Even if the state is treating the closures as temporary?
I discuss the IN 912 precedent above. Basically, that closure was thought to be permanent, only that (assumed?) decision was reversed later,
A closure for repairs or (re)construction that lasts weeks, or even a few months, is one thing. But if a closure lasts several years with no definite plans or specific time frame to reopen, that's another...
prompting some grumbling from people who'd clinched the route before what turned out to be a temporary closure.
Yes, their maps won't show a small segment, and their precise mileages won't be exactly tickety-boo. But they'd still be able to mark a 100% clinch of what we
do have in the system.
On the flipside, consider the traveler who visits Cordova, and dutifully drives everything open and accessible, only to return home a few thousand miles away, check the HB, and find...
SURPRISE! He Got Robbed! There's a section of the route listed in the HB that's not traveled, and not
able to be traveled.
IMO the plight of this latter group of travelers outweighs that of the first group.
Ultimately we should be working towards something that makes it easy for users to plan, execute, and document their travels.
Coordinates:
If point coords / OSM are a moving target, it's probably not worth the hassle of making however-many passes to tighten them up.
One, for AK 10 (Cordova), is an exception for a route the state has tried to sign, only to be frustrated by persistent sign vandalism.
I thought about this history as I considered the route. Didn't they state relent, and stop attempting to sign the route? That makes it a de facto unsigned route. (For whatever reason, the state is not signing it.)
Another, for both segments, is to limit exceptions to jurisdictions that don't assign or post route numbers for most of their highways (in Alaska, there are hundreds of state-maintained highways, but only about two dozen have route numbers).
Maine is not 100% dissimilar. We have loads of unnumbered state & state-aid highways, without posted route numbers, only internal inventory route numbers similar to the six-digit codes AK DOT uses. If "ME1C" & "ME5B" have ordinary "touring route" numbers but are unsigned, should they be included? I say they should not.
Such an exception could be used to justify all kinds of inclusions, ones that might not be Good Things.
I think we've relaxed the unsigned routes rule in systems and jurisdictions outside North America where route signage practices are different than those in most of the U.S. and Canada. Right?
I can't speak with any knowledge here; I've paid much less attention to the goings-on outside North America.
No, I included points for all the pump stations that are on or near AK 11, AK 2, or AK 4. Only gaps in the number sequence are where the station is far from the highway, or was never built.
Hm. Are they really useful to most regional travelers who'd be using this site though. If they're not needed for shaping or breaking up long visible distance, I'd say nix them.