Travel Mapping
User Discussions => Other Discussion => Topic started by: Markkos1992 on February 04, 2021, 02:30:16 pm
-
Started here in I-676 thread: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4034.msg21693#msg21693
I will link here from the I-676 thread and mark that topic as solved.
-
I'm against removing unsigned Interstates. That is not what I was suggesting with my comments. MOST of them are entirely concurrent with something else, but others (such as I-478, which technically has one intermediate interchange AND shows up on most maps) are independent and long enough to qualify for usasf.
If you want to split the unsigned Interstates into a separate system, fine. But I'm strongly opposed to removing anything from the system solely on the basis of being "unsigned" if several other sources say they exist.
Remove unsigned Interstates or add unsigned routes of all other systems. The choice is yours.
-
Personally, I'm kinda regretting kicking the hornet's nest here. All because of a misconception I had regarding I-676. I feel like there's probably a larger interest in clinching the interstates (both signed/unsigned) than with other systems, given the status of the interstate system in the roadgeek mythos, and I'm not a fan of axing them, especially in AK and PR. Especially with the AK and PR sections unsigned (with both states lacking systems above tier 4 of any kind), and the PR ones being hard to locate without TM. There's Jim's idea to have usaki and uspri systems for those, which I would support if we decide to eliminate them in the contiguous US, but you'd still have an unsigned exemption for the interstates, just a changed one, so that begs the question of what the need for the change is if it would still be inconsistent with every other system. And even in the contiguous US, there's I-296, which follows ramps to I-96 rather than end at the interchange on US 131, which someone looking to clinch it might not realize if it's not in the system.
-
The unsigned interstates do not belong here anymore. As others have said, including them made sense originally, since there was no option for clinching them as part of another system. I don't support adding special systems for unsigned interstates in Alaska or Puerto Rico. If an unsigned interstate in Maryland doesn't qualify, then no unsigned interstates should qualify.
It seems that one benefit of this is that more people will have the opportunity to clinch usai. And that's a good thing.
People can clinch whatever they want. TM does not need to include all of the possibilities.
-
It seems that one benefit of this is that more people will have the opportunity to clinch usai. And that's a good thing.
Is it a good thing?
This isn't a game like Pokemon "gotta clinch them all", but if it was, is making what would be the flagship epic challenge* easier a good thing? The whole point is that it is very difficult, and so accomplishing it comes with massive bragging rights because its a rare achievement that the number of people who've done it are going to be single-digits. Games nowadays have to come up with ever more niche accomplishments as getting the original epic one becomes too common. Part of the difficulty of clinching usai is visiting not only the 48 states + DC, but having to go to Hawaii, Alaska and PR too.
I know you (https://travelmapping.net/user/system.php?u=mapcat&sys=usai&rg=null&units=miles) would have half your missing 20-odd miles wiped off as you have about 10 miles missing in Alaska (the end bit of I-A1 in Anchorage and the end of I-A4 around Fairbanks), but you still have trips to Los Angeles and North Carolina to do in order to get new construction (and I-5 Truck).** You still have to travel to places thousands of miles away for tiny little bits, in order to finish the job and another trip to Alaska to finish what you failed to complete the first time isn't an outlandish ask if you want to 100% usai.
*In that it is very very hard, especially as its a moving target that you have to hold onto it, but it is still possible (unlike, say, the much larger usaus system).
**I'm assuming MA I-295 is where a label has moved and people haven't updated .list files as it's not new construction and 55 have clinched the western segment, but only 17 the eastern one.
People can clinch whatever they want. TM does not need to include all of the possibilities.
People can clinch whatever they want. They can choose to ignore possibilities that TM offers.
TM won't ever include all the possibilities - even just on road (we'll ignore rail, ferries, etc on which travels might want to be mapped) - but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't include stuff just because some people don't view it as worthy of inclusion. Certainly it doesn't mean removing stuff that has been around since the beginning just as some people don't want to bother clinching it - no one is forcing you to do so!
-
I think what is really needed more is a way for people to choose what they want tracked. Then those debates like what we have with unsigned interstates, usanp, and usaush would not be necessary IMO.
-
It seems that one benefit of this is that more people will have the opportunity to clinch usai. And that's a good thing.
Is it a good thing?
No, hell, no!
I think what is really needed more is a way for people to choose what they want tracked.
How do you want to do this? A second .list user file for "routes I want to clinch?"
-
@Si: I'm offended that you would consider my opinion on this to be self-serving.
Obviously I have the wherewithal to go to Alaska and get those last few miles of state highways, since I've already been there twice. I'll certainly go back eventually, once my daughter has the time to accompany me, to finish up I-A1 and I-A4 (among other highways), which I didn't "fail to complete the first time", but rather didn't know about or care about at all, since the purposes of those earlier trips was to visit all the boroughs in the state as part of an effort to visit all the counties. That I actually completed I-A2 and I-A3 on one of those trips was purely coincidental; I was unaware of CHM at the time. Had they been signed with red, white, and blue shields, I still wouldn't have thought to go out of my way to finish any of them.
