Of course, no two sources listing NY parkways are exactly the same, which makes things interesting.( http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17061.msg2113084#msg2113084 )
There's also the question of what to do about parkways that are locally owned and don't have reference route numbers.No reference # -> not on list -> not included in the system.
A general overarching thought here:
Parkways in New York, generally, are signed with some sort of special shield. In Long Island it's the lighthouse shield. In Rockland and Orange counties it's the stylized circles. In Westchester county and upstate, it's the state highway shield shape but green. And in the 5 boroughs it's a mishmosh of inconsistent standards but there *are* shields.
It occurs to me that every road I am having the "wait that's not a parkway, why are we including it?" reaction about has something crucial in common: a lack of shield-based signage. So this would not only provide an objective cutoff for excluding them, it would also be arguably consistent with our general policy on excluding unsigned routes.
Also, with regards to your comment on Pelham Parkway, yes, it is commonly known and signed as simply that. I would support the name in the system being such.
917A - ny.promtnhwy (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/index.php?r=ny.promtnhwy) - Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial HighwayThere is a bus that takes people up on that road, and people walk it as well, so it is still possible to clinch (as long as one is OK with walking a clinch or being a passenger). Overall, it strikes me as similar to routes ending at military bases, like I-H3, or that truck route in PA that bans cars.
It's reference route 917A all the way to the loop at the summit. But the very end is posted Motorcycles only (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4234696,-73.746137,3a,18.3y,31.29h,89.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2kuMQaFEsOk3DDYUD6SWbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). As only a limited subgroup of travelers would be able to take the route all the way to the tippy top, I placed the endpoint at the parking lot / overlook.
27thSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.772283&lon=-73.919830
45 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.770564&lon=-73.917475
+X981717 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.770028&lon=-73.916252
*31stSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.769476&lon=-73.912936
31ST-STREET http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.768639&lon=-73.906965
EXIT-5-ACC-ASTORIA-BLVD http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766851&lon=-73.896972
+X159377 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766258&lon=-73.892691
+5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766867&lon=-73.887734
EXIT-6-94TH-ST http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.770284&lon=-73.879538
201431-ST-EX-STRT-I-278-OLP http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.772283&lon=-73.919830
+45 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.770564&lon=-73.917475
+X981717 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.770028&lon=-73.916252
+31stSt http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.769476&lon=-73.912936
EX-4-END-OLP-I-278-WEST-B-Q-E-PKY http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.768452&lon=-73.906123
EXIT-5-ACC-ASTORIA-BLVD http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766770&lon=-73.896441
+X159377 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766258&lon=-73.892691
+5 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.766867&lon=-73.887734
EXIT-6-94TH-ST http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.769951&lon=-73.880133
2011Another concurrent task will be a review and cleanup of existing parkways in the usasf system, making sure their endpoints are in the right places, etc. (http://tm.teresco.org/forum/index.php?topic=1928.msg5229#msg5229)Click on the link for a post detailing what I've found after looking at the termini of each usasf parkway.
(Ocean Parkway (Long Island) -> Ocean Parkway (Babylon)? Brooklyn *is* on Long Island, after all...) Or maybe just leave it blank...
And if you want to be super technical about it, this Ocean Parkway *is not* on Long Island - it is on Jones Beach Island. ;DWorks for me. "Ocean Parkway (Long Island)" is out, and either "Ocean Parkway (Babylon)" or just plain "Ocean Parkway" is in.
- Bear Mountain State Parkway could use a point at Carhart Ave (it's a signalized intersection, so major enough to warrant)Agreed, this is a significant enough intersection to include.
A general overarching thought here:I'm inclined to give less weight to shields & shield styles for a system such as this.
Parkways in New York, generally, are signed with some sort of special shield. In Long Island it's the lighthouse shield. In Rockland and Orange counties it's the stylized circles. In Westchester county and upstate, it's the state highway shield shape but green. And in the 5 boroughs it's a mishmosh of inconsistent standards but there *are* shields.
It occurs to me that every road I am having the "wait that's not a parkway, why are we including it?" reaction about has something crucial in common: a lack of shield-based signage. So this would not only provide an objective cutoff for excluding them,Aah, but did you have that reaction about the Jackie Robinson Parkway? That one could throw a wrench in the works. As mariethefoxy noted, it doesn't seem to have any shields.
it would also be arguably consistent with our general policy on excluding unsigned routes.Excluding unsigned numbered routes, we do, yes. But for a system of named routes? These by their nature play by somewhat different rules. Something can be signed by text on a BGS, on a glorified blade sign, on a vanilla blade sign...
