Unsigned State Routes

[vdeane]

I have done the wpt file work for several of Virginia's quasi-posted routes.

It seems to me based on this thread that the general consensus is these should be on TM.  The majority of primary routes in Virginia have this posting style in the field - these additional routes happen to have it as their only posting.

Sending them in unless somebody has a convincing reason not to.

How similar are those to NY reference markers?  They seem similar to me, and we wouldn't say a route in NY was signed just because their are reference markers for it.

[oscar]

I have done the wpt file work for several of Virginia's quasi-posted routes.

It seems to me based on this thread that the general consensus is these should be on TM.  The majority of primary routes in Virginia have this posting style in the field - these additional routes happen to have it as their only posting.

Sending them in unless somebody has a convincing reason not to.

How similar are those to NY reference markers?  They seem similar to me, and we wouldn't say a route in NY was signed just because their are reference markers for it.

The Virginia markers are somewhat larger and more visible, and also have only one number on them rather than three on NY reference markers. The latter are more similar to the small number plates in Hawaii.

I'm not yet 100% sold on the Virginia markers, or New Jersey blades with mini-route shields. But if we're going to add anything at all, we should start with those. NY reference markers are farther down the list.

[mapmikey]

examples:

http://www.vahighways.com/va-ends/va300/va335_wt.jpg

http://www.vahighways.com/va-ends/va300/va342_st.jpg

http://www.vahighways.com/va-ends/va300/va388_et_04.jpg

[froggie]

One could also argue that the Virginia markers are trailblazers...they operate in a similar fashion to trailblazer shields, very much unlike NY reference markers.

[vdeane]

One could also argue that the Virginia markers are trailblazers...they operate in a similar fashion to trailblazer shields, very much unlike NY reference markers.

Yes, looking at those examples, I agree.  I must have been thinking of the Hawaii squares.

[Jim]

Would it be helpful for me to put these, temporarily, into a devel system so people can check them out more easily?

[oscar]

Another form of qualifying "route signage" might be postmiles/mileposts used in California and Nevada, like this pair in Nevada at the border between Douglas County and independent Carson City:

http://www.alaskaroads.com/DouglasCoNV-CarsonCity-border-postmiles_DSC7713.jpg

Both signs are about waist-high, and identify the route (US 50) on which they are located. The Nevada signs are similar to California's postmiles.

There is at least one route already in the HB, near Wells NV, that appears to have nothing resembling route signage other than mileposts like those shown above at the Carson City line.

Some of California's unsigned state routes might also have regular postmiles, which I'll have to check out later. California's urban routes normally don't have postmiles. A more likely place to look would be something like CA 222 in Ukiah.

Lately, Nevada has been replacing mileposts on some routes with much larger versions, including mini-route markers, as here on NV 173 near Boulder City:

http://www.alaskaroads.com/NV173mm(CL)0-DSC_1972.jpg

I've only seen the enlarged Nevada mileposts on routes also marked with conventional route markers, such as the one in the background of the above photo, next to the parked RV.

[vdeane]

Postmiles (except the newer Nevada ones that look kinda like enhanced milemarkers) strike me as similar to the NY reference markers.  I guess the question is how extensively Nevada is replacing the older postmiles with the larger versions - is that something that will be intended for use everywhere eventually, or will it always be on certain routes only?

[Duke87]

Postmiles (except the newer Nevada ones that look kinda like enhanced milemarkers) strike me as similar to the NY reference markers.  I guess the question is how extensively Nevada is replacing the older postmiles with the larger versions - is that something that will be intended for use everywhere eventually, or will it always be on certain routes only?

There are already relatively minor routes that have gotten enhanced postmiles, so it doesn't seem to be a deliberately limited thing. Whether any otherwise unsigned routes will get them remains to be seen, but I don't think Nevada has very many of those.

[formulanone]

I forgot that Illinois has a number of these routes (I.D. Routes), especially in the 900-range. There's a state-wide mile marker system and the route number is listed above the post mile; so there's usually a start "0.00" and ending mileage marker. They're former alignments, former state routes, or other connections of local importance.

I'm unclear if they're state-maintained or actually part of a secondary system. Some of them even have a county road/route number, further muddying these things.

[Markkos1992]

I moved the CA topic into the unsigned state route discussion thread since they will obviously not be added to the HB at the moment due to being unsigned.

[Markkos1992]

NJ 64 was brought up yesterday in the Cumberland Meet thread on the AARoads Forum.  MD 61 was also brought up.  I put a link to this thread there to try to move that discussion over here.

[oscar]

I moved the CA topic into the unsigned state route discussion thread since they will obviously not be added to the HB at the moment due to being unsigned.

I've unsplit the CA topic, and moved it to Updates to Highway Data, since the new signage for the Pinnacles NP segment of CA 146 warrants putting it back into the HB. I'll implement the HB change once I'm back from California.

In any case, the issue with CA 173 is not that it's unsigned, but rather that part of it is closed to the public. So that doesn't belong here, either.