usanp (U.S. National Park Highways)

[froggie]

Most (if not all) of the Blue Ridge Parkway and Natchez Trace Parkway errors are false positives.  There are some lengthy segments between access points on both.

[yakra]

The BigOakRd label self-ref can be fixed by renaming that point to TioPassRd. BigOakRd is a point in use, so list files would be broken.

LABEL_SELFREF is only flagged for primary labels, so BigOakRd could become an AltLabel.
.lists can still be broken though, as usanp is still a preview system.

[yakra]

I'll take care of the Maine and Texas entries.

[si404]

I've gone through the bolded entries (ie non-vis dis). Adding them to datacheckfps.log (including Maine, which I'd got to earlier). I'll green stuff that will be listed as false positives after my pull request gets merged.

[yakra]

Oh man. I didn't see your response till after I opened a pull request and edited my last comment. I'll have to watch & see if there are conflicts to resolve.
Edit: Oh wait. I don't see any of your changes in GitHub yet.
In my copy, I deleted one of ParkLpRd's shaping points, so there was only one entry to mark FP.
In Texas, I was able to add visible points to break up distance.

[si404]

I've gone and removed the Maine stuff from what I was going to do, so there won't be conflicts. I've not put them in yet, as I'm blitzing through several other preview-level system's datacheck entries as a bit of New Year's cleaning.

[oscar]

The BigOakRd label self-ref can be fixed by renaming that point to TioPassRd. BigOakRd is a point in use, so list files would be broken.

LABEL_SELFREF is only flagged for primary labels, so BigOakRd could become an AltLabel.
.lists can still be broken though, as usanp is still a preview system.

True. But I've made an exception for a system about to be activated, which is where Si seems to be going. So it'll be TioPassRd +BigOakRd in my pull request tonight.

[si404]

True. But I've made an exception for a system about to be activated, which is where Si seems to be going.

Indeed...

I'm struggling to think what is left to be done. Are people happy with Sunday?

I believe the following changes would need to be made on activation (of which only the Virginia one isn't either my region or a free-for-all)

2019-01-06;(US) Maryland;MD295;md.md295;Truncated at south end from US50/MD201 to MD175
2019-01-06;(US) Montana;US20;mt.us020;Route truncated at east end from Wyoming border to Yellowstone National Park Entrance
2019-01-06;(US) Montana;US89;mt.us089;Route truncated at south end from Wyoming border to Yellowstone National Park Entrance
2019-01-06;(US) Montana;US191 (West Yellowstone);mt.us191wye;Route truncated at south end from Wyoming border to Yellowstone National Park Entrance
2019-01-06;(US) Montana;US212 (Cooke City);mt.us212coo;Route truncated at west end from Wyoming border to Yellowstone National Park Entrance
2019-01-06;(US) Montana;US287;mt.us287;Route truncated at south end from Wyoming border to Yellowstone National Park Entrance
2019-01-06;(US) Virginia;George Washington Parkway;va.gwmempkwy;Route deleted (replaced by usanp version)
2019-01-06;(US) Wyoming;US14;wy.us014;Route truncated at west end from US89/191 to Yellowstone National Park Entrance
2019-01-06;(US) Wyoming;US16;wy.us016;Route truncated at west end from US89/191 to Yellowstone National Park Entrance
2019-01-06;(US) Wyoming;US20;wy.us020;Route truncated at west end from Montana border to Yellowstone National Park Entrance
2019-01-06;(US) Wyoming;US89;wy.us089;Route truncated at north end from Montana border to Yellowstone National Park Entrance
2019-01-06;(US) Wyoming;US191;wy.us191;Route truncated at north end from Montana border to Yellowstone National Park Entrance
2019-01-06;(US) Wyoming;US212 (Yellowstone National Park);wy.neentrd;Route deleted (replaced with Northeast Entrance Road)
2019-01-06;(US) Wyoming;US287;wy.us287;Route truncated at north end from Montana border to Yellowstone National Park Entrance

[michih]

With these 146 routes - and deleting of 2 routes - we will have 30,017 active routes then

[oscar]

In Wyoming, what about the parts of US 26/89/191/287 within Grand Teton NP, and the part of US 89/191/287 between Grand Teton NP and Yellowstone NP that is concurrent with the Rockefeller Memorial Parkway? I guess we're treating those US routes as existing within Grand Teton NP but not Yellowstone NP. I'm not sure that's wrong, but just checking.