But how many users do have that ability? Completing the signed interstates in 49 states + DC is still a massive undertaking, but a less costly one (in terms of time and money), and, for some, a less intimidating one. Living in (or near? hard to say now) Europe, you may not realize there are people with the means to travel extensively who nevertheless rarely find themselves in places where the dominant culture does not live, act, or (importantly) speak like they do. I feel sad for these people, but I respect that they want to remain in situations where they can feel comfortable. Such people will probably never give themselves the opportunity to circumnavigate Puerto Rico, where travel beyond San Juan's beaches without some knowledge of Spanish would be difficult.
These users deserve a shot to complete the "flagship epic challenge". DIY challenges aren't supported on the site. A user's hopes of seeing a "Rank: 1" in any system depend on TM's definition of that system aligning with their concept of that system. A usai limited to signed routes can be completed by both the user who defines an interstate as a road with the standard shield AND the user who defines an interstate as a road that exists on some FHWA list.
-
I'd argue that TM shouldn't ever include all the possibilities, and that we should exclude stuff if most people don't view it as worth including. (In saying so, I'll acknowledge that there will not always be a clear consensus on that latter bit.)
I'd put the reason for potentially removing the unsigned Interstates less as "some people don't want to bother clinching it" and more as "it doesn't fit the idea of what this system should be."
People can clinch whatever they want, absolutely. I can clinch Portland Maine Public Ways, or Sagadahoc County Summer Townways Starting with 'B' if I want to. My point is that something simply being clinchable shouldn't determine whether TM offers it, but rather whether it's relevant outside of TM. I'm no fan of the "it's relevant because we say it is" (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=97.msg21564#msg21564) philosophy.
WRT unsigned Interstates specifically, I'm sympathetic to the arguments on both sides of the issue and have not made my mind up either way. I can go with whatever the consensus ends up being, and have no problems putting ME METpkSprFal into usasf if it comes to that.
-
There is only one good reason unsigned Interstates should remain--because the routes have been defined as part of the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways," and such a definition beings federal funding equivalent to other Interstates.
However, since in every other system within the HB, the lack of signage prompts almost immediate removal, it's hard to justify keeping routes (even in usai) that are unsigned. Most (if not all) of these routes are not signed for the simple reason that they are concurrent with other well-established routes (e.g. I-595 in MD concurrent with US 50) and the Interstate signs were omitted so as not to overburden drivers with additional signs. When driving along US 50 in MD, it is easy to follow the signed route. If you didn't know part of it was also the unsigned I-595, you'd have no way of following field signage to clinch I-595 (even though you would be doing so by following that ~20 mile stretch of US 50).
For me it comes down to this. If you are going to argue that routes that are signed belong in the HB (such as usaush), you should not also argue that unsigned routes in other systems belong as well.
I'd lose some usai mileage if these routes were removed. That said, I'm strongly in favor of getting rid of them.
-
How do you want to do this? A second .list user file for "routes I want to clinch?"
Maybe a way to list which systems that the user would not want to be shown... Hopefully not in a separate list file.
-
There is only one good reason unsigned Interstates should remain--because the routes have been defined as part of the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways," and such a definition beings federal funding equivalent to other Interstates.
However, since in every other system within the HB, the lack of signage prompts almost immediate removal, it's hard to justify keeping routes (even in usai) that are unsigned. Most (if not all) of these routes are not signed for the simple reason that they are concurrent with other well-established routes (e.g. I-595 in MD concurrent with US 50) and the Interstate signs were omitted so as not to overburden drivers with additional signs. When driving along US 50 in MD, it is easy to follow the signed route. If you didn't know part of it was also the unsigned I-595, you'd have no way of following field signage to clinch I-595 (even though you would be doing so by following that ~20 mile stretch of US 50).
For me it comes down to this. If you are going to argue that routes that are signed belong in the HB (such as usaush), you should not also argue that unsigned routes in other systems belong as well.
I'd lose some usai mileage if these routes were removed. That said, I'm strongly in favor of getting rid of them.
Keep in mind that this site is derived from Clinched Highway Mapping, which itself was previously Clinched Interstate Mapping (and before that, the interstate highway browser). The interstates are in the site's blood. And the unsigned interstates are more prominent than other unsigned routes, especially as other unsigned routes tend to be there for inventory purposes only, whereas there is little benefit to doing so for an interstate (especially now that interstate-specific funds no longer exist).
If someone is looking to clinch routes, I would recommend going over TM to check out where things go. It's just a good idea, period, especially as many routes are poorly signed, and Google is often wrong.
Without them being mapped in TM, how would someone know how to properly clinch I-296, or anything in Puerto Rico (they aren't mapped in detail anywhere else on the internet, as far as I can tell)? I would think the status the interstate system has among roadgeeks as one of the holiest of holy things would be important.
I suppose if we must get rid of them, could we at least get a Puerto Rico Autopista system? That way PR wouldn't become a mono-culture of territorial routes, and maps with large numbers of routes and no color variation just don't look good. Actually, PR uses a variety of shield styles, so maybe there's an opportunity to split things (though they might not be consistent (https://www.google.com/maps/@18.4850726,-66.7778413,3a,38.2y,299.89h,90.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipMeGJfFL-ou0Vxu0I0P3yIOSx8YWz-Bb778T0c!2e10!3e11!7i5504!8i2752) - what the heck is going on there?).
I definitely do not think - "American roadgeeks might not want to learn some Spanish" (as mentioned upthread) is a good reason for getting rid of unsigned interstates.