- Also, I would argue that the eastern endpoint of Pelham Parkway should be at the point where the ramp from Bruckner Blvd merges in (right about where the divided highway ends), not at I-95 itself. A "one point per interchange" argument could be made to the contrary, but I would counterargue by saying that "ramp" isn't really a ramp - it's part of Shore Rd, and it predates the construction of both Pelham Parkway and I-95 (it used to be two way).My take is that Shore Rd used to be there, but moved. TDV & GIS list the northern path, to the cloverleaf, as Shore Rd itself, and the ramp as a ramp.
Pelham Parkway ends at Shore Rd where the two meet.I agree with this statement, because I consider Shore Rd to end at at a different point (http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=ny.i095). 8)
- Mosholu Parkway unambiguously ends at a T intersection with Southern Blvd, and always has. Reference Route 908F does turn up Southern Blvd to end at Bronx River Parkway exit 8, but this section of road is not in any way part of Mosholu Parkway and therefore should not be plotted as part of the routeI'm not sold on this. TLDR, Mosholu Parkway is clearly signed @ BRP Exit 8, in both directions.
beginning with the BRP
maybe the sign designersI see two kettles of fish to fry here...
I will see your signage from the BRP and raise you this signage from Bronx Park East. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8653135,-73.8705732,3a,31.5y,9.67h,93.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIgaBLwJOZuHv-PGTBoTOfA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) I would interpret the signage for Mosholu Pkwy - both from the BRP and as seen in that image below the street signs - as missing a "to", or having one implied.Agreed. It's a fair cop.
Ultimately though, this is another episode of "What is..."Definitely the case at the SouBlvd intersection.
The name of that section of road is "Southern Blvd". It is signed as such,
and Hagstrom always knew it as such.3rd-party cartographers, Hagstrom, RMcN, and the like, I would put less stock in, in favor of direct gov't sources such as the TDV, TDR, or shapefiles...
The road named "Mosholu Parkway" ends at a T intersection with the road named "Southern Blvd"The MilepointRoute2015 shapefiles have an RIS_NAME attribute for the section in question of "MOSHOLU PKWY", not Southern Blvd, "DR KAZIMIROFF BLVD", or anything else. So in some sense...
But, what is the Mosholu Parkway? Is it the road named "Mosholu Parkway"? Or is it a route defined by some other measure (e.g. the NYS reference route number), which is not necessarily coterminous with the road named "Mosholu Parkway"?Of course, there's not a 1:1 correspondence between parkways and reference routes.
The former seems to be more in line with what exists in the real world, while the latter may be more in line with what exists on paper.
Of course, if we've already concluded we're going to define parkways by reference routes, including that section of Southern Blvd in our Mosholu Parkway file would at least be consistent with the established methodology.
In the 1950's and 1960's, Moses, who served as New York City's parks commissioner and arterial coordinator, advanced plans to reconstruct the Mosholu Parkway into a controlled-access route. The $13.5 million reconstruction project was to not only cover the 3.0-mile distance of the parkway proper, but also include the construction of a 1.2-mile link to the Bronx River Parkway along the existing Dr. Theodore Kazimiroff Boulevard.
Am I misremembering, or did the Mosholu have shields at one time pointing along Southern Boulevard?Unless you mean before the era of GMSV, I don't know of anything, other than green signs for the BRP.
The reference route ends at Church Ave.Which is NY 27 westbound. If we don't extend routes to the "medians" of routes they end at, we need to truncate the south end of RI 2 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ri.ri002).
Which is NY 27 westbound.Ah yes, this changes things. I had missed that due to sparse signage, and no clues in shapefiles/TDV, but now I've found enough signage in GMSV to convince me this is the case. I'll reevaluate what I've done with NY27 & OcePkwyBro here.
So do I assume correctly that:I'm thinking, leave it labeled "5", and just change its coords.
- the proposed routing would name the point at the Caton Ave Overpass "OcePkwy"
- Ocean Parkway in usanyp would be extended to have its northern terminus at the same coordinatesCorrect on both of these.
- the point name for said northern terminus would be "NY27"
It still leaves the northernmost 3 blocks of Ocean Parkway (which are part of the named road "Ocean Parkway" but not part of reference route 908H) unmapped, but... that's short enough that I'm not terribly bothered letting it get lost in the noise in the area."OCEAN PWY svce rds" per GIS -- fudged in the field for simplicity? ;D
It may still be legislated as SR 957C, but since it's not driveable (except by bicycle), perhaps its inclusion should be reconsidered.Being closed to cars isn't always a deal-breaker. M-185 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?u=null&units=miles&r=mi.mi185) and part of Historic US 66 crossing the Mississippi River (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?u=null&units=miles&r=il.us066hissprcha), for example.
