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

[Duke87]

I don't think there is a reasonable expectation to include state maintained roads that don't even have route numbers (e.g. RI and MA have a lot of these). And I also don't think that in cases where the state maintains almost everything that it makes sense to map all these roads that only have N-digit inventory numbers (e.g. AK), or are otherwise clearly indexed separately from primary routes (e.g. WV).

Really the main complaint I hear is against the exclusion of unsigned routes that are administratively part of the same system as routes we do include - with the argument being that excluding routes based purely on the lack of shields posted in the field is arbitrary and, in some cases, leads to needing to make subjective determinations as to what constitutes "signed". NJ, for example, now has enhanced mile markers with little route shields on them on almost all of its otherwise unsigned routes. And at least one route in NJ that we call unsigned also has shields on mast-arm mounted street sign blades. Sure, we have a longstanding policy that mile markers and street sign blades don't count as "signed", and to continue going based on that is to simply continue following established precedent, but these guidelines come from what Tim in CHM days deemed reasonable and are subjective.
We also do include unsigned interstates, and while there is a historical reason why this is the case, you can see where to the average user it would appear arbitrary to do that and not include unsigned routes in other systems.


More to the point, though, we have users who have an active interest in mapping their travels on unsigned highways. As well as would-be users who would create accounts here if we included unsigned highways, but have deemed this site not useful to them because in their eyes our route systems are incomplete. If we are interested in serving the roadgeek community at large, this is feedback that warrants consideration. "The customer is always right" and all that.

[mapcat]

As maintainer of Kentucky, I will absolutely drop that state if I'm ever expected to add all the unsigned state routes to usaky or to a parallel unsigned system.

As a user who enjoys completing states, I have no need for a change that will make such a goal less attainable, and no interest in a change that will make the process more complicated. It's hard enough to clinch badly signed roads. I don't want to have to write out detailed instructions on which combination of streets constitutes some secret route in a random database in order to make my map look complete.

[Duke87]

Does Kentucky have unsigned routes? I was under the impression that the reason Kentucky has all these crazy random 4-digit routes is because they compulsively sign everything.

At any rate, I can also appreciate that some users have no interest in unsigned routes and would not appreciate their stats showing as incomplete if they have not entered them. I know of no way to make everyone happy with this other than having a user option to toggle inclusion of unsigned routes, which would require some back end work to implement.

[mapcat]

Does Kentucky have unsigned routes?

Yes, at least 400 of them. Around 150 are bridges.

At any rate, I can also appreciate that some users have no interest in unsigned routes and would not appreciate their stats showing as incomplete if they have not entered them. I know of no way to make everyone happy with this other than having a user option to toggle inclusion of unsigned routes, which would require some back end work to implement.

The toggle option, while potentially beneficial for users, still would not remove the added burden for contributors if some users expect unsigned routes to be included.

[Bickendan]

Does Kentucky have unsigned routes?

Yes, at least 400 of them. Around 150 are bridges.

At any rate, I can also appreciate that some users have no interest in unsigned routes and would not appreciate their stats showing as incomplete if they have not entered them. I know of no way to make everyone happy with this other than having a user option to toggle inclusion of unsigned routes, which would require some back end work to implement.

The toggle option, while potentially beneficial for users, still would not remove the added burden for contributors if some users expect unsigned routes to be included.

Are these unsigned routes part of the same system of the signed routes -- ie, KY 99 is signed, but KY 100 is not?

[mapcat]

Are these unsigned routes part of the same system of the signed routes -- ie, KY 99 is signed, but KY 100 is not?

Yes, Kentucky only has one state system.

[rickmastfan67]

A good chunk of the 6XXX routes are unsigned in KY.

So were the KY-9XXX routes (the parkways) until the left over segment of William H. Natcher Parkway that became I-165, which got it's KY-9007 designation finally signed.

[Duke87]

The toggle option, while potentially beneficial for users, still would not remove the added burden for contributors if some users expect unsigned routes to be included.

I can appreciate that some people might not want to go through the effort to map unsigned routes in jurisdictions they are otherwise responsible for.

Seems to me the easiest way to handle this is to... simply not place the burden on existing contributors if they don't want it. Let someone else who is willing to do the work take on the task, and if no one wants to do it right now it can wait until someone does.

[compdude787]

As maintainer of Kentucky, I will absolutely drop that state if I'm ever expected to add all the unsigned state routes to usaky or to a parallel unsigned system.

As a user who enjoys completing states, I have no need for a change that will make such a goal less attainable, and no interest in a change that will make the process more complicated. It's hard enough to clinch badly signed roads. I don't want to have to write out detailed instructions on which combination of streets constitutes some secret route in a random database in order to make my map look complete.

Well said, I totally agree with this!!

[si404]

As maintainer of Kentucky, I will absolutely drop that state if I'm ever expected to add all the unsigned state routes

As maintainer of England, I will absolutely drop that region if I'm ever expected to *remove* all the unsigned routes.

For a start, finding which ones are unsigned (especially as many urban routes are merely badly signed) is a massive chore. Secondly once it's done, any native wishing to add their clinched routes will either not bother due to missing routes, or complain about missing routes. So all the effort checking routes are signed means either more work dealing with complaints, or the work on the signed routes is less used than it otherwise would be.