How do you want to do this? A second .list user file for "routes I want to clinch?"
Maybe a way to list which systems that the user would not want to be shown... Hopefully not in a separate list file.
I always though some kind of declaration at the top of a .list file (ex: "EXCLUDE usaush") could be a way to remove systems one doesn't want from maps/stats, although I think there are people who would rather keep .list files for traveled route segments only.
-
It seems that one benefit of this is that more people will have the opportunity to clinch usai. And that's a good thing.
Is it a good thing?
This isn't a game like Pokemon "gotta clinch them all", but if it was, is making what would be the flagship epic challenge* easier a good thing? The whole point is that it is very difficult, and so accomplishing it comes with massive bragging rights because its a rare achievement that the number of people who've done it are going to be single-digits. Games nowadays have to come up with ever more niche accomplishments as getting the original epic one becomes too common. Part of the difficulty of clinching usai is visiting not only the 48 states + DC, but having to go to Hawaii, Alaska and PR too.
There are certainly people whose opinion is "I don't want to include unsigned routes because that makes the system harder to clinch". Indeed, a few users on this very forum have expressed this exact sentiment! There are people who see clinching as a game and they want the highest score. I don't get the competition aspect of all of this, but whatever.
As far as the "decide what to clinch" thing, the idea of a switch to toggle unsigned systems on/off has been thrown around. There are a couple of high-profile roadgeeks who would likely join the site if such a function was added.
-
I do not support deleting unsigned interstates.
I could get behind the idea of moving unsigned interstates into a separate system, with this being a model for how unsigned routes in other systems may eventually be included.
-
The "whole separate system" concept seems clunky...
Maybe a new column in system CSVs that can store whether a route is signed or unsigned?
-
I don't really have an opinion one way or another; if unsigned interstates are excluded I'll probably add the Bismarck Expressway to usasf to replace I-194.
Maybe we should do a poll to see what the consensus is.
-
The "whole separate system" concept seems clunky...
Maybe a new column in system CSVs that can store whether a route is signed or unsigned?
Well, we would need to create separate systems at least temporarily while unsigned routes are under peer review.
And there are definitely states (CT, for example) where unsigned routes are administratively a separate system from signed ones, and thus would logically be a separate system in the HB regardless, a la usamt vs. usamts or the various Texas systems.
Otherwise, though... sure that could work. Would also have the benefit of allowing routes to be easily switched between signed and unsigned if signs are found to have been added or removed.
-
I would also be in favor of being able to track official routes that are unposted, or also in the case of Virginia, posted but not in a shield.
It seems we should err on the side of having everything official on the site (some of the Virginia ones, for example, are on their official maps), and those who do not wish to clinch them will choose to not do so. Just as there are people who don't feel the need to clinch NPS routes will consider themselves finished with a state if they got the primary systems of the state but TM will say they have something less than 100% of the mileage.
But people with an interest of getting the whole system may not use any source besides TM and will be misled into believe they have when they have not.
If there is resistance to a separate system for unposted, a different solution would be to treat the route as a bannered route (the banner being 'unposted') so that it could be clear to the user that a route they see on the list is unposted in the field.
-
@Si: I'm offended that you would consider my opinion on this to be self-serving.
Oh, fine, I'll take it back.
However, I think a self-serving "this is too hard for me, let's make it easier" attitude comes across a lot better than with the patronising "this is too hard for them, let's make it easier" attitude that you are actually pushing.
But how many users do have that ability? Completing the signed interstates in 49 states + DC is still a massive undertaking, but a less costly one (in terms of time and money), and, for some, a less intimidating one.
You've totally and utterly missed my point that this site isn't a game to win, and that, even if it was a game, 100%ing usai is not just winning, but the gold-plated epic challenge win that's equivalent of completing all the achievements - unlocking all the original items (game makers add more, for both wider appeal and to give the hardcore set more to do), completing all the original side quests, playing for long enough that some simple action has been done 1000 times, etc that 99% of players aren't fussed about doing.
I totally concur that completing the signed interstates in 49 states + DC is a massive undertaking, I just don't think that achievement is diminished because its not accompanied by 100% and ranking=1 next to it.
Living in (or near? hard to say now) Europe, you may not realize there are people with the means to travel extensively
I'm very aware of that, being someone without the means to travel extensively - I've added only a couple of hundred miles to my travels since the site relaunched (obviously more has been mapped as systems have been added) and only a few 'long' trips (at least wrt clinching) that have all been only a day long (I've under 10 days more than 100 miles from home in the last decade).
Those without the means to travel extensively, are clearly not people who will consider travelling to 49 states + DC and driving 45,000 miles plus as doable. It doesn't matter to them whether or not there's not the added difficulty of trips to Alaska and Puerto Rico, because not only is Hawaii something just as excluding, but the dozen or more cross-continental road trips are too!
And, lets say someone has travelled so extensively over the lower-48 and Hawaii that they have clinched all the signed interstates. Surely they have both the time, money, and sense of adventure, to make trips to Alaska and Puerto Rico should they wish to do so in order to get that 100% bragging rights?
These users deserve a shot to complete the "flagship epic challenge".
So what you are saying is that the "flagship epic challenge" shouldn't challenge those, whom you feel sad for because they don't step out of their comfort zone and travel to places like PR, to step out of their comfort zone and travel to PR? What a weird argument.
