OR: I-30 BL St Helens

[Bickendan]

The title's ironically quite correct.

Per https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32145.msg2770302#msg2770302, I drove up to St Helens today to field check this, and Bus 30 is well signed along eastbound Gable Rd and Old Portland Rd, and in both directions along Columbia Blvd. The photo in the AARoads thread is at Old Portland and 1st. No BUS US 30 assemblies, all green interstate shields.
No signage from US 30, however.

This isn't an ODOT recognized loop, as that was decomissioned a while back, if ever a formal ODOT route (I don't see a decom entry for US 30 Bus in the Oregon Named Highways list); I doubt AASHTO heard of this without diving into the AASHTO thread at AARoads.

As the route is well signed in the field: Do we add this to our database, and if so, as US 30 Bus, or as signed as I-30 BL (despite being nowhere close to I-30 itself)?
If not, at minimum, the StHelSt point for US 30 needs to be looked at to see if it should changed to ColBlvd, as that's the dominant portion of the St Helens St/Columbia Blvd couplet.

[the_spui_ninja]

So I'm betting what happened is the city decided they wanted a business loop, ordered signs via a form, clicked the wrong type of shield, and then received all the I-30 BL signage. To be be both frugal and environmentally friendly (waste not want not!), they used the signs anyway (all of this is conjecture). Honestly, I'd be down for adding this in as I-30 BL as kind of a collaborator inside joke, a mockery of bad city-spec signage, but that really shouldn't hold any weight.

Was there any signage from 30 itself?

[Bickendan]

Nothing from northbound (westbound) US 30; it's possible there might be something coming in from Columbia City, but I doubt it.

I'm inclined to do draft this as signed myself, with the collaborator inside joke angle as a bonus.

[the_spui_ninja]

I'm inclined to do draft this as signed myself, with the collaborator inside joke angle as a bonus.

I'm for that.

[si404]

I'm inclined to do draft this as signed myself, with the collaborator inside joke angle as a bonus.

I'm for that.

me too

[oscar]

I'm not in favor of elevating a set of sign-os into a new (fake) Interstate business route. Yeah, it's amusing as an "inside joke", but not so amusing when it screws up users' statistics.

[Jim]

I'm with Oscar on this.  Maybe someday if we get the user-selectable subsets of highway systems we could have a system for erroneously signed routes or something like that, but for now I'd like to keep routes to the actual systems they're (supposed to be) in.

[Bickendan]

US 30: Renamed points StHelSt and GabRd to US30BStH_N and US30BStH_S, respectively. Original tags preserved as AltTags.

US 30B St Helens: Routed created.


I'm still inclined to created a duplicate I-30BL file to match signage

As an aside, as my update.csv and usausb.csv's are woefully out of date, could that be dealt with for me?

[mapcat]

The endpoints on US30BusStH should be US30_S and US30_N, not US30BStH_S and US30BStH_N.