out of an abundance of caution?
don't jinx it... I want 259 in!

Offline ntallyn

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 05:37:18 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #365 on: September 26, 2021, 09:01:11 pm »
CA 63 @ CA 198:
I'd recommend a hidden point along (probably) CA 63, as the routes are not signed concurrently. CA 63 is shown following Mineral King (W) and Noble (E), the frontage roads along the CA 198 freeway.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #366 on: September 26, 2021, 09:47:24 pm »
CA 63 @ CA 198:
I'd recommend a hidden point along (probably) CA 63, as the routes are not signed concurrently. CA 63 is shown following Mineral King (W) and Noble (E), the frontage roads along the CA 198 freeway.

GMSV shows CA 63 shields on both directions of the CA 198 freeway between the CA 63 junctions, alongside the CA 198 markers. There is inconsistent signage on Mineral King, but on Noble signage seems to direct CA 63 traffic onto the 198 freeway.

I also checked Caltrans' online Postmile Query Tool. It indicates that southbound CA 63 follows Mineral King only for the short distances between Locust St. and the onramp onto the 198 freeway, and between the offramp from the freeway and Mooney Blvd. Between the onramp and the offramp, Mineral King is not part of CA 63. Similar situation for Noble and northbound CA 63. GMSV shows no CA 63 signage between those ramps on Mineral King, or Noble -- only, as noted above, on the 198 freeway.

Maybe I'm missing something at first glance, but it's not clear to me any change is needed here.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2021, 05:26:29 pm by oscar »

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #367 on: September 26, 2021, 10:32:04 pm »
CA 259 is back in the HB. We can revisit that if Caltrans goes through the extra work of removing the 259 markers along with the separately-mounted orange construction closure alerts, when those alerts expire at year's end.

Offline ntallyn

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 05:37:18 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #368 on: September 27, 2021, 11:15:06 pm »
CA 63 @ CA 198:
I'd recommend a hidden point along (probably) CA 63, as the routes are not signed concurrently. CA 63 is shown following Mineral King (W) and Noble (E), the frontage roads along the CA 198 freeway.

GMSV shows CA 63 shields on both directions of the CA 198 freeway between the CA 63 junctions, alongside the CA 198 markers. There is inconsistent signage on Mineral King, but on Noble signage seems to direct CA 63 traffic onto the 198 freeway.

I also checked Caltrans' online Postmile Query Tool. It indicates that southbound CA 63 follows Mineral King only for the short distances between Locust St. and the onramp for the 198 freeway, and between the offramp from the freeway and Mooney Blvd. Between the onramp and the offramp, Mineral King is not part of CA 63. Similar situation for Noble and northbound CA 63.

Maybe I'm missing something at first glance, but it's not clear to me any change is needed here.
I'll agree with the signage along both Noble and 198 (at least westbound 198; I haven't traveled eastbound 198 yet). Mineral King seems pretty clear, as these signs show, but I'm not too worried about it; I got the one route yesterday, and the other today.

Online Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2573
  • Last Login:Today at 07:15:35 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #369 on: September 28, 2021, 06:59:16 am »
CA 63 @ CA 198:
I'd recommend a hidden point along (probably) CA 63, as the routes are not signed concurrently. CA 63 is shown following Mineral King (W) and Noble (E), the frontage roads along the CA 198 freeway.

GMSV shows CA 63 shields on both directions of the CA 198 freeway between the CA 63 junctions, alongside the CA 198 markers. There is inconsistent signage on Mineral King, but on Noble signage seems to direct CA 63 traffic onto the 198 freeway.

I also checked Caltrans' online Postmile Query Tool. It indicates that southbound CA 63 follows Mineral King only for the short distances between Locust St. and the onramp for the 198 freeway, and between the offramp from the freeway and Mooney Blvd. Between the onramp and the offramp, Mineral King is not part of CA 63. Similar situation for Noble and northbound CA 63.

Maybe I'm missing something at first glance, but it's not clear to me any change is needed here.
I'll agree with the signage along both Noble and 198 (at least westbound 198; I haven't traveled eastbound 198 yet). Mineral King seems pretty clear, as these signs show, but I'm not too worried about it; I got the one route yesterday, and the other today.

This reminds me of TX 158/TX 191 in Midland.  I presume that they are considered concurrent based on Texas' frontage roads basically being part of the freeway (in my understanding, which would keep TX Loop 250 clinched for me as the freeway gets extended.  My guess is that this is generally the case throughout Texas.)

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3900
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:26:21 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #370 on: September 28, 2021, 04:26:24 pm »
This reminds me of TX 158/TX 191 in Midland.  I presume that they are considered concurrent
TX158/191 is just a case I wasn't aware of. Certainly didn't check that 158 stayed on the frontage roads rather than a quick hop onto the mainlanes; probably glossed over this segment altogether. Much like the recently-broken MA US20 @ I-91. I'll break this with an autoshape point.

based on Texas' frontage roads basically being part of the freeway (in my understanding,
For multiplex purposes, the frontage roads are not part of the freeway.
In terms of point placement, they "are and are not" -- points are mostly placed as they would be if frontage roads didn't exist.

which would keep TX Loop 250 clinched for me as the freeway gets extended.
Well, you do get to decide what counts for your .list. ;)
If I had that segment, I might be tempted to keep it as some form of "sight clinch" once the mainlanes were built out. Maybe. Or I might let the moral dilemma push me into a state of indecision. [Chidi Anagonye meme] Man. Glad I don't have any of TXLp250 clinched. :D
Though I think there was a place (a new bridge?) in Cleveland where I-90 shifted laterally onto a new alignment. I'm keeping it; I want my nationwide clinch, dammit!

