Unsigned State Routes

[SSOWorld]

IA: Given that they haven't been consistent with signing in places like Dubuque, IA-32 should still be in the DB right now - but they have a legit excuse in that the summer derecho has diverted efforts to "Crapids" because of major hurricane force winds.

Aren't those old IA-32 signs just remnant signage, for a route we know has been officially decommissioned, that can and should be ignored?

Lots of remnant signage out there, in many states. Looking for it is a common roadgeek adventure.

IowaDOT greened out US-52 on any green sign both on freeways and local roads including the junction with John Deere Road South/NW Arterial - the sign on JDRS is where they left IA 3 and IA 32 uncovered.  IA 32 should have been covered. (Possible oversight?)

[yakra]

they would need clear rules like what's laid out in the OP to prevent that.

I'm sure that with our track record we would find plenty of opportunity to make them unclear.

the argument for Walden Avenue is that it's like a touring route

The argument for Walden Ave is immaterial, incredibly weak. It's essentially that Walden Ave is a coulda-been-shoulda-been Touring Route. Well it ain't.
There are plenty of roads of whatever significance that are not a signed part of a primary system, and they're not included on the grounds of "almost".
Let's not go out of our way to make the slope even MORE slippery.

[Markkos1992]

Note, the following quoted post is from the unsigned interstates thread, but the subject is more here:

On a more serious note, I doubt that Duke87 is planning to add UT 900 and UT 901.  I would not even recommend the addition of NJ 324.  (as much as I want to walk clinch that eventually)

NJ 324 is totally driveable. Would not need to walk it to clinch it. It even has street view imagery. It's as fair game as any other of NJ's unsigned routes.

I personally do not feel comfortable driving it based on what I saw in roadwaywiz's Online Road Meet covering it, but to each their own.

I drove NJ 324 in the winter. The entire thing is passable in a passenger car down to the ferry dock. It's in no worse shape than NJ 163.

[the_spui_ninja]

Wyoming: There are only three, and all constraints are met.

Is that 14, 74, and 224? I think 14 has been decommissioned (I can check on Monday, but the 2017 maintenance logs don't have a milepost section for it even tho it's on the map).

[vdeane]

they would need clear rules like what's laid out in the OP to prevent that.

I'm sure that with our track record we would find plenty of opportunity to make them unclear.

the argument for Walden Avenue is that it's like a touring route

The argument for Walden Ave is immaterial, incredibly weak. It's essentially that Walden Ave is a coulda-been-shoulda-been Touring Route. Well it ain't.
There are plenty of roads of whatever significance that are not a signed part of a primary system, and they're not included on the grounds of "almost".
Let's not go out of our way to make the slope even MORE slippery.

Yes, I think we're seeing that already.  Wasn't it mentioned somewhere that at least one of those routes in Utah doesn't even exist as a goat path anymore?  And exactly my point about how slippery the slope is.  I've seen it myself with my list of things to clinch in addition to TM and what to make an exit list of on my website.  It's very easy to start leaning into the "just include everything" option when the lines aren't perfectly clear.

[Duke87]

Wasn't it mentioned somewhere that at least one of those routes in Utah doesn't even exist as a goat path anymore?

One branch of one of them is no longer clinchable since the land it was on is now fenced and in use for ranching. The rest are all still there. Should be noted that both UT 900 and 901 have multiple segments, neither is a single road in spite of sharing a common number.

And exactly my point about how slippery the slope is.  I've seen it myself with my list of things to clinch in addition to TM and what to make an exit list of on my website.  It's very easy to start leaning into the "just include everything" option when the lines aren't perfectly clear.

The lines aren't clear as is. See NJ again for this. NJ 59 is "unsigned". NJ 64 is "unsigned". NJ 167 is "unsigned".

In the past we decided that street sign blades and EMMs don't count but this is kinda arbitrary innit? It definitely gets an "oh come on" from numerous people.

[neroute2]

900 and 901 are not included in any logs. Other unsigned routes are.

[cl94]

And exactly my point about how slippery the slope is.  I've seen it myself with my list of things to clinch in addition to TM and what to make an exit list of on my website.  It's very easy to start leaning into the "just include everything" option when the lines aren't perfectly clear.

The lines aren't clear as is. See NJ again for this. NJ 59 is "unsigned". NJ 64 is "unsigned". NJ 167 is "unsigned".

In the past we decided that street sign blades and EMMs don't count but this is kinda arbitrary innit? It definitely gets an "oh come on" from numerous people.

It also makes for some weird cases even in NJ. See the case of NJ 62, which is considered "signed" because of 3 BGSes along US 46. The fact that those count to make NJ 62 signed but an EMM or blade along the route itself doesn't count is quite arbitrary. If NJDOT wanted all of these routes to be completely "secret", there wouldn't be shields on overhead signs or EMMs. NJDOT, like some other state DOTs, believes that posting numbers in some of these cases would lead to unnecessary confusion, especially if the entire damn thing overlaps another route.

900 and 901 are not included in any logs. Other unsigned routes are.

That's the best argument we've had so far for not including 900 and 901. They aren't in logs. The only mention of their existence is a single piece of legislation, which also contains a low resolution map highlighting which 4x4 paths the route allegedly uses.

[vdeane]

One thing to keep in mind is that NJDOT wasn't using EMMs everywhere when the decision was made to omit unsigned NJ routes.  The line seems fuzzier now because the unsigned numbers have become much more prominent in recent years.

[US 89]

900 and 901 are not included in any logs. Other unsigned routes are.

That's the best argument we've had so far for not including 900 and 901. They aren't in logs. The only mention of their existence is a single piece of legislation, which also contains a low resolution map highlighting which 4x4 paths the route allegedly uses.

