usanyp: New York Parkways

[Duke87]

A bit esoteric, but...
I want to be absolutely sure the reference number is gone, and we don't have another bikes-only situation like MI185

M-185 is signed though. West River Parkway is not.

[yakra]

On the flipside, parkways by their nature play by different rules; they don't all have route shields in the traditional sense.

[neroute2]

On the flipside, parkways by their nature play by different rules; they don't have route shields in the traditional sense.

Eh? The majority of parkways do have shields.

[yakra]

Edited post.

I'll rethink my criteria for inclusion, and consider just including routes with traditional shields. Not promising any particular conclusion, though.

[cl94]

Eh? The majority of parkways do have shields.

As one of the more knowledgeable people in the community regarding NY roads, I should probably weigh in here. There are two distinctive features of a New York parkway: park-like features and a ban on trucks/buses/commercial vehicles (excluding Nassau/Suffolk south of NY 27). The NYSDOT "parkway list" is simply a listing of reference routes ending in 7, 8, or 9, which are assigned to "parkways". The majority of these are major routes worthy of inclusion. The problem is that a few of these are normal surface streets that just happen to have a reference route number because of how their construction was funded.

Any parkway worth including in the system has a shield. As far as what isn't signed with a shield, we have:

Bay Parkway (LI)
Cross Bay Parkway (Queens)
Ocean Parkway (Brooklyn)
Shore Front Parkway (Queens)
South Parkway (Grand Island)
West River Parkway (Grand Island)

Each of these is signed as a normal surface street. Cross Bay and Ocean Parkways are bus routes. Under the criteria for inclusion in state route systems, these would NOT meet the established TM criteria, as there is not a standalone/BGS shield with the name - they are signed as every other street would be signed. These aren't like "named freeways", because none of these are limited access and the significant majority of parkways are signed with shields. IMO, if we start including these parkways, we need to include routes like NJ 59 that are only signed with blades and routes like NJ 167 that are only signed with enhanced mile markers, because that's the level by which the six parkways listed above are signed.

[vdeane]

I don't think the Pelham Parkway is signed with a shield either.  At the very least, it's not on this list.  Nor is Prospect Mountain.

The spurs are another interesting issue - while the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur is pretty much a part of the parkway, the Lake Ontario State Parkway spur is functionally a connector road between the parkway, NY 18, and the park, no different from other connector reference routes like I-88 exit 24 or I-87 exit 33.  Neither one of those is signed with the shield and a spur banner either - the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur is signed as either "TO Niagara Scenic Parkway" or "Fort Niagara State Park" depending on direction, and the Lake Ontario State Parkway spur is signed as "TO Lake Ontario State Parkway", "Lakeside Beach State Park", and "TO NY 18".

Regarding reference route status, one could question why they were assigned parkway series reference route numbers if they weren't intended to be part of a parkway system rather than as a regular surface street.

[vdeane]

They've realigned the southern end of the northern section of Niagara Scenic Parkway to feed directly into Whirlpool Street, so FinDr should be moved to the intersection of Findlay Drive and Whirlpool Street.

[yakra]

Downloading some semi-recent shapefiles, but I suspect they may not be recent enough. Those weren't even shapefiles!
Once I can get some good coords from an open source, I'll make the change.

[yakra]

Checking the Simplified Streets shapefiles, the 957C designation has been removed between Long Rd & Oakfield Rd. Stubs between Oakfield Rd & South Parkway and between Long Rd and I-90 Exit 20A still exist.
If I'm fine with leaving out Drumgoole Rd & Kazimiroff Blvd, I'm fine leaving out these as well, if they're just stubs to a road that doesn't exist as such anymore. ...And isn't signed, as vdeane reports.

I wonder if this is uncharted territory for NYSDOT, or if there's precedent (other than the Niagara Scenic) for a parkway to be similarly downloaded or demolished, begging for changes to its reference route...
It could be they meant to retain these stubs as reference routes, don't consider them "Parkway" anymore, but didn't see a need for a corresponding ref# to change to something not ending in 7/8/9.
It could be that the person editing the shapefiles made some mistakes or omissions.
It could be many things.
But anyway.

WestRivPkwy is on its way out, and will be deleted soon.
Any other last comments?

[cl94]

West River Parkway was my biggest concern with nyp.

One final comment: The LOSP spur. It's really no different from connector reference routes like I-81 Exit 12 and I-87 Exit 22, but was inventoried as a parkway because it connects to a parkway and state park. AFAIK, this and the Robert Moses...er, Niagara Scenic Parkway spur are the only cases of a ref route that exists solely to connect to a parkway.

[vdeane]

I'd argue that the LOSP spur is more like I-88 exit 24 than I-81 exit 12 and I-87 exit 22.  At least the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur is arguably a short freeway (and, functionally, it could be argued that the Parkway splits into two branches with the spur being one of them).  If it were up to me, I think I would remove West River Parkway and the LOSP spur, and keep the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur.

[cl94]

If it were up to me, I think I would remove West River Parkway and the LOSP spur, and keep the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur.