My guess is that this is generally the case throughout Texas.)
SOP in Texas has been to break concurrencies between mainlanes & frontage roads when there are different designated routes on each. Canonical example is TX130 & US183.



Back on topic, I haven't checked out the usaca example that led to all this. Might do that soon.
Edit: Sounds like CA's different from TX, and keeping the multiplex is appropriate.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2021, 02:06:37 am by yakra »
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline ntallyn

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 296
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 05:37:18 pm
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #371 on: October 03, 2021, 01:14:53 am »
CA 99 Business routes. Ugh. I headed up the valley to have dinner with some family and tried to catch as many of the CA99 business routes as I could on the return trip. And I found a mess.

Note that this was southbound only, and it was already dark, so I may have missed a few signs.

Turlock: Did not see a sign on CA99 (however, I came at this one from the south). Did not see any signs along the route in the HB.
Atwater: Saw CA99 Business sign at Exit 196, but no signage along route in the HB.
Merced: Did not see a sign at the exit, but was decently signed.
Madera: Did not see a sign at the exit, but saw a couple of signs in town.
Fowler: Did not see a sign at the exit, nor in town. No signage at the turns, either.
Selma: Did not see a sign at the exit, nor in town. No signage at the turns, either.

Also, I believe the current rule regarding endpoints on bannered routes is to use the parent route with _N, _S, _E, or _W as appropriate (instead of the exit numbers, as these are).

Incidentally, there is a sign along CA198 westbound regarding a business route in Hanford (follow Lacey Ave), but I saw no signs along Lacey, nor any signs heading eastbound on 198.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #372 on: October 03, 2021, 07:08:24 am »
^ Most California business routes are bypassed segments of state-maintained routes, turned over to local maintenance after the mainline was moved to a new freeway. (Notable exception is the state-maintained CA 51 freeway in Sacramento, which is officially signed as I-80 Business.) The only state maintenance of most business routes is of signage on the freeway pointing to the business route. When that completely disappears, I've treated that as a decommission and removed the route from the HB. The maintenance of other signage is, to say the least, uneven.

Also, a lot of business route signage is old and lost much of its reflectorization, so it might be hard to see in the dark.

I did a pretty thorough field check of the business routes, when I spent a lot of time in California in summer 2017. I pruned routes from the HB at that point, but was satisfied that there was at least barely adequate signage of those that remained.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2021, 07:50:24 am by oscar »

Offline rmatley

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Last Login:March 15, 2022, 11:30:13 am
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #373 on: February 22, 2022, 11:58:35 am »
Hi all, I just got back from a trip to Palm Springs and just noticed the following discrepancies between the state highways there and what is shown in the database.

CA74: the highway starts at the intersection of CA111, but the route in the database shows it starting at "PalmDesLim". I drove on this stretch from CA111 to Haystack Rd and it was signed as CA74.

CA111: The state highway is split across CA111(Calexico) and CA111(Palm Springs), but neither of those entries have a large stretch of CA111 between Palm Springs and the intersection of CA111 and CA86 (just north of the Salton Sea). For much of that stretch through Palm Desert and Indio the route is captured by US99HisInd, but the section between Cesar Chavez St and 66th Ave in Mecca isn't on any route. CA111 (Calexico) instead turns onto 66th Ave and ends at CA86. I drove much of the missing stretch of CA111 and it was certainly labeled as a state highway.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:43:21 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: usaca: California State Highways
« Reply #374 on: February 22, 2022, 08:10:34 pm »
Hi all, I just got back from a trip to Palm Springs and just noticed the following discrepancies between the state highways there and what is shown in the database.

CA111: The state highway is split across CA111(Calexico) and CA111(Palm Springs), but neither of those entries have a large stretch of CA111 between Palm Springs and the intersection of CA111 and CA86 (just north of the Salton Sea). For much of that stretch through Palm Desert and Indio the route is captured by US99HisInd, but the section between Cesar Chavez St and 66th Ave in Mecca isn't on any route. CA111 (Calexico) instead turns onto 66th Ave and ends at CA86. I drove much of the missing stretch of CA111 and it was certainly labeled as a state highway.

The state legislature removed that "missing stretch" from the state highway system, and turned it over to the relevant local jurisdictions. Per section 411(b) of the California Streets and Highway Code:

Quote
(b) The relinquished former portions of Route 111 within the unincorporated area of the County of Riverside and the Cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage are not state highways and are not eligible for adoption under Section 81. For the relinquished former portions of Route 111, the County of Riverside and the Cities of Cathedral City, Coachella, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, and Palm Desert, as applicable, shall maintain within their respective jurisdictions signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 111 and shall ensure the continuity of traffic flow on the relinquished portions of Route 111, including any traffic signal progression.

That last sentence might justify un-breaking the two route 111 segments, as I've done elsewhere. However, last I was there, I saw no route 111 signage in the gap, and certainly no conventional green and white route markers, except in places some "Highway 111" overhead street blades (not identifying the road as part of a state route) that would be visible to motorists on intersecting streets but hard to see by motorists traveling former route 111.

CA74: the highway starts at the intersection of CA111, but the route in the database shows it starting at "PalmDesLim". I drove on this stretch from CA111 to Haystack Rd and it was signed as CA74.

Route 74 within Palm Desert was relinquished to the city, by Streets and Highway Code section 374, with similar language on the locality's obligations to direct travelers to the unrelinquished part of the route. Last I was there, there was zero route 74 signage within city limits.

Once I return from vacation (not in California), I'll have to take a look at whether the signage has improved for these route segments. If you took any photos, or can point me to images on Google Maps Street View, that would help.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2022, 08:12:54 pm by oscar »