Tennessee State Highways (usatn)

[mapcat]

If the trend is for Tennessee to post the mile markers like this relatively new marker on US 72/TN 86 near the Mississippi border linked below, than it might be enough to say they are posted.  Even at the current size mile marker, the state number can be seen at highway speeds.  So unless Tennessee is phasing this style of mile marker out, I would have no problem including the hidden ones...

https://goo.gl/maps/kyZPQHce2MN2

That's what I was referring in my example of US 70 in Carroll County having 1 (for TN 1) on the mile marker instead of 70. Internally TDOT seems to always refer to all US routes by their TN numbers and only sometimes by their US numbers:

http://www.tn.gov/tdot/topic/sr-460-us-64-somerville-beltway-fayette-county
http://www.tn.gov/tdot/topic/state-route-1-interchange-at-state-route-10-96
http://www.tn.gov/tdot/topic/state-route-34-us-11e

Since all maps (including the official state highway map) show the TN numbers along with the US numbers, it would not be difficult to determine where all of them are. It would be significantly easier than determining the locations of all the signed segments of otherwise-hidden routes. The only reason not to is that, traditionally, unsigned routes (except interstates) are ignored.

[mapmikey]

By trend I meant with larger signs.  The state route number has been on small mile markers like you posted from US 70 for at least 30 years.  You can see those at highway speeds, too...

[bejacob]

Since all maps (including the official state highway map) show the TN numbers along with the US numbers, it would not be difficult to determine where all of them are. It would be significantly easier than determining the locations of all the signed segments of otherwise-hidden routes. The only reason not to is that, traditionally, unsigned routes (except interstates) are ignored.

Since the unsigned segments are on the official maps, they are officials routes IMHO. Based on the fact that these are on the state highway map, I'm still in favor of having the states routes from end to end even if parts are unsigned. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the unsigned segments concurrent with another route? (meaning those parts would not add additional clinchable mileage anyway). I'll admit that signage is important especially in the field, but if we know where the routes are (based on the state map), I think it makes sense not to worry about which parts are signed and which parts are not. Draft the files for the entirety of the routes.

[mapcat]

Thanks for the suggestions so far. I'll ping James to get his input since he's maintained the state for several years.

How do we deal with concurrencies that aren't really even implied concurrencies? TN 129 appears to end on US 31A here and then begin again about 2.5 miles north here. TDOT documentation shows it as two separate routes; the same database includes many other unsigned concurrencies with US routes.

[michih]

How do we deal with concurrencies that aren't really even implied concurrencies? TN 129 appears to end on US 31A here and then begin again about 2.5 miles north here. TDOT documentation shows it as two separate routes; the same database includes many other unsigned concurrencies with US routes.

I would not split the route because the distance between the end/beginning is small.

[yakra]

I originally had NS2 in two segments, split by NS102 (DOT documentation was pretty clear about there being a gap); Tim advised me to join them together.
As usual, not a 1:1 comparison: There's TO {2} signage at each end.

[rickmastfan67]

Since all maps (including the official state highway map) show the TN numbers along with the US numbers, it would not be difficult to determine where all of them are. It would be significantly easier than determining the locations of all the signed segments of otherwise-hidden routes. The only reason not to is that, traditionally, unsigned routes (except interstates) are ignored.

Since the unsigned segments are on the official maps, they are officials routes IMHO. Based on the fact that these are on the state highway map, I'm still in favor of having the states routes from end to end even if parts are unsigned. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the unsigned segments concurrent with another route? (meaning those parts would not add additional clinchable mileage anyway). I'll admit that signage is important especially in the field, but if we know where the routes are (based on the state map), I think it makes sense not to worry about which parts are signed and which parts are not. Draft the files for the entirety of the routes.

I would say NO to unsigned segments.  Reason is this is similar to Florida, as they like to attach SR's to all the US Highways & Interstates too, but I'm not adding in any SR unsigned segments in that state.  Some are completely hidden (like FL-9A under I-295), some have short segments of being signed (FL-20 has 3 different posted segments).

[mapcat]

I would say NO to unsigned segments.  Reason is this is similar to Florida, as they like to attach SR's to all the US Highways & Interstates too, but I'm not adding in any SR unsigned segments in that state.  Some are completely hidden (like FL-9A under I-295), some have short segments of being signed (FL-20 has 3 different posted segments).

Thanks. Are you ok with me doing all of the TN routes as a single system (rather than primary/secondary)? One concern is all the TNsX point labels in the .wpts.

