Scenic Byways

[navigator]

I'm wondering if anyone finds merit in eventually having a scenic byway section in the hb. To me they are interesting and I have started seeking them out when I have enough free time to explore while in another state. In MN (Minnesota River Scenic Byway), WI (Great River Road), and KS (Flint Hills) I have seen them signed (I really didn't pay attention for signage on previous byways), but at the same time I'm unsure if a given US state will sign all the roads in their state byway system or just major/tourist portions. There are also federally designated byways -- National Scenic Byway, and All-American Roads (AAR). Red Rock Scenic Byway in AZ is an AAR I have also seen signed.

I got to thinking about bringing this up as I was searching for KML's for a trip to Oregon, and ODOT's site happens maintains a KML file including all of the state's scenic byways at this link: https://gis.odot.state.or.us/arcgis/rest/services/transgis/data_catalog_display/MapServer/generateKml

*Oregon Scenic Byways in check box #85 on the list of Generate KML options.

It just seemed to me that, if they include it on the state run database, their byway system is of more importance than to leave it to individual counties of Oregon to intellectually maintain the routes' presence or provide the database/travel information by themselves. I have also seen Minnesota Scenic Byways on bulletin board maps at Rest Areas, but I haven't yet searched for or come across the traced routes online

While I would be all for the inclusion, I will think of any downsides: scenic routes may cover ground on portions of county roads or streets that would otherwise have no value to Travel Mapping in general; lack of interest in adding scenic byways in itself; some byways might not be signed; some states may be inconsistent in how they maintain authority of their byways (do any relegate authority to counties?); site clutter

[neroute2]

The Great River Road is a definite, being signed just like any other route (in some states).

[Duke87]

I would vote no on this idea, in part for some reasons you have already raised.

To my eyes this would be not just unnecessary site clutter (scenic byways are mostly redundant with existing systems anyway - mostly), but also headache inducing for any traveler attempting to finish clinching a jurisdiction, who would now be expected to grab some random segments here and there of county and local roads that happen to have been designated part of a byway.

Also worth noting is that byways tend to be signed only supplementary to the numbered routes they run along, and signage is often infrequent or spotty. There is for example absolutely no signage at all for the Lake Ontario Circle Tour, and the Lake Erie Circle Tour is not signed in New York or Ontario.

I am of the mind that we should be sticking, at least within North America, to numbered roads on the state highway level or greater, with only occasional exceptions for other roads that are major enough to warrant inclusion (e.g. NY Parkways, the occasional freeway out there with no signed number)


That said... if we end up implementing a site feature where users are able to "mute" systems they aren't interested in tracking travels on, then I would withdraw my objection.

[cl94]

Generally, I'd object to including byways as well with some exceptions for MAJOR byways (Great River Road is the main one that comes to mind). In many states, byways just duplicate state routes, and if we include EVERY byway, it will get cumbersome. Take the Dutchess County Historic Tour in NY, for example. That winds around the entire county and covers portions of almost every remotely-major road. That does not need to be on here.

[yakra]

Also worth noting is that byways tend to be signed only supplementary to the numbered routes they run along, and signage is often infrequent or spotty. There is for example absolutely no signage at all for the Lake Ontario Circle Tour, and the Lake Erie Circle Tour is not signed in New York or Ontario.

inconsistent, sometimes quite poor, signage combined with insufficient GMSV coverage is the reason the Nova Scotia Scenic Travelways have been sitting on the backburner in devel status.

Lots of mileage piggybacking on cannst & cannsc, but in places filling in some significant gaps in the network; the Fleur-de-Lis Trail comes to mind. And of course, the big motivator for including this system is unsigned NS30, A.K.A. the Cabot Trail. A tourist draw in its own right, and the main trunk route around the north side of Cape Breton.

[vdeane]

I'm not too keen on having to worry about scenic byways.  Seems like it would have the same issues as the Historic US Routes, but on a larger scale.

[Jim]

There are certainly some I'd like to see (maybe Great River Road is an example) but we'd definitely have to make it "Select Scenic Roads" and make sure we only include those for which we can be confident about the routing and only those that aren't just overlapped with existing TM highways.  No harm in someone putting together a devel system to see how it goes for a subset of interesting ones.