----
However, since in every other system within the HB, the lack of signage prompts almost immediate removal
Not the case at all - there's many systems where that isn't the case, but if the consensus is that they all should be, I can remove those systems so that can be the case.
----
I'm no fan of the "it's relevant because we say it is" (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=97.msg21564#msg21564) philosophy.
I'm not a fan of "it's not relevant because we say it isn't" philosophy, especially where 'we' isn't a consensus.
-
I would also be in favor of being able to track official routes that are unposted
I could get behind this concept. I think it makes more sense to include unsigned 'official' routes than it does to include signed routes that no longer have official designations (former alignments of usaus or Old OH 533 (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2928.msg13205#msg13205) for example). I seem to recall, there is a precedent in FL that goes against this (i.e. the Florida Turnpike is unsigned FL91) and I'm sure there are similar situations in other states/regions.
The argument for keeping unsigned routes with 'official' designations is far stronger than the argument 'this is how things have been since the days of CMH.' This site has expanded and some of the old ways of doing things may no longer be relevant.
The idea of creating a separate system for unsigned routes is one that really should not be under consideration. Either leave these highways in usai or remove them. Having stated my preference earlier, I will be fine with whatever decision TM contributors deem best.
-
I would also be in favor of being able to track official routes that are unposted
I could get behind this concept. I think it makes more sense to include unsigned 'official' routes than it does to include signed routes that no longer have official designations (former alignments of usaus or Old OH 533 (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2928.msg13205#msg13205) for example). I seem to recall, there is a precedent in FL that goes against this (i.e. the Florida Turnpike is unsigned FL91) and I'm sure there are similar situations in other states/regions.
The argument for keeping unsigned routes with 'official' designations is far stronger than the argument 'this is how things have been since the days of CMH.' This site has expanded and some of the old ways of doing things may no longer be relevant.
I agree with this. It would also make the process of adding/removing routes far simpler. There are routes that have been added/deleted repeatedly because the amount of signage changed. See the ongoing debacle in Seattle.
"This is the way things have always been" isn't a good argument for not changing. There are people who would be willing to take on the work of adding/maintaining unsigned routes if the current maintainers are unwilling to do so. I know of at least one person who would love to get involved with all of this, but there just hasn't been room for them because of how territorial people.
However, since in every other system within the HB, the lack of signage prompts almost immediate removal
Not the case at all - there's many systems where that isn't the case, but if the consensus is that they all should be, I can remove those systems so that can be the case.
It is possible that there are more systems where unsigned routes are included than there are systems without. Barring unsigned routes from the HB is pretty much limited to North America. And a lot of road enthusiasts in North America think that unsigned routes should be clinched.
Here's my thought: if you don't want to count unsigned routes yourself, fine. But your personal preference of not wanting to count unsigned routes shouldn't stop other people from being able to track them, especially when the routes are well-documented in legislation, GIS, or SLDs. Even people who don't use TM to track their travels use the site as a reference. The "signed/unsigned" criterion is arbitrary, as far as most states are concerned, and some of the routes that TM considers "unsigned" are signed better in the field than "signed" routes! A signed route is no different legally from an unsigned route unless the unsigned route is in a secondary/lesser system.
Of note: in the case of something like UT 900/901, there is no online map-based source for the routing, so we would be filling a gap in what exists. We have which BLM roads it uses because someone in the mountain west was able to track it all down, but it's not linked to a nice public map.
-
The thing about 900/901 is that they aren't constructed or maintained, which is different from being constructed but merely unsigned.
-
Not constructed. Is this anything like TX68 (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2309.msg8444#msg8444)?
-
Not constructed. Is this anything like TX68 (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2309.msg8444#msg8444)?
Kind of, except that it's never going to be constructed and never intended to be constructed. The whole point was to define certain dirt tracks as barriers to a potential nuclear waste hauling railroad.
-
(CT, for example) where unsigned routes are administratively a separate system from signed ones, and thus would logically be a separate system not in the HB
FTFY. :D
Lol yeah... I'd been thinking of, what if this led to demand for a New York Select Reference Routes? ::) (To be clear: I do not want to see this.) Majority would be unsigned, with signed as the exception...
Well, we would need to create separate systems at least temporarily while unsigned routes are under peer review.
Mm, not necessarily. New routes are added in to active systems all the time. Could just as easily treat addition of new unsigned stuff the same.
I think what is really needed more is a way for people to choose what they want tracked. Then those debates like what we have with unsigned interstates, usanp, and usaush would not be necessary IMO.
The idea that just won't go away. ;) Though... there may be good reason for that?
I see two different ideas emerging...
I would also be in favor of being able to track official routes that are unposted, or also in the case of Virginia, posted but not in a shield.
The signed/unsigned distinction...
It seems we should err on the side of having everything official on the site (some of the Virginia ones, for example, are on their official maps), and those who do not wish to clinch them will choose to not do so. Just as there are people who don't feel the need to clinch NPS routes will consider themselves finished with a state if they got the primary systems of the state but TM will say they have something less than 100% of the mileage.
...and allowing users to "opt out" and not track systems they don't care about.
