User Discussions > Other Discussion

Oregon Highways

<< < (2/4) > >>

mapcat:
Since they're marked in some way, I'm ok with including the set. It seems that it would be a difficult, but not impossible, task to clinch them, given that they don't appear in any obvious way on the official state map. Creating the set here would help travellers do that.

Of course, getting the state to condense the systems into one would make more sense, but assuming that's not going to happen, it seems fair to add these.

Bickendan:
 Right off the bat, ORH 1W -> 91, 1E -> 81, and 2W -> 92.

oscar:

--- Quote from: Bickendan on September 19, 2017, 05:51:14 am ---
--- Quote from: mapcat on September 14, 2017, 12:39:20 pm ---Could you post a link to a photo or GMSV to show how someone would know that he or she is driving on one of the highways that doesn't follow a signed route?

--- End quote ---

This is what's posted in the field.
--- End quote ---

Hard to tell, but this looks like the size of a conventional milemarker -- only with a lot more information, in type hard to read by travelers at highway speeds. Also looks similar in size to the white rectangular bridge identification markers in California, which include route information (such as "101/222 separation") for routes that are otherwise unsigned, and which I'm treating as unsigned.

How are junctions of ORH routes with each other, or with regular state routes, signed? If these markers are used only for bridge identification, they won't much help travelers navigate the ORH system. (Not that conventionally-marked routes are always easy to navigate, like CA 211 which has no junction markers at a key turn between US 101 and its other end in Ferndale, but otherwise is adequately signed.)

compdude787:

--- Quote from: oscar on September 19, 2017, 03:53:08 pm ---
--- Quote from: Bickendan on September 19, 2017, 05:51:14 am ---
--- Quote from: mapcat on September 14, 2017, 12:39:20 pm ---Could you post a link to a photo or GMSV to show how someone would know that he or she is driving on one of the highways that doesn't follow a signed route?

--- End quote ---
[img]
This is what's posted in the field.
--- End quote ---

Hard to tell, but this looks like the size of a conventional milemarker -- only with a lot more information, in type hard to read by travelers at highway speeds. Also looks similar in size to the white rectangular bridge identification markers in California, which include route information (such as "101/222 separation") for routes that are otherwise unsigned, and which I'm treating as unsigned.

How are junctions of ORH routes with each other, or with regular state routes, signed? If these markers are used only for bridge identification, they won't much help travelers navigate the ORH system. (Not that conventionally-marked routes are always easy to navigate, like CA 211 which has no junction markers at a key turn between US 101 and its other end in Ferndale, but otherwise is adequately signed.)

--- End quote ---

Yeah, I've only seen those signs posted at bridges.

I really don't see the point of adding this ORH system. Most of it is redundant, and it will make more work for you if changes are made to a particular highway/route. (you'll have to remember to update two wpt files instead of just one) And for the highways that are unsigned, well, too bad. You won't be able to record them as being clinched on TM. There are some routes like this in WA, spur routes in particular.

I think it's sort of unfair to people who are trying to clinch the highway network for Oregon to say, "so you drove on all the routes in Oregon that are signed? Well, surprise! You haven't clinched all the mileage in the state. You have to now find all these unsigned routes and clinch those too." That's gonna annoy people. Thus, I don't support adding this system to Travel Mapping.

Jim:
I would lean against including these.  They seem a lot like New York's reference routes (signed only on the little green markers).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page