I've edited the local copy of my list file to delete the US routes within Yellowstone NP, and replace them with the corresponding park roads. But I've not added the Rockefeller Memorial Parkway, since it's concurrent with parts of other routes not targeted for truncation.

[si404]

In Wyoming, what about the parts of US 26/89/191/287 within Grand Teton NP, and the part of US 89/191/287 between Grand Teton NP and Yellowstone NP that is concurrent with the Rockefeller Memorial Parkway? I guess we're treating those US routes as existing within Grand Teton NP but not Yellowstone NP. I'm not sure that's wrong, but just checking.

Yep - the logs for the US routes have a discontinuity in Yellowstone* (which IIRC is unique - the other candidate of US441 Great Smokey Mountains doesn't actually do this), but continue through the other NPS properties.

I think this is partially as Yellowstone predates the US highway system, whereas Grand Teton is from 1929 and the JD Rockefeller Parkway is from 1972 (and existed to give the NPS continuous land). Similar is why US180 ends at the entrance to Grand Canyon NP. Other early NPs don't, I believe, have US routes nearby to not go through them.

*cf this on the old CHM forum. For completeness, while I'm on the old forum, this thread, and this one ought to be linked in as early discussion on this topic.

[oscar]

Topic moved to Completed Highway Systems Threads, since usanp was activated over the weekend.

I'd like to request/suggest a few points on Utah's Needles Scenic Drive in Canyonland National Park. The point I'm requesting is for the Wooden Shoe Overlook, west of existing waypoint ResRd. I have a photo confirming that I went to that overlook (and also that I traveled part of the scenic drive, as well as all of UT 211). But I don't remember if I went any farther west on the scenic drive. My visit to the park was about two decades ago, when I was not as good at recording my travels or trying to clinch roads. Satellite imagery in the Waypoint Editor pinpoints the location of that overlook.

My suggested point is to replace shaping point +X764588 with visible point EleHillRd. Elephant Hill Rd. leads to Squaw Flat Campground. OSM shows the road and intersection.

I'll submit a pull request tomorrow for my proposed changes to NeeSceDr, pinging si404 and Duke87 in case either wants to look at the changes.

[oscar]

While going through my photo archives for more trip reports to post on the AARoads forum, it occurred to me that there are two more Alaska roads that could be belatedly added to usanp. These would be the ~ 50 mile-long McCarthy Road from AK 10 in Chitina to near McCarthy, and the ~40 mile-long Nabesna Road from the Tok Cut-Off segment of AK 1 east to near the old Nabesna mine. Both roads provide access to the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. Almost all of the McCarthy Road is within park/preserve boundaries, as is most of the Nabesna Road. The McCarthy Road offers access to the historic copper mining towns of McCarthy and Kennicott. The Nabesna Road provides access to the historic Nabesna gold mine, and other Park Service recreational sites.

The one potential rub is that both roads are unnumbered state highways. The roads were there before the national park was established in 1980, and remain under state maintenance.

I have route files ready for both. For the McCarthy Road, I scavenged its file from an old AK 10 route file, back when we thought AK 10 reached McCarthy rather than ending in Chitina.

Any comments on whether one or both roads are appropriate additions to usanp?

[froggie]

^ If they were under NPS maintenance, I'd say yes they'd be appropriate.  But since you mention they're unsigned state routes (and DOT&PF maintained) and given precedent elsewhere, I'll say no.

[si404]

I don't believe maintenance matters (the Vermont issue) unless it affects numbering.