Oregon Highways

[Bickendan]

While we generally shy away from unsigned routes, Oregon's dual systems presents an odd situation.
Back in 2002, ODOT and the Oregon Traffic Commission decided to sign the Highways that didn't have Route numbers because the general public was well aware of the dual system and the confusion that would occasionally present itself. A good number have been signed. A good number... still have yet to be signed, but with the intention that they all be signed, they were included in the Routes set anyway back when CHM branched into the state highway sets.
The Oregon Highway (ORH) set is meant to reconcile this, as well as mapping the deviations that occur on the longer highways. Some are very straightforward - I-5 is ORH 1. US 101 is ORH 9.
Others aren't. I-84 is ORH 2 and ORH 6; ORH 2 is I-84 and US 730. US 26 is ORH 47, 26, 53, 360, 41, and 5. ORH 47 is US 26 and the Market/Clay couplet downtown Portland (formerly US 26). ORH 26 is US 26 and OR 35. ORH 53 is wholly US 26, as is ORH 360. ORH 41 is OR 126 and US 26. ORH 5 is OR 19 and US 26.
As noted, some Highways still don't (or won't) have signed Routes. ORH 420 in Klamath Falls is one, because ODOT is looking at turning it over to Klamath County and Klamath Falls. ORH 1W over Barbur Blvd, Naito Pkwy, and Interstate Avenue in Portland is another, because Portland now maintains the route (despite the odd OR 99W shield on the OR 10 overlap). (Why include this one then? It still appears in ODOT maps, notably odd segments in Delta Park, over the Steel Bridge, and the OR 10 segment. For the sake of simplicity, it's being treated as a continuous segment; ODOT, the OTC, and PBOT would be smart to put up His US 99W shields to put the issue to rest, IMO).

Some Routes might not have underlying Highways. US 26 through the Ross Island Maze is such an example, as ORH 26 begins at Naito Pkwy, not at 6th and Broadway at I-405. OR 18 on the Newberg-Dundee Bypass might be such a case, though I doubt that one.

Does this add mileage or is this wholly a redundant system? Even if every Highway were signed as intended, yes, this will add mileage.
Do we really want a system for 'hidden' highways? It's enough in the public knowledge that it spurred ODOT and the OTC to get signage out. And also, Gotta Clinch 'em All.
How does this affect my progress in updating the Interstate, US, and OR sets? Updating those Routes has generated enough in-tandem Highway .wpts to put this into Devel status. While there are certainly quite a few Routes to finish (along side high-numbered US and I routes), by the time they are finished, so will be the Highway set ready for Preview.
Yeah, but, do we really need this set? I'll leave that for discussion amongst the colleagues. I myself think it's worthy.
Ok, so what are the datasources? Same as for the Routes, along with directly asking ODOT staff personnel via email (such as when clarifying the OR 39 southern terminus issue that Oscar came across), and a handy list of Highways to Routes cross-reference.

Because the highway name is just as important as the number in this set, I've set up the .csv as such:

Code: [Select]

System;Region;Route;SignedRoutes;ConcurrentRoutes;City;Filename root;AltRouteNames
usaorh;OR;ORH1;I-5;OR 99,OR 138,OR 99E,US 30;;or.orh001;Pacific Highway (Baldock Freeway, Eastbank Freeway, Minnesota Avenue)
usaorh;OR;ORH1E;OR 99E;;;or.or001e;Pacific Highway East
usaorh;OR;ORH1W;OR 99,OR 99W;OR 126B,OR 18,OR 10;;or.or001w;Pacific Highway West
usaorh;OR;ORH2W;US 30;;;or.orh002w;Lower Columbia River Highway
usaorh;OR;ORH2;I-84,US 730;US 30,US 395;;or.orh002;Columbia River Highway (Banfield Freeway)
usaorh;OR;ORH3;OR 43;;;or.orh003;Oswego Highway
usaorh;OR;ORH4;US 197,US 97;US 26;;or.orh004;The Dalles-California Highway
usaorh;OR;ORH4Y;US 97;Bus;Bend;or.orh004yben;3rd Street Spur
usaorh;OR;ORH5;OR 19,US 26;;;or.orh005;John Day Highway
usaorh;OR;ORH6;I-84;US 30;;or.orh006;Old Oregon Trail
usaorh;OR;ORH7;US 20;US 26,OR 201;;or.orh007;Central Oregon Highway
usaorh;OR;ORH8;OR 11;;;or.orh008;Oregon-Washington Highway
usaorh;OR;ORH9;US 101;;;or.orh009;Oregon Coast Highway
usaorh;OR;ORH10;OR 82;;;or.orh010;Wallowa Lake Highwaywith the intention that the HB for a particular highway will show the ORH xx shield, the OR/I/US yy shield alongside, the concurrent Route shields on the next line, and on the third line, the Highway's name.
I don't know if that's possible, but I'd like to find a solution if it isn't.

[Bickendan]

First set uploaded. Let's see what breaks...

[mapcat]

Could you post a link to a photo or GMSV to show how someone would know that he or she is driving on one of the highways that doesn't follow a signed route?

[oscar]

Back in 2002, ODOT and the Oregon Traffic Commission decided to sign the Highways that didn't have Route numbers because the general public was well aware of the dual system and the confusion that would occasionally present itself. A good number have been signed. A good number... still have yet to be signed, but with the intention that they all be signed, they were included in the Routes set anyway back when CHM branched into the state highway sets.

