Canada and USA state/province/territorial highways master thread

[froggie]

I'd like to get the Alabama and Mississippi systems going at some point since those are my states, but given that the semester is in full swing, it'll be end of May at the earliest.

[si404]

US89 Temp reminded me:

Navajo Routes - do we make a system for them? What about other similar systems of roads?

[oscar]

Uh, no.

My impression is that most of the tribal routes are unpaved roads (N-20 was paved only when it was pressed into service as Temp US 89), serving mainly local travel. US and state routes cross the Navajo and other reservations, to handle regional/long-distance travel. So I'd give this no higher priority than county routes (which is to say, not for many years at the earliest).

[mapmikey]

I'd like to get the Alabama and Mississippi systems going at some point since those are my states, but given that the semester is in full swing, it'll be end of May at the earliest.

I could start one or both of these and turn them over when you are ready (i kinda enjoy putting together these sets) in exchange for a SC peer review...?

Mike

[the_spui_ninja]

Uh, no.

My impression is that most of the tribal routes are unpaved roads (N-20 was paved only when it was pressed into service as Temp US 89), serving mainly local travel. US and state routes cross the Navajo and other reservations, to handle regional/long-distance travel. So I'd give this no higher priority than county routes (which is to say, not for many years at the earliest).

Probably even lower, as it's a lot harder to dig up info on the BIA routes than county routes.

[vdeane]

Are US county routes even on the todo list?  If so, it looks like the bar for "clinching" NY is going to be a moving target for a very long time (and go up by several orders of magnitude).

[Jim]

Are US county routes even on the todo list?  If so, it looks like the bar for "clinching" NY is going to be a moving target for a very long time (and go up by several orders of magnitude).

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't go to that level of highways in the main Travel Mapping project.  That said, I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to create the files and have an alternate version of the site (everything's out there on GitHub).  I have toyed with the idea of having even small areas (such as cites where I've lived or worked) plotted out to the level of city streets as an example I could use for my related academic projects.  But I'd never see those as data sets we'd want in the primary project.

[si404]

County Roads seems rather excessive, absolutely. As do BIA routes.

[Jim]

Are US county routes even on the todo list?  If so, it looks like the bar for "clinching" NY is going to be a moving target for a very long time (and go up by several orders of magnitude).

Related to this, one place we could expand in NY is to include the reference routes.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of or against doing this, but at the least, I believe they're unambiguous (unlike the truck routes we already are attempting to include).  Most are relatively short so could be plotted fairly easily.  It looks like there are a few hundred of them listed in the NYSDOT Traffic Data Report.

[vdeane]

Related to this, one place we could expand in NY is to include the reference routes.  I'm not saying I'm in favor of or against doing this, but at the least, I believe they're unambiguous (unlike the truck routes we already are attempting to include).  Most are relatively short so could be plotted fairly easily.  It looks like there are a few hundred of them listed in the NYSDOT Traffic Data Report.

Indeed, especially since at least some other state-level places are considering including secondaries (notably Alberta), which is what the reference routes essentially are, albeit unsigned.  The one issue is that I haven't heard anything about adding unsigned state/US routes.  There's also the interesting case of the two lane wyes (which get inventoried with a reference route number on one branch).

I believe there's also the proposed NY Parkways system.  We probably wouldn't want to do both, as I'm pretty sure all the ones the state considers itself as having interest in have reference route numbers (though that does have some interesting cases - the Belt is multiple reference route numbers, while the Sagtikos and Sunken Meadow share one).

[yakra]

I'm against including the NY reference routes. The big reason is because they're unsigned (little green reference markers notwithstanding). There's also the parkway ugliness vdeane mentioned.

[oscar]

I agree with yakra. The route numbers on NY reference markers are smaller than on the small number plates under milemarkers in Hawaii, or the route numbers on postmiles or callbox signs in California. We excluded Hawaii routes signed only with number plates, and in California I'm treating postmiles and callbox signs similarly (see my note in the usaca thread on removing CA 259 from that system).

I'm not opposed to narrow exceptions to our normal exclusion of routes without conventional route markers. But the potentially hundreds of additional routes added with a NY reference routes system would not be a narrow exception.

[Bickendan]

OTOH, I am thinking about adding Oregon's named highways (internal highway numbers vs signed route numbers), but it's also something I'm not especially worried about.

[yakra]

I'm not opposed to narrow exceptions to our normal exclusion of routes without conventional route markers.

I'd be hesitant to allow that. I fear it opening up a Pandora's Box of "You did this; why don't you do this?"

[mapcat]

I'd be hesitant to allow that. I fear it opening up a Pandora's Box of "You did this; why don't you do this?"

+1. Case in point: US33 Truck (Goshen, IN), which has no conventional route markers and doesn't belong in the usausb set IMO.