MD: Canal Parkway in Cumberland (unsigned MD61)

[IMGoph]

Is there a way to get MD 61 (Canal Parkway) added to the database?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Parkway

If the rules and norms say to omit it due to the lack of number signage, what about adding it in to a named highways group?

[Markkos1992]

Well, the first reason that MD 61 is not in the HB is due to lack of signage.

I am not aware if there was ever any discussion to add Canal Pkwy to usanp though I believe it is not qualified as MDSHA maintains it.  (though the history section in Wikipedia indicates that the NPS was indirectly involved in its construction)

[oscar]

Is there a way to get MD 61 (Canal Parkway) added to the database?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Parkway

If the rules and norms say to omit it due to the lack of number signage, what about adding it in to a named highways group?

Which one? We have two in the United States for freeways, another for historic US highway routes, and one for national park roads (including some other Federally-maintained park routes). Canal Parkway doesn't seem to fit into any of them.

The other question is, why what's so special about Canal Parkway, that we should treat it differently from other routes in Maryland without signed route numbers?

I am not aware if there was ever any discussion to add Canal Pkwy to usanp though I believe it is not qualified as MDSHA maintains it.  (though the history section in Wikipedia indicates that the NPS was indirectly involved in its construction)

There was some discussion about adding it to usamd, when MD 61 signage was briefly posted on temporary construction signs. Those signs are long gone.

[IMGoph]

Is there a way to get MD 61 (Canal Parkway) added to the database?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Parkway

If the rules and norms say to omit it due to the lack of number signage, what about adding it in to a named highways group?

Which one? We have two in the United States for freeways, another for historic US highway routes, and one for national park roads (including some other Federally-maintained park routes). Canal Parkway doesn't seem to fit into any of them.

There's a whole "New York Parkways" system. We could easily create a parallel "Maryland Parkways" system.

[Markkos1992]

I am not aware if there was ever any discussion to add Canal Pkwy to usanp though I believe it is not qualified as MDSHA maintains it.  (though the history section in Wikipedia indicates that the NPS was indirectly involved in its construction)

There was some discussion about adding it to usamd, when MD 61 signage was briefly posted on temporary construction signs. Those signs are long gone.

Unrelated, but I did see Detour shields for MD 935 at its northern end at MD 36 yesterday.  I presume they are temporary, but there is also this which intrigued me enough to clinch the route just to make sure that it was unsigned.

[Duke87]

I don't see any reasonable means of adding this, nor justification for doing so.

As noted, it does not belong in usanp since it is not NPS-maintained. It does not belong in usasf since it's not a freeway. It doesn't belong in usamd since its internal MD 61 designation is not signed. And as Maryland does not have a whole system of parkways like New York does, there isn't justification for creating a usamdp to parallel usanyp.

[IMGoph]

I don't see any reasonable means of adding this, nor justification for doing so.

As noted, it does not belong in usanp since it is not NPS-maintained. It does not belong in usasf since it's not a freeway. It doesn't belong in usamd since its internal MD 61 designation is not signed. And as Maryland does not have a whole system of parkways like New York does, there isn't justification for creating a usamdp to parallel usanyp.

There is only one "state" route in DC (295). There is a system for that one. But the logic here tells me that there is no justification for that having been created.

I mean, I know that's a snarky retort, but let's be honest and say "I don't want to" when that's the justification. The "rules" are never that cut-and-dried, and we bend them here and there to make things fit into the overall framework.

[Markkos1992]

There is only one "state" route in DC (295). There is a system for that one. But the logic here tells me that there is no justification for that having been created.

Why is that?  DC 295 is a signed route. 

[michih]

There is only one "state" route in DC (295). There is a system for that one. But the logic here tells me that there is no justification for that having been created.

Why is that?  DC 295 is a signed route. 

A "whole" system with just one route?

Maryland does not have a whole system of parkways like New York does, there isn't justification for creating a usamdp to parallel usanyp.

[Markkos1992]

Yes, the only route signed in DC is DC 295.  Hence why usadc only has one route in it.

[Duke87]

Context matters here.

First of all, every state or state-equivalent jurisdiction in the US has a system of state/territory/district highways. For the sake of completeness DC must be included even if there is only one route there.
"State parkways" are not a thing every state has, they're a thing we've created systems for only in a couple states where major statewide systems of parkways exist. So there is not a need to chase down every parkway in every state for completeness, especially given you run into the "define parkway" problem. You can't just say "any state-maintained road whose name ends in parkway" because it's arbitrary whether their names do. MD 61 happens to be named "Canal Parkway" but it could just as easily be named "Canal Road". Would you argue for creating a "Maryland Parkways" system for it if it did?

Secondly, routes with signed numbers are generally the primary focus of the project. Routes that do not have signed numbers only end up included when there is a large categorical system of them, or when they otherwise clear some threshold of importance (usually requires they be a freeway). Most roads have names, and we're not going down the rabbit hole of trying to map everything.

If there is a system MD 61 would logically fit in, it'd be a system with all the other unsigned MD routes. Now, there is some support out there for creating systems of unsigned state routes at some point in the future but it's, um, a little controversial. Big debate/discussion of that here.

[IMGoph]

MD 61 happens to be named "Canal Parkway" but it could just as easily be named "Canal Road". Would you argue for creating a "Maryland Parkways" system for it if it did?

I *assume* this question was addressed to me, since I started the thread, but I'm not 100% sure. Anyway, I'll jump in!

I wouldn't argue for a Maryland Parkways system if this wasn't a parkway, but it *is,* so I'm not sure where this hypothetical is going.

The parkway is a parkway, built in part with the NPS, which is something we seem to map in a lot of states.

Look, I get it, there is a status quo here and I am the n00b asking to shake that up! I'll take the hint and STFU if that's what's warranted.

[Markkos1992]

I copied/pasted the usanp inclusion criteria from Duke87's Beach Dr thread.

1) a missing gap in an existing system (eg Mammoth Cave, California Routes, Yellowstone)
2) a specific NPS unit for the road (eg Natchez Trace, Blue Ridge, George Washington Memorial and Baltimore-Washington Parkways)
3) a through route linking roads already in (eg Painted Canyon Road)
4) an extension of an existing system into a park
5) roads that seem important enough and link with other roads - even if they dead-end

I guess Canal Pkwy would fit under numbers 4 and 5 to go into usanp if it was maintained by NPS instead of MDSHA.  That seems to be the main issue here.

[Markkos1992]

I am not aware if there was ever any discussion to add Canal Pkwy to usanp though I believe it is not qualified as MDSHA maintains it.  (though the history section in Wikipedia indicates that the NPS was indirectly involved in its construction)

There was some discussion about adding it to usamd, when MD 61 signage was briefly posted on temporary construction signs. Those signs are long gone.

Unrelated, but I did see Detour shields for MD 935 at its northern end at MD 36 yesterday.  I presume they are temporary, but there is also this which intrigued me enough to clinch the route just to make sure that it was unsigned.

For reference, here is the temporary detour signage for MD 935 from MD 36 SB.