There's infrastructure for this in place, but our current userpages don't get us all the way there. On region.php & system.php, the maps look OK whether we filter for any combination of 1 or more systems in 1 or more regions. A happy side effect of the way the site works under the hood. The tables are more limited and less customizable though -- region.php always shows all the systems in one region; system.php will filter for any number of regions, but only one system.
A redesigned userpage that lets us sort for any number of regions and any number of systems will get us what we want here. It could eliminate the need for a separate region.php & system.php, (or even user/index.php) and simplify development & maintenance. The "stats for everybody" table at the bottom could be split off into its own page. With a CHM-style heatmap, like when traveled graphs are loaded into the HDX.
If there is resistance to a separate system for unposted, a different solution would be to treat the route as a bannered route (the banner being 'unposted') so that it could be clear to the user that a route they see on the list is unposted in the field.
A separate CSV column would be better. This might conflict with some of the things banner is used for (see: France). We should allow the flexbility of flagging both bannered and unsigned.
From a DataProcessing standpoint...
There's already a column (system or systemName) in the system CSVs that gets a quick sanity check, then ignored. Nix the sanity check, and we store the data there as we gather/develop it, without having to worry about siteupdate complaining about bad data or storing a separate file elsewhere until we suddenly change over. We could safely get the data into place in the CSV first, then once it's all ready, set up siteupdate to parse it.
-
Then one can say something about the routes such as in Washington State and also US 10 and US 9 that use ferries - At least no Interstates use them. Certainly one can put that in as an optional field for the hard-core roadder.
-
There's nothing to filter there. The ferries are simply not included.
-
There's nothing to filter there. The ferries are simply not included.
Ferries are included in Connecticut. In WA and CT (and US 9/10, for that matter), the ferry is legally defined as part of the route. If you don't want to include WA ferries, the CT ferries probably need to come out.
-
There's nothing to filter there. The ferries are simply not included.
Ferries are included in Connecticut. In WA and CT (and US 9/10, for that matter), the ferry is legally defined as part of the route. If you don't want to include WA ferries, the CT ferries probably need to come out.
Shit , WIS 113 is crossing the Wisconsin River on a ferry!
-
Oh crap, yeah, those Connecticut ferries shoulda come out years ago.
Am oan it!
-
Oh crap, yeah, those Connecticut ferries shoulda come out years ago.
Am oan it!
That's not what I meant. I support leaving the ferries in...because the route officially uses them.
-
Ferries are like unsigned routes in that you will never gain a consensus on whether or not they should count. Some people want to count them, others do not.
To this end, I support it continuing to be standard policy to break routes at ferries and only map roads. For people who want to count the ferries, well... perhaps a future todo item can be mapping those separately, like with unsigned routes. Let users toggle them as they please. The only way to make everyone happy ultimately will be to allow either option.
-
I posted this in the other thread, but I would fully support the addition of unsigned routes. It's a rather arbitrary decision that doesn't seem to have much basis beyond "we've always done it this way". It doesn't make sense to me why routes that are official in every way except for lacking posted signs are left out, while national park roads that are completely arbitrary in many cases are included.
I should also note that TM's definition of "signage" is itself arbitrary. Take NJ 64 as an example: even though it is signed on street blades (https://goo.gl/maps/L3rgYfk9hgjtTQsP8), that is still considered "unsigned" as far as this site is concerned and is excluded as a result.
Should TM decide to go the way of including unsigned routes, I would be happy to help with the work of drafting and/or maintaining them.
-
I also think it should be noted that, while pretty much anything maintained by NPS can go in the HB, regardless of importance, unsigned other routes cannot. That seems a bit absurd. NPS 602 and NPS 615 in NJ are extreme examples of this: they are county routes that happen to be maintained by NPS, but go in because of who maintains them. I don't see how a random NPS road is different from an unsigned state highway.
-
(CT, for example) where unsigned routes are administratively a separate system from signed ones, and thus would logically be a separate system not in the HB
FTFY. :D
Lol yeah... I'd been thinking of, what if this led to demand for a New York Select Reference Routes? ::) (To be clear: I do not want to see this.) Majority would be unsigned, with signed as the exception...
Yeah, I'd rather not see that either, to the point that I'd rather see the unsigned interstates go away (even in Alaska and Puerto Rico) than have that appear. Too many service roads, wyes, etc. - not to mention a route that requires NEXUS to clinch (and another that crosses the border but can't be sight clinched; there's also one that enters a state park and goes past the fee booths just to end at a random point in the park). Even a "select" system would likely have me clinch all the ones I legally can just to avoid the possibility of having another route added to the "select" system and an unclinched route appearing in my map/stats as a result.
Unsigned routes elsewhere have other issues. Maryland have some for old pieces of concrete (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2981878,-76.0622593,112m/data=!3m1!1e3). Utah has them on non-public roads. And so on. It's a bit of a mess, although I do admit it could solve some issues with routes blipping in and out as signage changes (it seems like there are constant additions/deletions to usaky for that reason). I could be persuaded if there was some way of placing clear criteria to just add routes that behave like the signed routes currently in the system but just happen to lack signage, but I'm not sure there's a clear, air-tight standard for such.
Not really a fan of adding ferries either. I'm not sure that a toggle that would only affect my view would be satisfying... kinda like cleaning up by sweeping the dust under the rug. Especially as I do link to my page from my website, and because I don't feel like "signing in" to view my page.
