Texas systems

[michih]

@Jim, I agree but there is no Select Numbered Freeway system in Canada nor Europe.

[yakra]

I wouldn't mind combining usasf and usansf into a usasr

I wouldn't factor usansf too heavily into such a decision. I prefer to keep it in its current status as a moribund system intended to eventually delete once its routes are shipped out to their respective state systems. Once usaar, usaga, usala, usaps, are promoted preview->active, there'd be a total of 5 routes left, 4 in AL (froggie now has usaal in development) and 1 in MS. Relatively speaking, usansf isn't much longer for this world.

One could say it opens new cans of worms about what is worthy of inclusion

Yup. I'll say that. Hence I hesitate to relax criteria for inclusion from what they already are. That said, though...

Or just put it in usasf; there are other partial freeways like GW Parkway in there.

To quibble on a technicality: VA GeoWasPkwy (the one in the usasf set) Ends at Marina Drive, so the non-freeway portion isn't included in usasf. VA GWMemPkwyCry (the one in the usanp set) goes south of there.
Nonetheless, the point stands: there are other partial freeways in usasf.
TX PA1502 would bend the rules of being a freeway about as much as... the at-grade portion is a bit longer than IN VetMemPkwy, a bit shorter than TN SamCooBlvd. On the downside, there's also a number of private business entrances.
The problem of the disappearing signage (along with a longer section of at-grade hijinks) at the west end is still an issue.

[yakra]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2732 will add Texas Recreation Roads as a devel system.
I decided to us TXDOT nomenclature and go with "RE42" style route names & labels.


I took a closer look at Park Roads, and that system doesn't look too practicable.
Some, such as PR46 which Jim mentioned, are pretty straightforward.
Some, such as PR1, go along multiple roads in a given park or parks, so we'd have to split them up into multiple segments. Helpfully for these purposes, shapefiles have these segments listed with letter suffixes, which are sometimes even signed. So far so good?
From here, things quickly descend into chaos. Just take a look at PR29, which includes "the drives in Garner State Park". There are 21 segments in the shapefiles; we'd effectively have to clinch the entire park.
• Some segments are gated and don't look too accessible. This example is unsigned, but what if...
• How do we sort out what is and what's not signed? The Google car doesn't seem to make it inside the parks all that often.
• PR29A & PR29R are both signed as vanilla PR29. This could complicate things depending on the situation within the park itself.
Taken all together, I don't really want to touch the Park Roads with a ten-foot pole right now.

[michih]

RE - Recreation Road
        I forget whether these are signed.
        Label style: RE255, etc.

I think they are signed, and the usatxre system is active now

[yakra]

UR - Urban Road
        These have been redesignated from the same-numbered FM or RM route.
        In the field, they're signed with an ordinary FM or RM shield; Joe Traveler will not be able to tell the difference.
        Active routes in the HB use FM42 and RM42 style labels for these intersections.
        The idea is to fold them into the usatxf or usatxr systems on a case-by-case basis.
        Label style: FM42, RM42, etc.

These appear to not exist any more; they were quietly reverted back to FM/RM roads.
A description of Minute Order 115371 is tucked away in several designation files, such as FM84 among others:

Minute Order 115371 general description: Minute Order 115371 rescinds Minute Order 105686. The result of this rescission is the elimination of the Urban Road (UR) system. The Farm to Market (FM) and Ranch to Market (RM) roadways which were intended to be redesignated as Urban Roads under the provisions of Minute Order 105686 revert back to their FM/RM designations. Minute Order 115371 declares that the provisions of Minute Order 105686 were never implemented, and although the UR designations were in effect during the interim between these two Minute Orders, the affected roadways continued to be referred to by their FM or RM designations. Only the Highway Designation Files made reference to the UR designations during this interim period. Upon the passing of Minute Order 115371, the affected Highway Designation Files have been updated retroactively to reflect the FM/RM designations.

A link to Minute Order 115371

FM - Farm to Market Road
        These would be included as usatxf. In the long-range plans.
        Label style: FM51, etc.

To be implemented piecemeal, similar to gbna, usaky, etc.
usatx will be broken into subsystems of approx. 500 routes each, to be merged into the main usatx system as subsystems become active.
usatxf;USA;Texas Farm to Market Roads 1-499;yellow;5;devel
usatxf2;USA;Texas Farm to Market Roads 500-999;yellow;5;devel
usatxf3;USA;Texas Farm to Market Roads 1000-1499;yellow;5;devel
usatxf4;USA;Texas Farm to Market Roads 1500-1999;yellow;5;devel
usatxf5;USA;Texas Farm to Market Roads 2000-2499;yellow;5;devel
usatxf6;USA;Texas Farm to Market Roads 2500-2999;yellow;5;devel
usatxf7;USA;Texas Farm to Market Roads 3000-3499;yellow;5;devel
usatxf8;USA;Texas Farm to Market Roads 3500-75504000;yellow;5;devel
This roughly matches the directory structure for the designation files on TXDOT's server. Since the only FM designations > FM3550 areis FM4000 & FM7550, the last subsystem gets used for everything FM3500+.

I took a closer look at Park Roads, and that system doesn't look too practicable.
...
things quickly descend into chaos.
...
I don't really want to touch the Park Roads with a ten-foot pole right now.

I'm not necessarily ruling out "Select Park Roads", but it'd be very low priority.

[neroute2]

I'm not necessarily ruling out "Select Park Roads", but it'd be very low priority.

Adding PR22 to usasf is probably medium priority. The others? Not so much.

But a question: are there other park roads that exist outside the parks they serve? If so, that might be a good criterion for selecting some.

[Markkos1992]

When it comes to future project work, I would be game to peer-reviewing the Texas FM routes whenever they are ready.

[Markkos1992]

You can blame roadwaywiz for this post for uploading San Antonio stuff. 

Anyway, should the Wurzbach Pkwy be temporarily put into usasf or usansf?

[yakra]

Why should it be temporary? There's no other system for it to be part of.

[Markkos1992]

Why should it be temporary? There's no other system for it to be part of.

Well it is a signed PA.  I obviously have no idea if any of these other ones are.

[yakra]

AFAIK it's a one-off.

[Markkos1992]

Ok, I should have looked at the earlier posts in the thread more.  I thought that PA 1502 would have not been mentioned at all, but it was.

Having stated that, I agree with you yakra.  I guess it probably best fits in usansf as PA 1502 unless we get more indication of other signed PAs later.

[CoreySamson]

Apologies for my impatience and/or ignorance, but is there a timetable for when the FM roads system will reach the preview stage?

[mapcat]

No need to apologize, but patience will be necessary. yakra drafted these a while ago but has said elsewhere on the forum that he's prioritizing some other work ahead of these.

[webny99]

Ok, I should have looked at the earlier posts in the thread more.  I thought that PA 1502 would have not been mentioned at all, but it was.

Having stated that, I agree with you yakra.  I guess it probably best fits in usansf as PA 1502 unless we get more indication of other signed PAs later.

I am a bit late here, but I would also like to see PA 1502 / Wurzbach Parkway added to TM. I do not have a strong opinion on whether it should be usasf or usansf but would like to see it added as all other named parkways in TX seem to be included.