Texas systems

[yakra]

I also drove all of Park Road 46, with the standard square.  Are we currently not including such routes?

Currently not including them. They're considered their own system by TXDOT. It would be possible to add them (as their own discrete system would seem to make the most sense), but I haven't given the thought much more than a meh. It'd be a low priority, after the FM roads.

TXDOT system codes as listed here:

IH - Interstate Highway
        Active in usai.
        Label style: I-10, etc.
US - US Highway
        Active in usaus.
        Label style: US69, etc.
UA - US Highway Alternate
        Active in usausb.
        Label style: US90Alt, US90AltHal, etc.
SH - State Highway
        Active in usatx.
        Label style: TX6, etc.
SL/SS - State Highway Loops and Spurs
        Active in usatxl & usatxs. Considered one system by TXDOT; split into two for TM purposes.
        Label style: TXLp8, TXSpr557, etc.
BI - Off Interstate Business Route
        Active in usaib.
        Label style: I-20BL, I-20BLMid, I-20BS, etc.
BS - Off State Business Route
        Active as bannered routes in usatx.
        Label style: TX6Bus, TX6BusCol, etc.
BU - Off US Business Route
        Active in usausb.
        Label style: US59Bus, US59BusVic, etc.

BF - Off Farm or Ranch to Market Road Business Route
        Drafted as bannered routes in usatxf/usatxr.
        These would be included as bannered routes in the respective usatxf and usatxr systems.
        Label style: FM42Bus, RM42Bus, etc.
UR - Urban Road
        Drafted in usatxf/usatxr.
        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.
RR - Ranch Road
        Drafted in usatxr.
        Quoth the glossary: "Only one?Ranch Road 1; considered part of the Farm to Market Road system."
        Odd; I have to wonder whether that's in error. Could maybe complicate my plans to include it with the RM roads.
FM - Farm to Market Road
        Drafted in usatxf.
        These would be included as usatxf. In the long-range plans.
        Label style: FM51, etc.
RM - Ranch to Market Road
        Drafted in usatxr.
        These would be included as usatxr.In the long-range plans.
        Label style: RM12, etc.
PR - Park Road
        Signed. Could conceivably be their own system. Low priority, after usatxf & usatxr.
        Label style: Consistently labeled ParkRd42, etc. Could potentially change to PR42. Done.
RE - Recreation Road
        Active in usatxre.
        I forget whether these are signed.
        Label style: RE255, etc.
PA - Principal Arterial State System
        Not signed AFAIK.
        Label style: Still haven't done anything about TX US281 NakDr (see below). PA1502 is signed; everything else would just use a truncated street name.

[michih]

BF - Off Farm or Ranch to Market Road Business Route
        These would be included as bannered routes in the respective usatxf or usatxr systems.

Do you suggest one or two systems?

RR - Ranch Road
        Quoth the glossary: "Only one?Ranch Road 1; considered part of the Farm to Market Road system."
        Odd; I have to wonder whether that's in error. Could maybe complicate my plans to include it with the RM roads.

I think it's only a "special" FM/RM route because it leads to the former ranch of a special person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranch_Road_1. I would put it to FM/RM system.

[yakra]

BF - Off Farm or Ranch to Market Road Business Route
        These would be included as bannered routes in the respective usatxf or usatxr systems.

Do you suggest one or two systems?

Two. I've edited my previous post to read "and", not "or".

RR - Ranch Road
        Quoth the glossary: "Only one?Ranch Road 1; considered part of the Farm to Market Road system."
        Odd; I have to wonder whether that's in error. Could maybe complicate my plans to include it with the RM roads.

I think it's only a "special" FM/RM route because it leads to the former ranch of a special person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranch_Road_1. I would put it to FM/RM system.

Exactly. The only question here was which of the two; TXDOT's (erroneous?) description leads to a bit of confusion. As a RANCH (to Market) road would seem to make the most sense, wouldn't it. Plus, there's already an FM 1 elsewhere.
In any case, it looks to be signed with a perfectly normal RM style shield, so into usatxr it goes. (Much like I'm doing with the Urban Roads.)
BOOM!

[Duke87]

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.

I support this approach. Precedent exists in usamts, where sections of Urban Routes that are signed as part of Secondary Routes are included in the system.

RE - Recreation Road
        I forget whether these are signed.

At least one is.

[radison]

Been lurking and stumbled across this thread.  Hoping some of this might help:

RR - Ranch Road
        Quoth the glossary

I believe RR 1 exists as well as RM 1.  Just would need to take that into consideration.

PA - Principal Arterial State System
        Not signed AFAIK.

PA 1604 is signed on a BGS in San Antonio.  However, I don't believe it is signed anywhere else except there.

[yakra]

I believe RR 1 exists as well as RM 1.  Just would need to take that into consideration.

Just RR 1, no RM 1.
(Query "Route Number" = 1, leaving "Type of Route" blank)

PA 1604 is signed on a BGS in San Antonio.  However, I don't believe it is signed anywhere else except there.

SL 1604 is in San Antonio. Well signed of course. Did you mean SL 1604, or a different PA in San Antonio, or PA 1604 in Corpus Christi?

In any case, being for the most part a system not signed with standard route shields, the Principal Arterial State System would not be included.

[radison]

Oops, completely thought I knew what I was talking about, but got it all wrong..

I was thinking of the RM off of the top of my head, maybe I had the FM confused.  I apologize for that mistake.