-
Unsigned routes elsewhere have other issues. Maryland have some for old pieces of concrete (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2981878,-76.0622593,112m/data=!3m1!1e3). Utah has them on non-public roads.
But we have also included signed routes on non-public roads, as well as Maryland stubs that are as pointless, but get a sign for some reason. The presence of a standalone shield (or lack thereof) does not mean a road is/is not "clinchworthy".
-
Unsigned routes elsewhere have other issues. Maryland have some for old pieces of concrete (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2981878,-76.0622593,112m/data=!3m1!1e3). Utah has them on non-public roads.
But we have also included signed routes on non-public roads, as well as Maryland stubs that are as pointless, but get a sign for some reason. The presence of a standalone shield (or lack thereof) does not mean a road is/is not "clinchworthy".
I'm not a fan of those either, but it also wouldn't feel right to take out part of a signed system. We certainly don't need more of them.
How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched? The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch. Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY! As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.
-
How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched? The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch. Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY! As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.
There are quite a few others, if I'm remembering correctly. At minimum, North Carolina has a couple. (EDIT: NC 172 is the one I was thinking of)
Sometimes, you just need to get inventive to finish a system or be okay leaving an asterisk. Makes clinching more exciting.
-
I will mention, though, that I would be 100% behind excluding any and all segments that a "normal person" cannot legally traverse. Roads on military bases would fall under things that should be excluded in such a scenario, because it's not like any person can just get clearance to go on.
-
How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched? The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch. Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY! As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.
There are quite a few others, if I'm remembering correctly. At minimum, North Carolina has a couple. (EDIT: NC 172 is the one I was thinking of)
Sometimes, you just need to get inventive to finish a system or be okay leaving an asterisk. Makes clinching more exciting.
More exciting for you, maybe. I'm already uncomfortable with the asterisks I have, and I only get more uncomfortable with them over time (I'm now debating whether to add I-89 and I-91 to my re-clinch list even though I previously never had an issue with sight clinching the border). There's too much stuff on my todo list to find time to go back to places I've already been.
-
How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched? The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch. Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY! As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.
Interstate H-3 ends before the cross-street in front of the sentry station. Either do a legal U-turn in front of the sentries, or take a right into the parking lot for the replica Iwo Jima memorial then do your U-turn there.
There are tougher clinches out there. Like Interstates and U.S. routes ending at the Canadian and Mexican borders, currently closed to non-essential travel, and even in better times you need a passport and (for Mexico) an expensive temporary insurance policy unless you cross the border on foot. Or some of the more difficult unpaved highways (looking at you Yukon route 6, which is hundreds of km of constant potholes that will tear up most regular passenger vehicles, but other Arctic highways are no walk in the park either). Or US 219 Truck in Ridgway PA, which is one-way and technically closed to vehicles under 7000 lb. gross vehicle weight. All of these belong in TM, even if not accessible to everybody.
-
How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched? The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch. Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY! As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.
Interstate H-3 ends before the cross-street in front of the sentry station. Either do a legal U-turn in front of the sentries, or take a right into the parking lot for the replica Iwo Jima memorial then do your U-turn there.
There are tougher clinches out there. Like Interstates and U.S. routes ending at the Canadian and Mexican borders, currently closed to non-essential travel, and even in better times you need a passport and (for Mexico) an expensive temporary insurance policy unless you cross the border on foot. Or some of the more difficult unpaved highways (looking at you Yukon route 6, which is hundreds of km of constant potholes that will tear up most regular passenger vehicles, but other Arctic highways are no walk in the park either). Or US 219 Truck in Ridgway PA, which is one-way and technically closed to vehicles under 7000 lb. gross vehicle weight. All of these belong in TM, even if not accessible to everybody.
Even some of the border roads have turn arounds (Otay Mesa, I-110 TX, I-69W Texas, I-5 San Ysidro) that allow you to legally flip around and for those who are not insistant on crossing consider a sight clinch.
-
There's nothing to filter there. The ferries are simply not included.
Ferries are included in Connecticut. In WA and CT (and US 9/10, for that matter), the ferry is legally defined as part of the route. If you don't want to include WA ferries, the CT ferries probably need to come out.
The Northwest Territories have two routes, NT 1 and NT 8, each with two ferry crossings. But in the winter the ferries are replaced by ice bridges, so you can safely drive across the rivers. That was felt sufficient to keep the routes undivided.
I considered applying that precedent to a ferry/ice bridge situation in Saskatchewan (SK 42, crossing Lake Diefenbaker), but was prevailed upon to confine the NT precedent to NT, and split SK 42 at the lake.
I've toyed with setting up a separate system for ferry routes, especially the longer ones like on US 9 and US 10, the extensive AK/BC/WA ferry systems, and other major ferry routes. Someday ...
-
There are routes that have been added/deleted repeatedly because the amount of signage changed. See the ongoing debacle in Seattle.
I think that is not so much a problem with excluding unsigned routes, but rather being too quick on the trigger to remove routes once their signage disappears (perhaps temporarily). There are a few routes in California I just removed as unsigned. But I knew several years ago that their signage status was questionable, and waited until user reports or updated GMSV imagery could confirm that they were indeed unsigned.
