What will happen to the Select Numbered State Freeways system?

[bejacob]

Now that GA, SC, TN, and VA state routes are in preview status, 29 of the 41 routes in this set could be moved to their respective state systems. Other than keeping those routes as part of an active system, is there a compelling reason why these routes belong in a tier 3 system as opposed to a tier 4 system like the rest of the state routes?

I can understand not wanting to incorporate them into the state systems until the latter are activated, though from my perceptive, given that preview systems appear on the regional maps the same way active systems do, I wouldn't have an problem seeing these route moved now. I know the active stats would drop until the respective state systems are activated, but it would also get rid of the log errors on routes that are currently in both the state numbered freeways and their state system (VA7, GA316, etc.).

I know there would be some effort of the part of TM collaborators to make this change and there are probably factors I'm not considering.

Thoughts?

[mapcat]

There's really no reason to delete these from usansf while their related state system is in preview. But there's also no need to have a version in a state system in preview while the version in usansf exists. One is enough and it's easy to merge them into their state system at activation.

[dfilpus]

But there's also no need to have a version in a state system in preview while the version in usansf exists. One is enough and it's easy to merge them into their state system at activation.

There are several routes in usansf which are longer state routes that have been truncated to freeway only segments. One example is VA 7, which is in usasnf as va007fwy.wpt and in usava as va007.wpt. It has been proposed, but not implemented, to replace all of these files with the full length file (properly named) in usansf.

[mapcat]

There are several routes in usansf which are longer state routes that have been truncated to freeway only segments. One example is VA 7, which is in usasnf as va007fwy.wpt and in usava as va007.wpt. It has been proposed, but not implemented, to replace all of these files with the full length file (properly named) in usansf.

Right, that's what I was saying. One complete route file would be enough rather than different ones in different systems, which Jim has said generates more questions about log issues than anything else.

[bejacob]

There's really no reason to delete these from usansf while their related state system is in preview. But there's also no need to have a version in a state system in preview while the version in usansf exists. One is enough and it's easy to merge them into their state system at activation.

It sounds like the plan is to merge them into the state systems, but not until those systems move from preview to active. Is that what I'm hearing? That certainly makes sense. I wasn't proposing an immediate change, especially since GA and TN state routes just became preview system.

It seems the long range goal is to develop all the state systems, meaning eventually there would be no need for this to exist as a separate system. I assume the select numbered state system was developed to cover freeway routes in areas where the state routes had not yet been drafted. It's an unusual collection of roads that does serve a good purpose. I've driven almost 20% of the mileage and am in no hurry to lose the ~132 miles from my active stats.

I was just wondering what the eventual plan for the system might be.

[yakra]

It sounds like the plan is to merge them into the state systems, but not until those systems move from preview to active. Is that what I'm hearing?

Correct.

It seems the long range goal is to develop all the state systems, meaning eventually there would be no need for this to exist as a separate system. I assume the select numbered state system was developed to cover freeway routes in areas where the state routes had not yet been drafted.

Also correct. Once all the state systems are active, USANSF will cease to be.

[bejacob]

It sounds like the plan is to merge them into the state systems, but not until those systems move from preview to active. Is that what I'm hearing?

Correct.

It seems the long range goal is to develop all the state systems, meaning eventually there would be no need for this to exist as a separate system. I assume the select numbered state system was developed to cover freeway routes in areas where the state routes had not yet been drafted.

Also correct. Once all the state systems are active, USANSF will cease to be.

Thanks.

[Jim]

It would be really good if a couple people were willing to do some peer review on the full-length versions that are in preview systems to make sure they're ready to move into usansf.  It's just confusing to people the way it is now.

[compdude787]

Since California's state highway system is still in development, it would be nice to have CA's state routes that are freeways in the usansf system.

[michih]

I think the US highway systems should be completed instead of temporarily adding selected routes to usansf.

I asked to introduce a similar European system (tier 5) but the idea was generally rejected.

The United States kind of had that with the select state freeway system before it was decided to map all the primary state highway systems.

Adding the next tier of road systems would mean that the European Select Named Freeways could be more easily limited to just those routes that are more of motorway quality, tollways, tunnels, or bridges that are a gap in the system, etc. instead of having people ask to have this road or that road added to the system.

You can already add traveled routes of devel or future devel systems to your list file, e.g. commented with # to avoid getting log file errors. It does not yet count for stats but you won't forget these routes.

[Jim]

I support our current approach of whittling away these grab bag systems and not adding anything new to them that would one day be part of a more complete system.

[si404]

Since California's state highway system is still in development, it would be nice to have CA's state routes that are freeways in the usansf system.

The main reason they aren't is the still. When usansf was first invented on CHM, work on the full California State Highways system had begun as one of the first states to have it, and the expectation was that there was no point putting the CA freeways in the placeholder system if they were going to move into the proper system soon.

Of course, 40-something states' state highway system activations later and usaca is (for legit reasons) still not finished.

The only CA route that might be added is CA905, should we decide to abolish the usaif system before usaca reaches preview (so people can keep their travels on I-905Fut).

[compdude787]

That's fine. No rush with the usaca system. As long as it's at least in preview status by June when I plan on doing a road trip to California, that's all that matters.

[mapcat]

It would be really good if a couple people were willing to do some peer review on the full-length versions that are in preview systems to make sure they're ready to move into usansf.  It's just confusing to people the way it is now.

Markkos1992 has looked at Virginia, and I was able to look at the two relevant routes in Georgia, GA166 and GA316 (GA400 currently only has an entry in usansf).

GA166:
US29 location doesn't match up with its location in the GA166 (Fwy) route, but this is ok since the usaga version locates this point in the right place
FleStSW -> FleSt
LakAveSW -> LakAve
CapFerRd probably not needed since it's less than half a mile from the GA5 waypoint. I can see how this road eventually connects to South Fulton Pkwy, so it may be justifiable on that account, but otherwise it seems unnecessary.
It might be useful to locate a waypoint in the Jonesville community, almost exactly where +X001 is currently.
Otherwise it looks good.

GA316:
Looks fine as is.

I recommend that, once the above suggestions are addressed, the usansf files for these routes be replaced with the files drafted for usaga.


Edit: I extended TN111 and TN155 in usansf last month while working on usatn, so if anyone wants to check those out, please let me know about anything I overlooked.

[theFXexpert]

I'll get the GA changes in sometime this week.