Unsigned Interstates Discussion

[the_spui_ninja]

I don't really have an opinion one way or another; if unsigned interstates are excluded I'll probably add the Bismarck Expressway to usasf to replace I-194.

Maybe we should do a poll to see what the consensus is.

[Duke87]

The "whole separate system" concept seems clunky...
Maybe a new column in system CSVs that can store whether a route is signed or unsigned?

Well, we would need to create separate systems at least temporarily while unsigned routes are under peer review.
 
And there are definitely states (CT, for example) where unsigned routes are administratively a separate system from signed ones, and thus would logically be a separate system in the HB regardless, a la usamt vs. usamts or the various Texas systems.

Otherwise, though... sure that could work. Would also have the benefit of allowing routes to be easily switched between signed and unsigned if signs are found to have been added or removed.

[mapmikey]

I would also be in favor of being able to track official routes that are unposted, or also in the case of Virginia, posted but not in a shield. 

It seems we should err on the side of having everything official on the site (some of the Virginia ones, for example, are on their official maps), and those who do not wish to clinch them will choose to not do so.  Just as there are people who don't feel the need to clinch NPS routes will consider themselves finished with a state if they got the primary systems of the state but TM will say they have something less than 100% of the mileage.

But people with an interest of getting the whole system may not use any source besides TM and will be misled into believe they have when they have not.

If there is resistance to a separate system for unposted, a different solution would be to treat the route as a bannered route (the banner being 'unposted') so that it could be clear to the user that a route they see on the list is unposted in the field.

[si404]

@Si: I'm offended that you would consider my opinion on this to be self-serving.

Oh, fine, I'll take it back.

However, I think a self-serving "this is too hard for me, let's make it easier" attitude comes across a lot better than with the patronising "this is too hard for them, let's make it easier" attitude that you are actually pushing.

But how many users do have that ability? Completing the signed interstates in 49 states + DC is still a massive undertaking, but a less costly one (in terms of time and money), and, for some, a less intimidating one.

You've totally and utterly missed my point that this site isn't a game  to win, and that, even if it was a game, 100%ing usai is not just winning, but the gold-plated epic challenge win that's equivalent of completing all the achievements - unlocking all the original items (game makers add more, for both wider appeal and to give the hardcore set more to do), completing all the original side quests, playing for long enough that some simple action has been done 1000 times, etc that 99% of players aren't fussed about doing.

I totally concur that completing the signed interstates in 49 states + DC is a massive undertaking, I just don't think that achievement is diminished because its not accompanied by 100% and ranking=1 next to it.

Living in (or near? hard to say now) Europe, you may not realize there are people with the means to travel extensively

I'm very aware of that, being someone without the means to travel extensively - I've added only a couple of hundred miles to my travels since the site relaunched (obviously more has been mapped as systems have been added) and only a few 'long' trips (at least wrt clinching) that have all been only a day long (I've under 10 days more than 100 miles from home in the last decade).

Those without the means to travel extensively, are clearly not people who will consider travelling to 49 states + DC and driving 45,000 miles plus as doable. It doesn't matter to them whether or not there's not the added difficulty of trips to Alaska and Puerto Rico, because not only is Hawaii something just as excluding, but the dozen or more cross-continental road trips are too!

And, lets say someone has travelled so extensively over the lower-48 and Hawaii that they have clinched all the signed interstates. Surely they have both the time, money, and sense of adventure, to make trips to Alaska and Puerto Rico should they wish to do so in order to get that 100% bragging rights?

These users deserve a shot to complete the "flagship epic challenge".

So what you are saying is that the "flagship epic challenge" shouldn't challenge those, whom you feel sad for because they don't step out of their comfort zone and travel to places like PR, to step out of their comfort zone and travel to PR? What a weird argument.

----

However, since in every other system within the HB, the lack of signage prompts almost immediate removal

Not the case at all - there's many systems where that isn't the case, but if the consensus is that they all should be, I can remove those systems so that can be the case.

----

I'm no fan of the "it's relevant because we say it is" philosophy.

I'm not a fan of "it's not relevant because we say it isn't" philosophy, especially where 'we' isn't a consensus.

[bejacob]

I would also be in favor of being able to track official routes that are unposted

I could get behind this concept. I think it makes more sense to include unsigned 'official' routes than it does to include signed routes that no longer have official designations (former alignments of usaus or Old OH 533 for example). I seem to recall, there is a precedent in FL that goes against this (i.e. the Florida Turnpike is unsigned FL91) and I'm sure there are similar situations in other states/regions.

The argument for keeping unsigned routes with 'official' designations is far stronger than the argument 'this is how things have been since the days of CMH.' This site has expanded and some of the old ways of doing things may no longer be relevant.

The idea of creating a separate system for unsigned routes is one that really should not be under consideration. Either leave these highways in usai or remove them. Having stated my preference earlier, I will be fine with whatever decision TM contributors deem best.

[cl94]

I would also be in favor of being able to track official routes that are unposted

I could get behind this concept. I think it makes more sense to include unsigned 'official' routes than it does to include signed routes that no longer have official designations (former alignments of usaus or Old OH 533 for example). I seem to recall, there is a precedent in FL that goes against this (i.e. the Florida Turnpike is unsigned FL91) and I'm sure there are similar situations in other states/regions.

The argument for keeping unsigned routes with 'official' designations is far stronger than the argument 'this is how things have been since the days of CMH.' This site has expanded and some of the old ways of doing things may no longer be relevant.