I favor generally keeping unsigned routes out of the HB for US/Canada systems. But I'm OK with preserving the status quo for Interstates, and also with rare exceptions to keep specific unsigned routes in other systems. I've made a few such exceptions in my Arctic jurisdictions, where route signage customs are much different than in the lower 48 (up there, the public doesn't care about route numbers, and especially in remote areas, posting them is not a priority for the relevant department or ministry), but none in the rest of the U.S. and the Canadian provinces.
-
This whole discussion boils down to one question:
How OCD do you want to get with the systems?
-
I favor generally keeping unsigned routes out of the HB for US/Canada systems. But I'm OK with preserving the status quo for Interstates, and also with rare exceptions to keep specific unsigned routes in other systems.
This might be the best solution.
-
How OCD do you want to get with the systems?
Which is why the best long-term solution may just be "include everything and let people turn off what they don't like", because everyone's definition is different. When we've started having arguments about what does/does not count as "signed" and what is significant enough to be included in the "select named freeways", it might be time to include everything someone wants to draft up/review and let people filter.
I favor generally keeping unsigned routes out of the HB for US/Canada systems. But I'm OK with preserving the status quo for Interstates, and also with rare exceptions to keep specific unsigned routes in other systems.
This might be the best solution.
Agreed, at least in the short term. While I'd like a long-term functionality to turn off systems (cough...National Parks and Historic US Routes), which would thus allow for unsigned routes to be added and people who dislike the concept to just ignore them, any major changes in the short term that result in a major change to how things are done will just piss people off. It's the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
-
How OCD do you want to get with the systems?
Which is why the best long-term solution may just be "include everything and let people turn off what they don't like", because everyone's definition is different. When we've started having arguments about what does/does not count as "signed" and what is significant enough to be included in the "select named freeways", it might be time to include everything someone wants to draft up/review and let people filter.
THIS!
Excluding systems would be not that hard. 427 systems (active+preview only) just need to be marked with whatever we define*.
Marking currently 68,449 routes all around the world being signed or unsigned would be hard. And... what about routes which are only signed on mileposts? Distinguish signed/milepostsigned/unsigned? And what about partially signed routes? Do we need to mark every... waypoint in wpt files?
And over a million waypoints.
*If we ever agree on any definition :D
-
You've totally and utterly missed my point that this site isn't a game to win
Yet it has all the trappings of a game:
- Leaderboard
- Challenges, with demonstrated progress towards a goal
- The word "clinched", with its connotation of "goal met", featured prominently on every page with a map and many without
All it's missing are daily prizes and a way to earn extra lives!
and that, even if it was a game, 100%ing usai is not just winning, but the gold-plated epic challenge win that's equivalent of completing all the achievements
Maybe, maybe not. Undoubtedly it's a goal for many users, but equivalent of completing all? The fact that Oscar's still driving years after completing (at the time) usai shows that the other achievements are just as compelling.
Living in (or near? hard to say now) Europe, you may not realize there are people with the means to travel extensively
I'm very aware of that, being someone without the means to travel extensively - I've added only a couple of hundred miles to my travels since the site relaunched (obviously more has been mapped as systems have been added) and only a few 'long' trips (at least wrt clinching) that have all been only a day long (I've under 10 days more than 100 miles from home in the last decade).
Those without the means to travel extensively, are clearly not people who will consider travelling to 49 states + DC and driving 45,000 miles plus as doable. It doesn't matter to them whether or not there's not the added difficulty of trips to Alaska and Puerto Rico, because not only is Hawaii something just as excluding, but the dozen or more cross-continental road trips are too!
It seems you may have misunderstood me. My comment was that there are people *with* the means to travel all over the States, but who find language barriers to be enough of a deterrent. Including Puerto Rico is a barrier to their completion. Of course we're only having this discussion because signs with PR1, PR2, and PR3 on them are fantasy; should the DTOP choose to post them, there's no arguing anymore. They're in.
And, lets say someone has travelled so extensively over the lower-48 and Hawaii that they have clinched all the signed interstates. Surely they have both the time, money, and sense of adventure, to make trips to Alaska and Puerto Rico should they wish to do so in order to get that 100% bragging rights?
You greatly underestimate the allure of xenophobia in this country, as well as the ease with which such an attitude may be maintained. I have taught these people. Upon my return from a trip to Mexico, I was showing slides and talking excitedly about my adventures, and one student who I knew to be well-travelled was clearly interested and asked many thoughtful questions. I began making suggestions for when he crossed the border for himself, and he stopped me. Not going to happen; he only travels in THIS country. He hasn't even visited Ontario, less than three hours from his home! Can't expect someone like that to give PR a second thought.
So what you are saying is that the "flagship epic challenge" shouldn't challenge those, whom you feel sad for because they don't step out of their comfort zone and travel to places like PR, to step out of their comfort zone and travel to PR? What a weird argument.
No, that's not the core of my argument at all. My argument is that we shouldn't *arbitrarily* increase the difficulty of that particular challenge while using a different set of rules for all other challenges in North America. It's inconsistent, and, in light of the "flagship epic" nature of the interstate challenge, unfair.
Which brings us back to the words of SSOWorld in the first reply to this topic:
Remove unsigned Interstates or add unsigned routes of all other systems. The choice is yours.
That's as concise as anyone can make this argument. And I think plenty of evidence has been presented above to show that adding the unsigned routes of all other North American systems would be madness. And it would need to be ALL of the systems unless we want to revive this debate again and again.