"Intention to sign", IMO, isn't a good reason to have a separate route set. Just add routes to the existing set when they become signed.

Are there any ORH routes shown, with ORH route numbers, on the official highway map given out to tourists? Not obvious there are any on the copy I brought back home with me.

[Bickendan]

Could you post a link to a photo or GMSV to show how someone would know that he or she is driving on one of the highways that doesn't follow a signed route?

This is what's posted in the field.

Back in 2002, ODOT and the Oregon Traffic Commission decided to sign the Highways that didn't have Route numbers because the general public was well aware of the dual system and the confusion that would occasionally present itself. A good number have been signed. A good number... still have yet to be signed, but with the intention that they all be signed, they were included in the Routes set anyway back when CHM branched into the state highway sets.

"Intention to sign", IMO, isn't a good reason to have a separate route set. Just add routes to the existing set when they become signed.

Are there any ORH routes shown, with ORH route numbers, on the official highway map given out to tourists? Not obvious there are any on the copy I brought back home with me.

Shown, but without ORH numbers.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Documents/Map_Official_State_Back.pdf
Notable is ORH 120 (N Portland Rd, N Marine Dr), ORH 1W (SW Barbur Blvd, SW Naito Pkwy, N Interstate Ave), and ORH 141 (SW Hall Blvd, SW Durham Rd, SW Boones Ferry Rd) all being marked as 'highway' vis a vis the legend, but without any shields.
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Documents/Num_Route_Map.pdf
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Documents/Num_Route_Map_Enlargement.pdf While not the tourist map, these shows the underlying ORH numbers.

[mapcat]

Since they're marked in some way, I'm ok with including the set. It seems that it would be a difficult, but not impossible, task to clinch them, given that they don't appear in any obvious way on the official state map. Creating the set here would help travellers do that.

Of course, getting the state to condense the systems into one would make more sense, but assuming that's not going to happen, it seems fair to add these.

[Bickendan]

 Right off the bat, ORH 1W -> 91, 1E -> 81, and 2W -> 92.

[oscar]

Could you post a link to a photo or GMSV to show how someone would know that he or she is driving on one of the highways that doesn't follow a signed route?

This is what's posted in the field.

Hard to tell, but this looks like the size of a conventional milemarker -- only with a lot more information, in type hard to read by travelers at highway speeds. Also looks similar in size to the white rectangular bridge identification markers in California, which include route information (such as "101/222 separation") for routes that are otherwise unsigned, and which I'm treating as unsigned.

How are junctions of ORH routes with each other, or with regular state routes, signed? If these markers are used only for bridge identification, they won't much help travelers navigate the ORH system. (Not that conventionally-marked routes are always easy to navigate, like CA 211 which has no junction markers at a key turn between US 101 and its other end in Ferndale, but otherwise is adequately signed.)

[compdude787]

Could you post a link to a photo or GMSV to show how someone would know that he or she is driving on one of the highways that doesn't follow a signed route?

[img]
This is what's posted in the field.

Hard to tell, but this looks like the size of a conventional milemarker -- only with a lot more information, in type hard to read by travelers at highway speeds. Also looks similar in size to the white rectangular bridge identification markers in California, which include route information (such as "101/222 separation") for routes that are otherwise unsigned, and which I'm treating as unsigned.

How are junctions of ORH routes with each other, or with regular state routes, signed? If these markers are used only for bridge identification, they won't much help travelers navigate the ORH system. (Not that conventionally-marked routes are always easy to navigate, like CA 211 which has no junction markers at a key turn between US 101 and its other end in Ferndale, but otherwise is adequately signed.)

Yeah, I've only seen those signs posted at bridges.

I really don't see the point of adding this ORH system. Most of it is redundant, and it will make more work for you if changes are made to a particular highway/route. (you'll have to remember to update two wpt files instead of just one) And for the highways that are unsigned, well, too bad. You won't be able to record them as being clinched on TM. There are some routes like this in WA, spur routes in particular.

I think it's sort of unfair to people who are trying to clinch the highway network for Oregon to say, "so you drove on all the routes in Oregon that are signed? Well, surprise! You haven't clinched all the mileage in the state. You have to now find all these unsigned routes and clinch those too." That's gonna annoy people. Thus, I don't support adding this system to Travel Mapping.

[Jim]

I would lean against including these.  They seem a lot like New York's reference routes (signed only on the little green markers).

[rickmastfan67]

I would lean against including these.  They seem a lot like New York's reference routes (signed only on the little green markers).

And similar to PennDOT's 4-digit routes.

[yakra]

I would lean against including these.  They seem a lot like New York's reference routes (signed only on the little green markers).

Agreed.

[Bickendan]

In light from my corrospondance with ODOT about the number of unsigned Routes I field checked during my trip down the coast, I'd like to resume discussion about the ORH set. If my read is correct, then the ODOT representative feels that removing unsigned routes from our dataset would disservice our project.
In light of that, moving the unsigned Routes to the Highways set seems like a good idea, and allows for tracking for segments that otherwise wouldn't ever be signed (HWY 235 in Sutherlin -- what OSM calls OR 138S).

[yakra]

Meh, the rep is someone who's famliar with the project...

[compdude787]

I still don't agree with adding this set for the reasons I've stated previously.