[bejacob]

I would say NO to unsigned segments.  Reason is this is similar to Florida, as they like to attach SR's to all the US Highways & Interstates too, but I'm not adding in any SR unsigned segments in that state.  Some are completely hidden (like FL-9A under I-295), some have short segments of being signed (FL-20 has 3 different posted segments).

Thanks. Are you ok with me doing all of the TN routes as a single system (rather than primary/secondary)? One concern is all the TNsX point labels in the .wpts.

Good point on the secondary waypoints. I'm still in favor of a single system for the TN state routes. That probably means renaming all the TNsX waypoints on existing routes to TNX. I know that will cause log errors, but given that you'll be adding a new tier to the state, I feel it's just part of the expansion process.

[Jim]

I would say NO to unsigned segments.  Reason is this is similar to Florida, as they like to attach SR's to all the US Highways & Interstates too, but I'm not adding in any SR unsigned segments in that state.  Some are completely hidden (like FL-9A under I-295), some have short segments of being signed (FL-20 has 3 different posted segments).

Thanks. Are you ok with me doing all of the TN routes as a single system (rather than primary/secondary)? One concern is all the TNsX point labels in the .wpts.

Good point on the secondary waypoints. I'm still in favor of a single system for the TN state routes. That probably means renaming all the TNsX waypoints on existing routes to TNX. I know that will cause log errors, but given that you'll be adding a new tier to the state, I feel it's just part of the expansion process.

You can keep them all, or just the ones in use, as hidden alternate labels.  We should avoid breaking people's lists for routes in active systems just because we're developing something new.

[mapcat]

I don't really care but was asking James since he would be the one making the edits, since it's still his state. It's not my place to put him in a position to have to do more work.

[mapcat]

I'm done with the research and will probably begin drafting the routes this week. Based on the comments, for now I will plan on treating usatn as a single system, rather than separate primary/secondary. Looking at the routes in GMSV, it's obvious that signage is inconsistent, with primary and secondary signs occasionally being used for the same segment of a route.

How to deal with the unsigned routes isn't as clear, and my solution will probably not please everyone.

• A totally unsigned route that is signed as another route (e.g. TN26, which is signed as US70 between Lebanon and Sparta) will be ignored, even though its number appears on mile markers.
• A totally unsigned route that is not signed as any other route (e.g. TN300, a short freeway in Memphis) will be ignored. I looked for mile markers on TN300, to see if they mentioned the number, and found none. It's less than 2 miles long.
• A partly signed route that is not signed as another route (e.g. TN 8 within Chattanooga) will be included, even if signage seems old or only occurs at one end.
• A route that is signed by itself, but not signed when following another route, will be split into separate routes except when:

• "TO" signage is included at at least one location where the route ends
• the segments of the route exist a short distance from each other, such as being within the same county, and don't follow different routes in between
• the unsigned segment is a short segment of an otherwise long, consistently signed route

An extreme example of a split route deserving separate segments is TN66, which has three separate 0 mile markers over a very short (but convoluted) distance. But that is extreme, and I think there's only one other example of a three-part route (TN77). Most of the routes will only have one segment, and about thirty will have two. Overall there should be around 425 routes, including the unnumbered part of the James White Pkwy, which ought to be in usasf.

[yakra]

the segments of the route exist a short distance from each other, such as being within the same county, and don't follow different routes in between

I came across some conundrums that tie into mostly this point while working on the Arkansas cleanup. No time to type my thoughts and questions out now unfortunately.

[rickmastfan67]

I don't really care but was asking James since he would be the one making the edits, since it's still his state. It's not my place to put him in a position to have to do more work.

If you need to make changes to labels along multiplexes, go for it!  There shouldn't be any problems as long as you hide the original label if it's in use.

I would say NO to unsigned segments.  Reason is this is similar to Florida, as they like to attach SR's to all the US Highways & Interstates too, but I'm not adding in any SR unsigned segments in that state.  Some are completely hidden (like FL-9A under I-295), some have short segments of being signed (FL-20 has 3 different posted segments).

Thanks. Are you ok with me doing all of the TN routes as a single system (rather than primary/secondary)? One concern is all the TNsX point labels in the .wpts.

I think a single system should be ok.  I've heard that Tennessee is possibly planning on merging them together themselves in the near future anyways, so, we might as well beat them to the punch. lol.

[si404]

One concern is all the TNsX point labels in the .wpts.

We can deal with fairly easily, though it is a little bit of work - depends on how many are in use though - it could be 10 seconds a file, or a couple of minutes. Simply do find/replace on existing files and then reinsert the in use ones as hidden points.