-
How many roads on the site are there that can't be legally clinched? The only ones I'm aware of are the ends of NJ 68 and I-H3, and NJ 68 looks almost short enough to sight clinch. Boy am I glad there are no such roads in NY! As someone who likes to "fill in" sections of the map completely, it would annoy me greatly to have something like this around.
Interstate H-3 ends before the cross-street in front of the sentry station. Either do a legal U-turn in front of the sentries, or take a right into the parking lot for the replica Iwo Jima memorial then do your U-turn there.
There are tougher clinches out there. Like Interstates and U.S. routes ending at the Canadian and Mexican borders, currently closed to non-essential travel, and even in better times you need a passport and (for Mexico) an expensive temporary insurance policy unless you cross the border on foot. Or some of the more difficult unpaved highways (looking at you Yukon route 6, which is hundreds of km of constant potholes that will tear up most regular passenger vehicles, but other Arctic highways are no walk in the park either). Or US 219 Truck in Ridgway PA, which is one-way and technically closed to vehicles under 7000 lb. gross vehicle weight. All of these belong in TM, even if not accessible to everybody.
Depends on how willing one is to sight clinch from the last exit. That's what I did for I-89 and I-91 (although, as I mentioned, I'm getting a bit less comfortable with that) and the surface routes that lead to the border (though I really should get US 11 properly at some point, given the distance). My rule has traditionally been for a land border, if you can see customs/the border, and it's straight, it's OK (bridges, on the other hand...). Thus, I-5 would be fine (still straight NB, good sight lines from the overpass). My understanding is that I-69W really does end at the last U turn before the border, which is good, because its crossing is truck-only. That leaves just I-110 on the US/Mexico border.
Not a fan of truck US 219... but that one's PennDOT's fault, and since it's both official and signed, we're kinda stuck with it.
-
My understanding is that I-69W really does end at the last U turn before the border, which is good, because its crossing is truck-only.
Not a fan of truck US 219... but that one's PennDOT's fault, and since it's both official and signed, we're kinda stuck with it.
I-69W Mile 0 is before the "point of no return", as is I-110. TxDOT considers the routes to end where their maintenance responsibilities end.
US 11...yeah. I'd say to make sure you have a decent excuse to be using that crossing to avoid a grilling, but it's 3/4 mile between customs and the border. That's one where it's 50-50 as to whether you'll be waved through or grilled and it all depends on who is manning the booth. On that topic, my metric for a valid "sight clinch" is seeing the other country's customs, something in the other country, or some other marker of the actual border. The only numbered border crossing in NY where you cannot do that without passing through customs is 11.
219 Truck...yeah. I purposely timed my clinch of it when the normal NB lane was closed for construction, but a ton of people have clinched 219 Truck in cars with no issue and I'll leave it at that.
-
That's as concise as anyone can make this argument. And I think plenty of evidence has been presented above to show that adding the unsigned routes of all other North American systems would be madness. And it would need to be ALL of the systems unless we want to revive this debate again and again.
Well said. The fact that there's been actual, serious talk of adding UT 900 or 901 or whatever should be setting off alarm bells. That route is the poster child for why including unsigned routes is a bad idea. From its description, it sounds like it is physically nothing more than a goat track. And we all know where goat tracks are located.
-
And we all know where goat tracks are located.
Yes. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.
http://www.roadfan.com/man4.html
-
I do believe you have just won the internet. :D
-
That's as concise as anyone can make this argument. And I think plenty of evidence has been presented above to show that adding the unsigned routes of all other North American systems would be madness. And it would need to be ALL of the systems unless we want to revive this debate again and again.
Well said. The fact that there's been actual, serious talk of adding UT 900 or 901 or whatever should be setting off alarm bells. That route is the poster child for why including unsigned routes is a bad idea. From its description, it sounds like it is physically nothing more than a goat track. And we all know where goat tracks are located.
It is both forbidden and required to add them. To clinch them, always remember to have your I-94 form of entry, which is also an I-69 form of entry, while driving I-366 at 85 miles per hour.
-
I feel some members of this thread are having Alanland withdrawl...
-
I would contend that there is no such thing as a "high-profile roadgeek".
-
Well spoken.
-
It is both forbidden and required to add them. To clinch them, always remember to have your I-94 form of entry, which is also an I-69 form of entry, while driving I-366 at 85 miles per hour.
I recently clinched the now full freeway I-366. I would not recommend driving 85 at the southern end at I-66 that still has construction going on.
On a more serious note, I doubt that Duke87 is planning to add UT 900 and UT 901. I would not even recommend the addition of NJ 324. (as much as I want to walk clinch that eventually)
If we are going to add unsigned routes, we need practical routes that make sense to be included normally.
-
I would contend that there is no such thing as a "high-profile roadgeek".
I disagree. Barefoot_driver & wadsteckel drive "high-profile" vehicles, err trucks, to collect their miles on here. ;D :P
-
I would contend that there is no such thing as a "high-profile roadgeek".
I disagree. Barefoot_driver & wadsteckel drive "high-profile" vehicles, err trucks, to collect their miles on here. ;D :P
I stand corrected!
-
I feel some members of this thread are and are not having Alanland withdrawl...
Fixed! ;D