I agree with this. It would also make the process of adding/removing routes far simpler. There are routes that have been added/deleted repeatedly because the amount of signage changed. See the ongoing debacle in Seattle.

"This is the way things have always been" isn't a good argument for not changing. There are people who would be willing to take on the work of adding/maintaining unsigned routes if the current maintainers are unwilling to do so. I know of at least one person who would love to get involved with all of this, but there just hasn't been room for them because of how territorial people.

However, since in every other system within the HB, the lack of signage prompts almost immediate removal

Not the case at all - there's many systems where that isn't the case, but if the consensus is that they all should be, I can remove those systems so that can be the case.

It is possible that there are more systems where unsigned routes are included than there are systems without. Barring unsigned routes from the HB is pretty much limited to North America. And a lot of road enthusiasts in North America think that unsigned routes should be clinched.

Here's my thought: if you don't want to count unsigned routes yourself, fine. But your personal preference of not wanting to count unsigned routes shouldn't stop other people from being able to track them, especially when the routes are well-documented in legislation, GIS, or SLDs. Even people who don't use TM to track their travels use the site as a reference. The "signed/unsigned" criterion is arbitrary, as far as most states are concerned, and some of the routes that TM considers "unsigned" are signed better in the field than "signed" routes! A signed route is no different legally from an unsigned route unless the unsigned route is in a secondary/lesser system.

Of note: in the case of something like UT 900/901, there is no online map-based source for the routing, so we would be filling a gap in what exists. We have which BLM roads it uses because someone in the mountain west was able to track it all down, but it's not linked to a nice public map.

[neroute2]

The thing about 900/901 is that they aren't constructed or maintained, which is different from being constructed but merely unsigned.

[yakra]

Not constructed. Is this anything like TX68?

[neroute2]

Not constructed. Is this anything like TX68?

Kind of, except that it's never going to be constructed and never intended to be constructed. The whole point was to define certain dirt tracks as barriers to a potential nuclear waste hauling railroad.

[yakra]

(CT, for example) where unsigned routes are administratively a separate system from signed ones, and thus would logically be a separate system not in the HB

FTFY.
Lol yeah... I'd been thinking of, what if this led to demand for a New York Select Reference Routes? (To be clear: I do not want to see this.) Majority would be unsigned, with signed as the exception...

Well, we would need to create separate systems at least temporarily while unsigned routes are under peer review.

Mm, not necessarily. New routes are added in to active systems all the time. Could just as easily treat addition of new unsigned stuff the same.

I think what is really needed more is a way for people to choose what they want tracked.  Then those debates like what we have with unsigned interstates, usanp, and usaush would not be necessary IMO.

The idea that just won't go away. Though... there may be good reason for that?

I see two different ideas emerging...

I would also be in favor of being able to track official routes that are unposted, or also in the case of Virginia, posted but not in a shield. 

The signed/unsigned distinction...

It seems we should err on the side of having everything official on the site (some of the Virginia ones, for example, are on their official maps), and those who do not wish to clinch them will choose to not do so.  Just as there are people who don't feel the need to clinch NPS routes will consider themselves finished with a state if they got the primary systems of the state but TM will say they have something less than 100% of the mileage.

...and allowing users to "opt out" and not track systems they don't care about.

There's infrastructure for this in place, but our current userpages don't get us all the way there. On region.php & system.php, the maps look OK whether we filter for any combination of 1 or more systems in 1 or more regions. A happy side effect of the way the site works under the hood. The tables are more limited and less customizable though -- region.php always shows all the systems in one region; system.php will filter for any number of regions, but only one system.

A redesigned userpage that lets us sort for any number of regions and any number of systems will get us what we want here. It could eliminate the need for a separate region.php & system.php, (or even user/index.php) and simplify development & maintenance. The "stats for everybody" table at the bottom could be split off into its own page. With a CHM-style heatmap, like when traveled graphs are loaded into the HDX.

If there is resistance to a separate system for unposted, a different solution would be to treat the route as a bannered route (the banner being 'unposted') so that it could be clear to the user that a route they see on the list is unposted in the field.

A separate CSV column would be better. This might conflict with some of the things banner is used for (see: France). We should allow the flexbility of flagging both bannered and unsigned.

From a DataProcessing standpoint...
There's already a column (system or systemName) in the system CSVs that gets a quick sanity check, then ignored. Nix the sanity check, and we store the data there as we gather/develop it, without having to worry about siteupdate complaining about bad data or storing a separate file elsewhere until we suddenly change over. We could safely get the data into place in the CSV first, then once it's all ready, set up siteupdate to parse it.

[SSOWorld]

Then one can say something about the routes such as in Washington State and also US 10 and US 9 that use ferries - At least no Interstates use them.  Certainly one can put that in as an optional field for the hard-core roadder.

[yakra]

There's nothing to filter there. The ferries are simply not included.

[cl94]

There's nothing to filter there. The ferries are simply not included.

Ferries are included in Connecticut. In WA and CT (and US 9/10, for that matter), the ferry is legally defined as part of the route. If you don't want to include WA ferries, the CT ferries probably need to come out.

[SSOWorld]

There's nothing to filter there. The ferries are simply not included.

Ferries are included in Connecticut. In WA and CT (and US 9/10, for that matter), the ferry is legally defined as part of the route. If you don't want to include WA ferries, the CT ferries probably need to come out.

Shit , WIS 113 is crossing the Wisconsin River on a ferry!

[yakra]

Oh crap, yeah, those Connecticut ferries shoulda come out years ago.
Am oan it!