Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: IMGoph on August 22, 2023, 10:50:17 am
-
After the floods last summer, the North Entrance to Yellowstone park was closed for quite some time. It has been reopened, but the North Entrance Road is still closed (likely forever) and traffic has been moved to Old Gardiner Road.
Looks like we need to make some updates in this area.
-
Do you know the future NPS plans? The map (https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/maps.htm (https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/maps.htm)) shows Old Gardiner Road as "Temporary North Entrance Road", so I'm not sure if they're planning on rebuilding or what.
If I was going to map the existing conditions, I would truncate both the MT and WY NEntRd routes to where they're closed, then add either "OldGarRd" or "TempNEntRd" (depending on signage) to connect them. Not sure if anyone else has any other suggestions.
-
I don't, but I read an article a few days ago (can't remember where exactly), where they quoted the superintendent of the park and he said while no final decisions have been made, they are certainly leaning toward letting the canyon revert to nature, and the fact that they spent $20 million on upgrading Old Gardiner Road means that abandoning those sunk costs wouldn't be prudent now.
-
The 2023 State of the Park (https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/upload/State-of-the-Park-2023-Web.pdf) indicates that a "New North Entrance Road" is an approved project, at an estimated price tag of $371M. Have not found any further information thus far.
-
Found the piece I had read:
https://www.kbzk.com/news/montana-news/superintendent-says-yellowstones-gardiner-canyon-road-unlikely-to-be-replaced
-
In that case, I'll proceed with my original plan, putting an "OldGarRd" route in between the stubs of the WY and MT "NEntRd". It sounds like (reading between the lines a bit) that the new permanent road will be very close to the current Old Gardiner Road anyway so when the permanent route is unveiled there likely would not be major changes.
-
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6786/ (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6786/)
-
Are we sure that the 'southern' end of US-89 @ it's junction with 'NEntRd' hasn't changed? While StreetView (haven't been back since Aug '13) & Google Sat isn't helpful, it seems they've added a new route bypassing 'W Park St' & the Roosevelt Arch to connect to 'NEntRd'.
You can see this new route on the 'Esri WorldImagery' imagery.
-
I haven't been to the north entrance since the mid '00s, so I can't be much help there. If that is the main way to access the park from Gardiner now (i.e. they closed the historic arch to traffic) the point should be moved. If the arch is still accessible, I vote leave as-is. MDT has the 0 milepost at 2nd and Park anyway, which is where the first sign is.
-
The signage at 2nd and Park: https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=45.02974%7E-110.705511&lvl=16.1&pi=-24.2&style=x&dir=292.9 (https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=45.02974%7E-110.705511&lvl=16.1&pi=-24.2&style=x&dir=292.9)
Also, here's signage at the new connector road: https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=45.028492%7E-110.706709&lvl=16.1&pi=-14.9&style=x&dir=343 (https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=45.028492%7E-110.706709&lvl=16.1&pi=-14.9&style=x&dir=343)
How's this for a proposal, US 89 gets extended along the connector road and NEntRd goes through the arch and ends on the other side of the connector road? (see attachment)
-
How's this for a proposal, US 89 gets extended along the connector road and NEntRd goes through the arch and ends on the other side of the connector road? (see attachment)
Didn't we decide some time ago that the US route system didn't exist within Yellowstone NP, even if some signs within the park (which really should be "To US__") suggested otherwise? This could just sloppy signage on Park Service-maintained signs, rather than a real extension of US 89. In California, Yosemite and Kings Canyon NPs have signs suggesting CA 120 and CA 180 pass through those parks, even though the state legislature and Caltrans say otherwise.
Absent better evidence that US 89 now exists within the park, I would keep our North Entrance-related changes in usanp.
-
That's fine with me too.
Since the park boundary is legally at the south end of Gardiner (where the buildings that front Park Street are), here's another proposal. Based on the convention that there are no US routes within the park, US 89 gets truncated to 2nd and Park (where the MDT 0 mile marker is), NEntRd is extended along Park Street to 2nd and Park, and the connector gets added as a new usanp route ("3rdSt"?). Alternatively, we could move the US89 endpoint to 2nd and Park and add "ParkSt" and "3rdSt" as new usanp routes. These are just spitball ideas, by the way.
-
If MM0 is at 2nd and Park that's where US89 should end.
I... do not think it makes sense to map the southward extension of 3rd separately from the path through the arch. There is no way that it crosses the threshold of significance for worthiness to have both.
I would map the current main through routing (which involves the southward extension of 3rd) and make sure to include a point labeled "OldNEntRd" where it deviates from the old one south of the arch (the northern point of deviation is the same as the end of US 89 so no separate point needed).
The only other thing is, given almost all of what's being mapped is not in fact North Entrance Road anymore, I would change the name of the route to OldGarRd.
-
I mean that would mean I'd lose my clinch of the Montana NEntRd, but that just gives me an excuse to go back to Gardiner. Not sure if the historic nature of the archway means we should have something with it in the system or not.
The north archway loop is a block off the 0 milemarker. See the attachment for proposed routing and waypoint locations.
-
I mean that would mean I'd lose my clinch of the Montana NEntRd
Same as in any other case where a road is rerouted onto a new alignment 🤷
What's shown in your most recent attachment looks good.
-
https://travelmapping.net/devel/datacheck.php?show=DISCONNECTED_ROUTE
-
https://travelmapping.net/devel/datacheck.php?show=DISCONNECTED_ROUTE
Should the proper way to do this be to split the route in the CSVs? Because the route is supposed to be disconnected by a giant landslide and washout.
-
Should the proper way to do this be to split the route in the CSVs?
Yes. Two usanp_con.csv entries; one for each chopped route.
Chopped usanp.csv can stay as-is.
-
Should the proper way to do this be to split the route in the CSVs?
Yes. Two usanp_con.csv entries; one for each chopped route.
Chopped usanp.csv can stay as-is.
Sounds good, will update.