Being closed to cars isn't always a deal-breaker. M-185 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?u=null&units=miles&r=mi.mi185) and part of Historic US 66 crossing the Mississippi River (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?u=null&units=miles&r=il.us066hissprcha), for example.In this system, there's also the precedent of the top of ProMtnHwy (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=ny.promtnhwy), discussed upthread.
But there is also precedent for excluding closed portions of routes. See CA 39 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?units=miles&u=duke87&r=ca.ca039azu) and US 87 in Wyoming (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?units=miles&u=duke87&r=wy.us087).A different beast. These roads used to be open, then were closed to the general (motoring?) public overall, and aren't intended to be used for transportation now.
M-185 is a bit of a special case since local custom among Michigan roadgeeks seems to be to accept it as a legitimate part of the state highway system. So I'm fine with deferring to that.Less a local custom and more MI DOT, innit?
doesn't really fit the mold of what you'd typically think of as a New York parkway qualitatively.OI! Watch yr pronouns! ;)
Maybe @vdeane has the scoop on what will become of the reference route number, that could allow me to more easily make a decision? :)Don't I wish. I always assumed the whole parkway would be closed, and now it appears that this might not be the case. Or maybe they're just constructing it one segment at a time.
Leaving this here to potentially complicate matters in the future:I think some of those might not be reference routes any more. Or maybe they're reserved? At the very least, I wasn't able to find them in the RIS shapefiles.
https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/structures/repository/manuals/inventory/appendg.pdf
Project Overview
The approximately 2 mile long section of the Niagara Scenic Parkway within City of Niagara Falls, north of Main Street, will be removed and its footprint restored to a park-like setting. Parkway traffic will be accommodated by reconstructing Whirlpool Street and Third Street. After the Parkway is removed, city residents will have access to the Niagara Gorge, and area visitors will be able to pursue a variety of recreational opportunities in the newly created Niagara Gorge State Park.
...
Status: Under construction with completion scheduled – June 2020
NiaScePkwy has been permanently closed south of FinDr for a few months. As such, point "NY104_Nia" should be deleted. They're obliterating the entire footprint of the road
WestRivPkwy has been permanently closed except for stubs connecting to the Beaver Island SP traffic circle and Exit 20. I suggest we delete this route. This was always one of those "parkway in name only" roads and it is no longer maintained by the state as a parkway.The semi-status of this limbo-route has been the biggest sticking point keeping usanyp from activation. There's the occasional route or segment on the site not open to motorized traffic (most notably MI185), so I haven't been able to fully justify removing it yet. Waiting & seeing. If we can confirm that Reference Route # 957C is no longer in use, I'll give it the axe.
If we're going as signed, BayPkwy begins at the West End turnaround loop.Going by what's contained in the corresponding NYSDOT reference route.
SevLakDr, as signed, begins at NY 17."Stupid Truck Routes", n'at. Mapcat brought this up in person a bit back...
Yes, this is the south endpoint. The shapefiles and TDV agree. The 2014 TDR description looks a little screwy, but saying it ends here is a valid interpretation of the mileage figures.
South of the endpoint, and north of Waldron Terrace, Seven Lakes Drive is not a reference route.
South of Waldron Terrace, Seven Lakes Drive is reference route 981G, and not part of the Parkway system.
A bit esoteric, but...
I want to be absolutely sure the reference number is gone, and we don't have another bikes-only situation like MI185 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=mi.mi185)
On the flipside, parkways by their nature play by different rules; they don't have route shields in the traditional sense.Eh? The majority of parkways do have shields.
Edited post. |
I'll rethink my criteria for inclusion, and consider just including routes with traditional shields. Not promising any particular conclusion, though. |
Eh? The majority of parkways do have shields.
If it were up to me, I think I would remove West River Parkway and the LOSP spur, and keep the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur.
The LOSP spur. It's really no different from connector reference routes like I-81 Exit 12 and I-87 Exit 22, but was inventoried as a parkway because it connects to a parkway and state park. AFAIK, this and the Robert Moses...er, Niagara Scenic Parkway spur are the only cases of a ref route that exists solely to connect to a parkway.There's 943F (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/43.249696,-77.614771/43.247966,-77.608334/), and more arguably 981G (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.160975,-74.191795/41.162761,-74.185953/).