PA 1502 is the one I was thinking of, Wurzbach Pkwy in San Antonio.  Its Exit 169 on I-35.
Personal opinion here: I don't even think anyone realizes these exist.  I wouldn't put too much, if any, time into this system.

I can tell you, having just been in Corpus Christi, PA 1604 is not signed whatsoever.

Guess I'll begin checking myself before I make posts on a whim

[yakra]

I was thinking of the RM off of the top of my head, maybe I had the FM confused.  I apologize for that mistake.

Ah yes. I wondered if that was the case too.

PA 1502 is the one I was thinking of, Wurzbach Pkwy in San Antonio.  Its Exit 169 on I-35.

Wow there it is, signed plain as day from both I-35 and US281.
While Googling around I checked out the ramps US281 needs a point for Wurzback Pkwy. It should replace the NakDr point.
Meh, do I label it WurPkwy, or PA1502? I like WurPkwy. If no one realizes these exist...
Meh. Stupid truck routes.

Personal opinion here: I don't even think anyone realizes these exist.  I wouldn't put too much, if any, time into this system.

I agree. If these for the most part are unsigned, and PA 1502 is just a one-off (possibly even some sort of goof?), there's no point in making a system for just this one route.

Guess I'll begin checking myself before I make posts on a whim

Lol, I don't mean to cause embarrassment. Figured you were on to something, just wasn't sure what.
Welcome to the forum!

[Duke87]

PA 1502 is the one I was thinking of, Wurzbach Pkwy in San Antonio.  Its Exit 169 on I-35.

Wow there it is, signed plain as day from both I-35 and US281.
While Googling around I checked out the ramps US281 needs a point for Wurzback Pkwy. It should replace the NakDr point.
Meh, do I label it WurPkwy, or PA1502? I like WurPkwy. If no one realizes these exist...
Meh. Stupid truck routes.

Via standalone shields too!

It's signed consistently enough that it's most likely deliberate. Even if it is a one off...

I would not use "PA1502" as a label though since the prefix "PA" is used for Pennsylvania state highways (none of those in Texas, but still). Perhaps "TXPA1502", mirroring how intersections with loops and spurs are labeled.

Given its consistent signage I would say it warrants potential inclusion in the future.

[yakra]

I would not use "PA1502" as a label though since the prefix "PA" is used for Pennsylvania state highways (none of those in Texas, but still). Perhaps "TXPA1502", mirroring how intersections with loops and spurs are labeled.

No big problem here in my opinion. A, B, and M roads are all across Europe, meaning different things. Both MT & DNK have SR### roads.
The same problem would apply (Puerto Rico) if choosing to standardize on PR42 instead of ParkRd42 style labels. In this case, I'd prefer PR42 if the plan is to eventually include the Park Roads as a clinchable system.

Given its consistent signage I would say it warrants potential inclusion in the future.

Naah. No sense creating a whole system for just a single signed route. At the east end, it's not freeway enough for usasf; west end, it's unclear where to even end the route, because signage.

[yakra]

RE - Recreation Road
        I forget whether these are signed.

At least one is.

All of them are. The rest:
2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11

Point labels on existing systems are inconsistent.

• US69 & US96 have RR255; US277 has RR2.
• TX72 has RecRd7 and RecRd8.
• TX63 & TX87 erroneously have FM255, and need to be fixed.
• Labels standardized to RE42.

How to standardize on labeling these?

• RecRd42 is longer & clunkier than something I'd like to see in a .list name. .list names & labels should match.
• RR42 could maybe cause confusion with, if not the RR "Ranch Road", "system" (of which there's 1; see above), the RM roads, which have "Ranch Road" appearing on their signs. (Confused yet?)
• RE42 would match TXDOT-speak, but I'm not sure how wild I am about it. The letter 'E' doesn't appear anywhere on the signs. Just "R Road". TXSpr42 and TXLp42 are longstanding precedents for ignoring TXDOT nomenclature.
• To that end, we can make up something new again & go with Rec42.
• R42?
• RRd42? FWIW, this last one most closely matches what's on the sign. OTOH, that approach still doesn't work too well with ParkRd42. To say nothing of FM42 and RM42.

[neroute2]

Naah. No sense creating a whole system for just a single signed route.

So add it to usatx?

At the east end, it's not freeway enough for usasf; west end, it's unclear where to even end the route, because signage.

http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html
Maintenance runs from Lockhill Selma Road to I-35.

[yakra]

So add it to usatx?

Nope.

http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html
Maintenance runs from Lockhill Selma Road to I-35.

Statewide Planning Map hasn't been working for me for some time. Oh wait, I can use it in Chrome/Chromium. OK.
txdot-2015-roadways_tx shapefiles show the E end at Independence Ave. These are dated 2016-03-03; we can probably count the Planning Map (which does show PA 1502 all the way to I-35) as more up-to-date.
Still, though -- not freeway enough for usasf.

While the west end does end at Lockhill-Selma, signage drops off sometime before that, thus complicating how to treat it for TM purposes.

IMO this one oddball route is best left out, for the sake of simplicity & sanity.

[neroute2]

We need an oddball set for stuff like this and Charlotte Route 4. Or just put it in usasf; there are other partial freeways like GW Parkway in there.

[Jim]

I wouldn't mind combining usasf and usansf into a usasr, United States Select Routes, and do similar to their cousins in Canada and Europe.  One could say it opens new cans of worms about what is worthy of inclusion, but we do already have that to some extent with the existing systems.