There's the 1999 resolution that contained that map, but the legal route definitions are still in Utah code (though there are no UDOT highway referencing materials for them). The legal description, for those curious:

   Statewide public safety interest highways include:

(a)   SR-900. From near the east bound on and off ramps of the I-80 Delle Interchange on the I-80 south frontage road, traversing northwesterly, westerly, and northeasterly, including on portions of a county road and a Bureau of Land Management road for a distance of 9.24 miles. Then beginning again at the I-80 south frontage road traversing southwesterly and northwesterly on a county road for a distance of 4.33 miles. Then beginning again at the I-80 south frontage road traversing southwesterly, northerly, northwesterly, westerly, and northeasterly on a county road and a Bureau of Land Management road to near the east bound on and off ramps of I-80 Low/Lakeside Interchange for a distance of 2.61 miles. The entire length of SR-900 is a total distance of 16.18 miles.

(b)   SR-901. From SR-196 traversing westerly and northwesterly on a county road to a junction with a Bureau of Land Management road described as part of SR-901, then northwesterly to a junction with a county road for a distance of 8.70 miles. Then beginning again at a junction with SR-901 traversing northwesterly on a Bureau of Land Management road to a junction with a county road for a distance of 6.52 miles. Then beginning again at a junction with SR-901 traversing southwesterly on a Bureau of Land Management road to a junction with a county road for a distance of 5.44 miles. Then beginning again from a junction with SR-901 traversing southwesterly on a county road to a junction with a county road a distance of 11.52 miles. Then beginning again at a junction with SR-196 traversing westerly on a Bureau of Land Management road to a junction with a county road for a distance of 11.30 miles. The entire length of SR-901 is a total distance of 43.48 miles.

The italicized line in 901 refers to the portion that is now private property used for ranching.

[jayhawkco]

Wyoming: There are only three, and all constraints are met.

Is that 14, 74, and 224? I think 14 has been decommissioned (I can check on Monday, but the 2017 maintenance logs don't have a milepost section for it even tho it's on the map).

Off the top of my brain, I was thinking 74, 344, and 346.  I'll look when I get home to see if I missed any.  Some of yours are likely right as well.

Chris

[jayhawkco]

Wyoming: There are only three, and all constraints are met.

Is that 14, 74, and 224? I think 14 has been decommissioned (I can check on Monday, but the 2017 maintenance logs don't have a milepost section for it even tho it's on the map).

Off the top of my brain, I was thinking 74, 344, and 346.  I'll look when I get home to see if I missed any.  Some of yours are likely right as well.

Chris

Looks like 14, 74, 334, and 346 are unsigned.  It looks like 224 was decommissioned as far as I can tell. (Not on the most recent AADT data that I downloaded).

Chris

[cl94]

Wyoming: There are only three, and all constraints are met.

Is that 14, 74, and 224? I think 14 has been decommissioned (I can check on Monday, but the 2017 maintenance logs don't have a milepost section for it even tho it's on the map).

Off the top of my brain, I was thinking 74, 344, and 346.  I'll look when I get home to see if I missed any.  Some of yours are likely right as well.

Chris

Looks like 14, 74, 334, and 346 are unsigned.  It looks like 224 was decommissioned as far as I can tell. (Not on the most recent AADT data that I downloaded).

Chris

370 is also partially unsigned. Officially runs from I-80 to WYO 430 after a recent reroute, but is still signed to the airport because updating signs is a low priority.

[oscar]

370 is also partially unsigned. Officially runs from I-80 to WYO 430 after a recent reroute, but is still signed to the airport because updating signs is a low priority.

Which means 370 is partially signed. I think that means 370 doesn't belong in the "unsigned state routes" discussion.

Also, since the reroute is "official", do we need to wait for signage to catch up, to update the route in the HB, and can we just treat any WY 370 signage on the old alignment as irrelevant remnant signage?

Quote from: Duke87 on July 03, 2020, 02:37:03 pm, in WY: WY 370 Realignment Six-Month+ Outlook:

All this ties into the prior conclusion: WY 370 has officially moved, via a maintenance swap with Sweetwater County, but they haven't gotten around to changing any shields yet. Proper course of action is to note this as a long-range outlook item and wait for indication the signs have changed.

You know that creates an artificial unsigned route situation, where most of WY 370 isn't counted as a signed route because it doesn't yet have route signs (but the part that wasn't relocated is still signed), while the HB shows part of WY 370 as a current route even though it's been decommissioned, because of error signage on the decommissioned segment? If we're going to be mapping unsigned routes, we'd need to map the relocated part of WY 370 as an unsigned route.

If we're going to think about including unsigned routes in the HB for people to claim if they want, we should as part of that process rethink how we treat routes that have been partially relocated, with an eye to reducing the number of unsigned routes.

[oscar]

Should we consider loosening the precedents on what qualifies as "route signage" good enough to make a route "signed"? For a few that come to mind (might be others):

-- Mini-route signs, like those under milemarkers in Hawaii, or on enhanced milemarkers in other states? Tim thought the ones in Hawaii didn't count. If we decided otherwise, that would move at least two Hawaii state routes (901 on Oahu, 5600 in Kauai) from "unsigned" to "signed".

-- Route numbers included in emergency callbox identification signs. This would grant Bickendan his wish to add CA 259 back to the HB as a signed route. OTOH, those callbox numbers are even less visible to travelers than the mini-markers in the preceding paragraph.

There might be other kinds of more-or-less visible evidence of highway route numbers, such as bridge identification signs (also a little hard for motorists to read at speed), that we might want to think about to more sensibly apply the unsigned routes rule.