Unsigned State Routes

[yakra]

Mile markers & street blades could get us a few NJ routes.
And then there's ME701 & ME703, AKA ScaCon & MTAppRd respectively in usasf.

I'm not in favor of bridge identification signs, at least as they're done in Maine -- an oversized blade sign, all-text, no shield.

[Bickendan]

Not gonna lie -- that "(Route 99)" is hilarious.

[jayhawkco]

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.

And/or, we could just log all routes that a state logs and be done with it.  I guess I don't understand why we wouldn't.  If a member is upset because they haven't clinched a state because of an unsigned route, I would question why the member is going through the trouble of clinching.  Is it for themselves or for others?  If they're happy to be done after the signed ones, so be it.  Just my two cents.

Chris

[Duke87]

For routes that are partially signed, or where what is signed disagrees with what is on paper, I do not favor a policy change - signage, where it exists and is consistent, is the final arbiter. The intended scope of this discussion is only whether and how to do something with routes that have zero signs (or zero qualifying signs).

Regarding loosening the rules for what constitutes "signed", I think we could do this now without needing to wait for the toggle feature, so I could get behind that.

I do not think this would not change anything in any region I currently maintain but I could be missing something. NJ is really the big state on this. Otherwise... we might find a street sign blade mentioning something here or there (IIRC at least one route in usamts has a mention in text on a street sign blade but no other signage, and is excluded).

[oscar]

I'm not in favor of bridge identification signs, at least as they're done in Maine -- an oversized blade sign, all-text, no shield.

This is what I had in mind -- sign on CA 222 in Ukiah that identifies its route number (and that of the highway it crosses over):

https://goo.gl/maps/K5CZtUawVhtizJW9A

Not all bridge ID signs are that visible. Some are smaller, lower, and parallel to traffic, so harder to read at speed.

[mapmikey]

It sounds like I can add the 11 Virginia routes that are signed in a way that is visible at highway speeds but do not have a qualifying sign per precedent on CHM or TM

[oscar]

It sounds like I can add the 11 Virginia routes that are signed in a way that is visible at highway speeds but do not have a qualifying sign per precedent on CHM or TM

Is that just white rectangles (larger and more visible than Hawaii's small white rectangles), or also other forms of signage?

[mapmikey]

It sounds like I can add the 11 Virginia routes that are signed in a way that is visible at highway speeds but do not have a qualifying sign per precedent on CHM or TM

Is that just white rectangles (larger and more visible than Hawaii's small white rectangles), or also other forms of signage?

All white rectangles.  Virginia does identify route numbers at its overpass/underpasses but I don't think any reflect any current route that doesn't have other signage.

[vdeane]

Regarding loosening what counts as "signed", I would be wary about any standard that would count NY reference routes as "signed" because of reference markers.  Something to keep in mind.  As such, I'm skeptical of things like small white rectangles or call box things.  I can, however, see loosening the standard in the case of things like NJ's street blades (especially as they are now much more prominent with the EMM roll-out).

Regarding treating partially signed routes the same while adding unsigned routes, that's just plain inconsistent and I don't see how that would make any kind of sense to do.  Maybe if you split the route file into signed/unsigned portions, but definitely not just leaving the unsigned portion out if totally unsigned routes are in.

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.

And/or, we could just log all routes that a state logs and be done with it.  I guess I don't understand why we wouldn't.  If a member is upset because they haven't clinched a state because of an unsigned route, I would question why the member is going through the trouble of clinching.  Is it for themselves or for others?  If they're happy to be done after the signed ones, so be it.  Just my two cents.

Chris

Well, someone might want their stats to hit 100%.  Or they might want their traveled map to look good, or have a whole section all clinched, etc.

[cl94]

NJ and VA are almost certainly the places that would see the biggest change by loosening "signed" to include mile markers and blades. And frankly, they're the places that get TM the most flack for what counts as signed or unsigned because of their signage practices. I'd be all for counting EMMs and blades as "signed".

In NJ, this would push 13, 59, 64, 165, 167 (at least the southern segment), and 324 to "signed" status. 13, 167 and 324 are only signed with EMMs, the other three have overhead signs. This would leave only 162, 163, and the ramp routes off of TM for being "fully unsigned" and not part of usasf.

[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).

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

After checking, I saw no evidence that 14 was a state route (mileposts, etc.). I think you mean 344, and 344 + 346 are just internal designations for the two sides of the US-87 washout. So really, the only thing that would be added is the 0.2 ish miles of WY 74 in Saratoga.

[formulanone]

I've learned today that Georgia also uses unsigned routes on the 700-1200 range, but only on a temporary basis.

Some of them even wind up on state maps, though I'm not sure if this should even be implemented; they mostly seem like "project numbers" for bypasses and new alignments.

[cl94]

I've learned today that Georgia also uses unsigned routes on the 700-1200 range, but only on a temporary basis.

Some of them even wind up on state maps, though I'm not sure if this should even be implemented; they mostly seem like "project numbers" for bypasses and new alignments.

A SR number over 700 in Georgia indicates either a proposal or temporary number while a route is awaiting upgrade. In the latter case, it's a number given for inventory purposes when the state takes control of a road. In either case, these are not intended as long-term designations and are re-designated or removed when construction/upgrading is complete. These are a unique case, as it could be something as simple as GDOT temporarily taking over a city/county road to reconstruct it then turning it back to the local municipality, which wouldn't even involve a formal takeover in most states (and thus no designation).

[Eth]

I've learned today that Georgia also uses unsigned routes on the 700-1200 range, but only on a temporary basis.

Some of them even wind up on state maps, though I'm not sure if this should even be implemented; they mostly seem like "project numbers" for bypasses and new alignments.

A SR number over 700 in Georgia indicates either a proposal or temporary number while a route is awaiting upgrade. In the latter case, it's a number given for inventory purposes when the state takes control of a road. In either case, these are not intended as long-term designations and are re-designated or removed when construction/upgrading is complete. These are a unique case, as it could be something as simple as GDOT temporarily taking over a city/county road to reconstruct it then turning it back to the local municipality, which wouldn't even involve a formal takeover in most states (and thus no designation).

If we go by GDOT's most recent (2019) road inventory data, they only designate as an official "Main Line State Highway Route" (see Data Dictionary, pp. 12-14) just one route with a number higher than 540: Route_ID "1000100092000INC", which translates to 920. That would be the same 920 referenced in the Wikipedia link above.

I presume there must be some reason why this route, and none of the other 700+ routes, is here.

[si404]

I think there's a difference between route designations that are of a sort that are not meant to used for navigation and only exist for internal administration*, and ones that are normal route numbers (in the range that signed numbers are, etc) that just happen to not be signed (perhaps appearing on mile markers).

The latter sorts of routes are the sort of thing that are worthy of the database. The former forming a lot of the argument against adding any. Distinguishing between the two is something that needs to happen.

Stuff like Florida's state designations for US routes and Interstates are the latter - they form an integral part of the grid of state route numbers, but stuff like UT900 that have been deliberately numbered with out of sequence number are the former.

GA900 seems to be a signed version of the former. But so is, arguably, GA400 - the 4xx series were for hidden designations to refer to interstates, but GA400 never got given its interstate number to be the public-facing number, so the DOT's admin number got shown. That's a difficulty.

*sometimes these might be signed as if they were meant to be signed, even though they weren't. eg here. C road numbers are explicitly not meant to appear on signs, but merely be for administrative purposes, but one is signed here on normal direction signage (they often appear on temporary signage, and sometimes on regulatory signage).