OR: OR 350 is unsigned (larger discussion about unsigned routes)

[Duke87]

Per Wikipedia, and also noted as such by a fellow traveler.

[Bickendan]

So are 104S, 153, 154, 155, 222, 225, 250, 251, 255, 331, 351, 361, 370, 450, 451, 452, 453, 542, and likely others (86S, 332, 334, 335, 339, 410, 414) I haven't field checked yet. I've been in correspondence with ODOT about this, and they recommend NOT pulling them from TM.
The only routes I'm definitely going to be pulling is Bus 42 Coquille. Hist US 99 will also probably be removed.

[oscar]

So are 104S, 153, 154, 155, 222, 225, 250, 251, 255, 331, 351, 361, 370, 450, 451, 452, 453, 542, and likely others (86S, 332, 334, 335, 339, 410, 414) I haven't field checked yet. I've been in correspondence with ODOT about this, and they recommend NOT pulling them from TM.

Has ODOT told you why it doesn't maintain route markers on those highways?

[Duke87]

I've been in correspondence with ODOT about this, and they recommend NOT pulling them from TM.

On what grounds?

Surely if the route is not signed, per our standard policy it should not be included.

[Bickendan]

So are 104S, 153, 154, 155, 222, 225, 250, 251, 255, 331, 351, 361, 370, 450, 451, 452, 453, 542, and likely others (86S, 332, 334, 335, 339, 410, 414) I haven't field checked yet. I've been in correspondence with ODOT about this, and they recommend NOT pulling them from TM.

Has ODOT told you why it doesn't maintain route markers on those highways?

I've been in correspondence with ODOT about this, and they recommend NOT pulling them from TM. [/quote]

On what grounds?

Surely if the route is not signed, per our standard policy it should not be included.
[/quote]Their reply is in my Oregon Field Notes thread:
http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3114.msg14543#msg14543

[oscar]

This seems to be the part pf the "field notes" thread most responsive to the question I posed above:

Quote from: Marie Kennedy of ODOT:

Omitting non-signed highways may be a mistake in Oregon.    ODOT owned highways have always had names like Jacksonville Hwy, but they didn’t always have numbers.   I believe about 20 years ago (it may be the 2002 year you referenced below) ODOT decided to number all the highways they owned.  Before this some were numbered, but a lot were not.   This act alone caused great distress to our maintenance crews as they were worried about the large amount of work and costs required to post route shields for all these routes.   A deal was struck that even though the routes would get numbers, they wouldn’t be required to have their route shields placed on the highways.   It had worked up until that point so it was not seen as problem.   Since I have had this job in three years, this is the second time it has come up and the first time someone outside of ODOT has mentioned it.  This would make remedying the problem lower on our priority list, especially considering the cost.

ISTM that under the old policy, ODOT numbered and signed its more important routes. Then it changed the policy to number less important routes, but decided it wasn't important enough to sign them to help the general public navigate its routes. Its maintenance staff felt that wasn't important enough either. If ODOT management and staff feel that way, why should we disagree with them?

Some DOTs, like California's, Maryland's and Hawaii's, seem to have route numbers for every scrap of pavement they maintain (or in Hawaii, its highways division rather than its airports and harbors divisions). But some of the lesser routes don't get route signs, because those routes are deemed unimportant to the traveling public. There are some cases that cause heartburn, like CA 259 and HI 95, but by and large our unsigned-routes policy does a good job of screening out unimportant routes (as well as some "numbered routes" shown in Google Maps, etc. that don't officially exist).

I've argued for "rare" exceptions to that policy (and have made a few in my Arctic jurisdictions, while avoiding them elsewhere). Including a lot of unsigned routes in Oregon, especially an entirely unsigned ORH system, would be a whole 'nother story.

[US 89]

Just throwing in my two cents here: clinching a state highway system should mean clinching all the routes, not just whatever routes the DOT thinks are important. Parking lot routes are annoying (looking at you, Utah) and are a whole other beast, but I don't see why an unsigned route with a well-defined beginning and end shouldn't be in TM.

[Duke87]

The thing is that I don't see anything whatsoever special about Oregon's situation compared to any other jurisdiction. There are some routes in the state highway system that have numbers on paper but no shields in the field showing them - the same is true in a lot of other states, too, and in every other state where this is the case we omit routes that do not have shields posted in the field unless there is some odd or unusual circumstance that is deemed to warrant an exception.

If we decide we want to start including unsigned routes, I have no inherent objection, but it makes no sense to include them in Oregon and not include them in every other state that has them - which is the current situation.

[Bickendan]

The problem is that Oregon's show up on paper maps, including ODOT's.

[compdude787]

I really don't see any reason why Oregon should include unsigned routes. If I was in charge of Oregon, I'd delete them without hesitation.

I've explained why I believe this in the past when we were discussing adding the Oregon Highway system. I think it's unfair to ask people to clinch routes that are unsigned. It will make OR a much harder state to clinch because you'll have a harder time figuring out where these unsigned routes go. It's a lot harder than simply following signs and I can imagine it will be quite annoying to have to constantly pull over and look at a map to figure out where the route goes. A traveler shouldn't have to be expected to do that in order to clinch Oregon's routes.

I fully agree with the current policy of not including unsigned routes, and for the sake of consistency with every other state, these routes need to be deleted. Bickendan, if you're concerned about having to potentially re-create routes in the future should ODOT decide to sign them, (which I doubt will happen since they clearly have other priorities) just save the wpt files locally on your computer in case you ever have to re-add them.

[oscar]

As for ODOT, you can tell them we're following the same rule for them as in all the adjacent states, Washington state and Idaho (compdude787) and California and Nevada (me).

[Jim]

Separate from the TM issue, it seems like a really bad idea to print route numbers on a map that aren't signed in the field.  New York has the reference routes designated with a 9xx number followed by a letter, (almost) never signs them, but at least I have also not seem them on printed maps.

[Duke87]

The problem is that Oregon's show up on paper maps, including ODOT's.

An interesting quirk, though not one necessarily unique to this case.

Unsigned routes in CT have shown up on commercial maps produced by multiple cartographers. In the case of Arrow maps, they would show up quite consistently.

[mapmikey]

Virginia also has unsigned primary routes that are shown on maps.

Is it possible to add a subset called unsigned routes if putting these unsigned routes onto the regular TM listing of state routes is objectionable...?

[oscar]

Is it possible to add a subset called unsigned routes if putting these unsigned routes onto the regular TM listing of state routes is objectionable...?

If this is done at all -- I'm unconvinced there should be separate route sets -- it should be for "select" unsigned routes, so there is no expectation that we'll cover everything in the route inventory.

One nice side effect of the unsigned-routes policy is that it lets me ignore tiny stubs of what were/would have been larger routes, or other really short routes. What I have in mind are the multitude of short 4-digit military base access routes in Hawaii; the 0.03-mile remnant of the north end of CA 39, which is now just an overflow trailhead parking lot; and CA 244, and CA 710 at its junction with I-210, which are unsigned remnants of cancelled freeway projects. Also, California has unsigned U(nrelinquished) routes, and for Maryland many of its 800-series routes, which are bypassed old route segments the state would like to but can't dump on a local government.

Then there's Alaska, where the state maintains most roads of any significance, with hundreds that don't even get route numbers (just six-digit inventory numbers) let alone route number signage.