I second this.

[yakra]

The LOSP spur. It's really no different from connector reference routes like I-81 Exit 12 and I-87 Exit 22, but was inventoried as a parkway because it connects to a parkway and state park. AFAIK, this and the Robert Moses...er, Niagara Scenic Parkway spur are the only cases of a ref route that exists solely to connect to a parkway.

There's 943F, and more arguably 981G.

I'd argue that the LOSP spur is more like I-88 exit 24 than I-81 exit 12 and I-87 exit 22.  At least the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur is arguably a short freeway (and, functionally, it could be argued that the Parkway splits into two branches with the spur being one of them).  If it were up to me, I think I would remove West River Parkway and the LOSP spur, and keep the Niagara Scenic Parkway spur.

There are plenty of short routes, plenty of at-grade junctions (even in usasf), and plenty of parkways serving parks. Putting these together, I still see no reason to treat this route as less than other inventoried parkways that are included.

I'm holding pretty firm on the criteria for inclusion;  wanna minimize the potential "why this" and "why not that" slippery slopes.

Bing imagery finally shows the reconfigured NiaScePkwy tie-in to Whirlpool & Findlay. I've tweaked OSM's geometry there, and plan to update NiaScePkwy, then activate.

[yakra]

We can't activate usanyp according to plan.
To quote the Comrade, there's a bip on the PIP!

Moving existing routes from usasf to usanyp reveals a problem:
ConnectedRoutes can only exist within a single system. All their chopped routes must be in the same system.

The Garden State Parkway and Palisades Interstate Parkway are interstate routes, crossing into NJ.
Leaving half of these ConnectedRoutes in usasf while moving half into usanyp breaks stuff.

Changing the criteria for inclusion to "7, 8, or 9 as the 3rd digit of the reference route number" would allow us to keep NY GarStaPkwy in usasf, but the PIP would still be a problem.

There are several options, none particularly appetizing:

• Move NJ PalIntPkwy into usanyp. But it's not a New York Parkway, is it?
• Move NY PalIntPkwy into usasf. But why should a route meeting all the criteria to be a New York Parkway be left out of the system and shunted over to usasf, just because it continues into another state?
• Separate the PIP out into 2 distinct ConnectedRoutes, one in NJ and one in NY. I don't like this either. It'd seem to defy user expectation; it clearly is a connected route, darnit!
• Rethink the ConnectedRoute concept, and maybe allow them to cover >1 system. Also a non-starter; the states pages and user logs are pretty reliant on the concept as it exists now. An inferior way to reinvent things for the sake of kluging in one new system...
• Scrap the usanyp system altogether, and move its routes over to usasf instead. A lot of these don't qualify as freeways though; an opportunity to remove a lot of the more contentious routes in this thread would probably be regarded as a Good Thing. Some routes might have a bit more discussion whether to keep or dump...

[si404]

• Move NJ PalIntPkwy into usanyp. But it's not a New York Parkway, is it?

It's a Metro New York Parkway.

Depends how much it quacks like a duck in NJ - if its signed differently to similar roads in the Garden State, but similarly to similar roads in the Empire State...

We do, after all, have state highways that cross state lines. Though nowhere near as much as the 11 miles here. Only thing I can think of that's similar is Armenian roads pushing into Azerbaijan, but there they view (or viewed, given the recent treaty, but at least one road will remain) the bit of Azerbaijan as mostly not Azerbaijan and entirely under their control. Oh, and Russian systems extending into Crimea...

• Move NY PalIntPkwy into usasf. But why should a route meeting all the criteria to be a New York Parkway be left out of the system and shunted over to usasf, just because it continues into another state?

Depends how much it quacks like a duck in NY - the name clearly makes it out to be 'interstate'.

• Separate the PIP out into 2 distinct ConnectedRoutes, one in NJ and one in NY. I don't like this either. It'd seem to defy user expectation; it clearly is a connected route, darnit!

This is far worse than a route ill-fitting a system.

• Rethink the ConnectedRoute concept, and maybe allow them to cover >1 system. Also a non-starter; the states pages and user logs are pretty reliant on the concept as it exists now. An inferior way to reinvent things for the sake of kluging in one new system...

A sledgehammer to crack a nut that doesn't really need cracking.

• Scrap the usanyp system altogether, and move its routes over to usasf instead. A lot of these don't qualify as freeways though; an opportunity to remove a lot of the more contentious routes in this thread would probably be regarded as a Good Thing. Some routes might have a bit more discussion whether to keep or dump...

There's a deliberate reason why this system has been separated out from usasf. And it's more than just the usakyp thing of "well these usasf routes are a system in their own right". And part of why this is its own system are those non-freeway routes.


So I vote for PIP in whichever of usanyp or usasf fits the route best - both have problems, but its far less problematic than the other options. Gut based on a quick look as an outsider to that part of the world, and those roads, suggests that usanyp is the place for it.

As for the GSP - even the bit in NY does make much sense as a New York Parkway, as it's clearly a New Jersey one by the name!