I can understand why you'd be annoyed if you had to include signed routes, and I have no intent of making KY follow ENG's foibles but rather making the point that one size doesn't fit all.

[mapcat]

I can understand why you'd be annoyed if you had to include signed routes, and I have no intent of making KY follow ENG's foibles but rather making the point that one size doesn't fit all.

It's a fair point, to be sure. Users will have different expectations in different macro-regions (aren't most countries outside northern North America a little less OCD about signage?). But if we were to overturn the general guidance in the U.S. that unsigned routes are ignored, and adopt the "one size doesn't fit all" principle on a state-by-state basis, it seems that users could legitimately argue that just about any state-maintained highway ought to be included. I would prefer not to spend time regularly responding to those arguments.

[Bickendan]

I can understand why you'd be annoyed if you had to include signed routes, and I have no intent of making KY follow ENG's foibles but rather making the point that one size doesn't fit all.

It's a fair point, to be sure. Users will have different expectations in different macro-regions (aren't most countries outside northern North America a little less OCD about signage?). But if we were to overturn the general guidance in the U.S. that unsigned routes are ignored, and adopt the "one size doesn't fit all" principle on a state-by-state basis, it seems that users could legitimately argue that just about any state-maintained highway ought to be included. I would prefer not to spend time regularly responding to those arguments.

On that note, this is where the Oregon sets stand:
·The set was drafted 2005-2006 in CHM with the data set largely as is, under the understanding that ODOT had numbered all the Highways to be Routes (with two exceptions, 372 and 420, which were not included in CHM and are not part of TM).
·Subsequent field checks have shown a handful of these new routes to be minimally signed, the rest not.
·However, while it may be easy to miss the turn off onto an unsigned route if not careful, once on the route, it's easy to follow. Exception: Finding the end point of OR 241 was a pain.
·ODOT shows non-signed routes on its official map as signed, notably, 255, 542, and the catalyst of this conversation, 350. I'm including 334, 413, and 402 on this list, as I've not had a chance to field check them. Others aren't signed on the map, presumably to size restrictions (ie, 250, 251, 331, 350, etc, and signed routes like 52 and Spur US 95). https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Data/Documents/Map_Official_State_Front.pdf
·The ODOT GIS shows that the routes on the official map without shields do to presumptive size issues are signed, with an additional wrinkle of OR 201S/452/HWY 489 in Adrian.
·Knowledge of the underlying Highway system is pervasive enough in the cartography field that an ORH or two has been mapped since the 1990s, notably, HWY 2 and 2W in the Thomas Brothers atlases of the Portland metro area. The Highways have been well mapped by online maps since then. On the paper maps front, aside from ODOT's, the system as a whole, noting size restrictions as with the ODOT map, have been signed.
·As it currently stands, the Oregon sets comprises of 170 routes at 7550 miles. I don't think it's that daunting of a system to clinch, or to maintain. The inclusion of the unsigned Routes, or even of a complete Highway set (which would put Oregon at about 300 routes and an estimated aggregate 7620 miles because of overlap), wouldn't change that. Yes, changes would require altering two files if ORH were included, but compared to a system like Kentucky's 2942 highways at 26,200 miles, I can fully understand why adding unsigned routes to TM there would cause heartburn.
·Summary: The unsigned Routes have been in CHM and TM since 2005/6, under the understanding that the Oregon Transportation Commission had signed the underlying Highways (with a few exceptions), and that these Routes are signed on the official maps and GIS, if not in the field. A cursory poll of several unsigned Routes in TM shows that they are being clinched by users.

[compdude787]

I'm having a hard time understanding how an unsigned route could be easy to follow if there's no signs for it. Also the only reason why some people have clinched some of those unsigned routes is simply because they noticed that they were there after the fact, and may not have realized they were state routes while driving on them. That was the case for me when I clinched OR 182 several years back.

[si404]

If they are on Sat Navs or maps, they can be easy to follow via that. Unshielded routes (they might even have 'To' shields) probably aren't want to TOTSO (so that makes them easy once on) and don't tend to be long either. Are they as easy as routes with shields everywhere - no, but why does travel mapping need to be no more difficult than following a breadcrumb trail of signs?

You'll hate trying to clinch routes in much of Europe, where road numbers are typically seen as unimportant for navigation on direction signage and so half the time don't appear at junctions. The UK is seen as a European country that signs road numbers lots, but a recent random sample by a Dutch roadgeek of loads of junctions found that the road numbers (where numbered routes meet) only get signed at a junction about 75-80% on average.

[Duke87]

If they are on Sat Navs or maps, they can be easy to follow via that. Unshielded routes (they might even have 'To' shields) probably aren't want to TOTSO (so that makes them easy once on) and don't tend to be long either. Are they as easy as routes with shields everywhere - no, but why does travel mapping need to be no more difficult than following a breadcrumb trail of signs?

Signs and traffic signals being to state spec, if you know what state spec looks like and can recognize it, can also be a hint. A few states will even have reference markers showing the otherwise unsigned route number.

You'll hate trying to clinch routes in much of Europe, where road numbers are typically seen as unimportant for navigation on direction signage and so half the time don't appear at junctions. The UK is seen as a European country that signs road numbers lots, but a recent random sample by a Dutch roadgeek of loads of junctions found that the road numbers (where numbered routes meet) only get signed at a junction about 75-80% on average.

So the Netherlands are like Rhode Island.