I'd argue that the LOSP spur is more like I-88 exit 24 than I-81 exit 12 and I-87 exit 22. At least the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur is arguably a short freeway (and, functionally, it could be argued that the Parkway splits into two branches with the spur being one of them). If it were up to me, I think I would remove West River Parkway and the LOSP spur, and keep the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur.There are plenty of short routes, plenty of at-grade junctions (even in usasf), and plenty of parkways serving parks. Putting these together, I still see no reason to treat this route as less than other inventoried parkways that are included.
It's a Metro New York Parkway. :P
- Move NJ PalIntPkwy into usanyp. But it's not a New York Parkway, is it?
Depends how much it quacks like a duck in NY - the name clearly makes it out to be 'interstate'.
- Move NY PalIntPkwy into usasf. But why should a route meeting all the criteria to be a New York Parkway be left out of the system and shunted over to usasf, just because it continues into another state?
This is far worse than a route ill-fitting a system.
- Separate the PIP out into 2 distinct ConnectedRoutes, one in NJ and one in NY. I don't like this either. It'd seem to defy user expectation; it clearly is a connected route, darnit!
A sledgehammer to crack a nut that doesn't really need cracking.
- Rethink the ConnectedRoute concept, and maybe allow them to cover >1 system. Also a non-starter; the states pages and user logs are pretty reliant on the concept as it exists now. An inferior way to reinvent things for the sake of kluging in one new system...
There's a deliberate reason why this system has been separated out from usasf. And it's more than just the usakyp thing of "well these usasf routes are a system in their own right". And part of why this is its own system are those non-freeway routes.
- Scrap the usanyp system altogether, and move its routes over to usasf instead. A lot of these don't qualify as freeways though; an opportunity to remove a lot of the more contentious routes in this thread would probably be regarded as a Good Thing. Some routes might have a bit more discussion whether to keep or dump...
the PIP ... is a different ballgame from most of the other parkways,OK, I change where I think it would fit best.
Frankly, if there was a "select state park highways" system, the PIP would belong in that given that it's owned and maintained by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission. But we don't have that, so usasf it is.
I think the PIP should be in usanyp, and the GSP belongs in usasf.I second this. Especially as the GSP in NY is part of the Thruway system, allows trucks (except the part between the last interchange and the state line) (although so did the western end of the LOSP until about 10 years ago), and I believe is officially known as the Garden State Parkway Connector. The PIP also has contiguous exit numbers and mileage, and uses the same shield as Seven Lakes Drive, so it would feel odd to have those in separate systems.
The part of the GSP in NY is minimal, and the PIP is practically a NY parkway IMO that happens to enter NJ.
One thing that's worth noting is that Seven Lakes Drive and the PIP have the (nearly) exact (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.1855693,-74.0406374,3a,20.7y,100.06h,91.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJh0u4_AjJa4422zYBkqc9Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) same shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2336993,-74.1119758,3a,15.7y,288.39h,82.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSmjdzZx04P_UUV5ZylreNQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Also FWIW, neither is an NYSDOT maintained roadway in spite of their reference route numbers - PIP, as mentioned above, is maintained by a separate park commission, and the GSP extension is part of the New York State Thruway system (it even allows trucks between the Thruway mainline and the one NY exit).
I guess this is mostly directed at vdeane and cl94, but does the general population of NYC consider the PIP as a NYC Parkway or not?
Yeah, I would say most people in the area wouldn't differentiate the PIP from the other parkways, but pretty much the only people in NY who know the difference between a US route and a state route are roadgeeks and some DOT employees, and where I grew up, people didn't even differentiate interstates, so that doesn't say much either way.
I think the PIP should be in usanyp, and the GSP belongs in usasf.
The part of the GSP in NY is minimal, and the PIP is practically a NY parkway IMO that happens to enter NJ.
I think the PIP should be in usanyp, and the GSP belongs in usasf.
The part of the GSP in NY is minimal, and the PIP is practically a NY parkway IMO that happens to enter NJ.
I guess I am now at an either-or in the case of the PIP. It really does not seem to be that big of a deal to me in regard to which system it is in.
I am confused at why the Palisades Interstate Pkwy is shown as concurrent with Seven Lakes Dr.Because there's a pretty damn obvious overlap? Unless you're thinking Seven Lakes should be split?
That said, this thought makes another potential solution occur to me: what if instead of "New York Parkways" we had "US State Named Parkways" (usasp)? Then the PIP and GSP could get both their NJ and NY portions included in this system without issue. The contents of usakyp could get dumped into it too, and you might be able to pluck a thing or two elsewhere out of usasf.