NV: Wells Area Point Concerns

[Markkos1992]

I was looking at the AASHTO Spring 2017 Thread and noticed a few missing I-80 graph connections around Wells while looking to see if the Nevada changes were done (which it looks like they were).

NV 231:
1.  Should AngLK be AngLake?
2.  NV221 should be NV223. (and should have a graph connection)

NV 223/I-80BLWel: Both routes should have a graph connection with 351 on I-80.

US 93/I-80BLWel:  Both routes should have a graph connection with 352A on I-80 and US93_N on US93AltWen.

[oscar]

I haven't forgotten this. But some more wrinkles to these changes:

-- Per 2019 GMSV, NV 223 seems to be completely unsigned (though Wikipedia indicates it was once signed, with a photo from 2014). No route signs along the route itself, or mentions at its junctions with I-80, US 93, or NV 231. NV 223 is mostly concurrent with Business I-80 (Wells), which is signed. But NV 223 includes a short segment south of I-80, to the NV 231 junction, which is not concurrent with the business route, and is claimed by several users (not including me).

-- NV 231 has weak route signage, unless there is a standard route marker on the short segment at its west end that 2019 GMSV didn't cover. FWIW, Wikipedia says its "unsigned". The only visible evidence of the route number is a pair of mileposts (about waist-high) at mile 7, one of which is at https://goo.gl/maps/n51Vp7LHhPu3Nkdf9 and also one at the NV 223 junction. No standard route marker there -- one goofy feature of Nevada route signage is that there's not always junction signage (even on freeway exit signs), but there are sometimes route markers only on the route itself. Only one user, vespertine, has claimed travels on this route.

Both routes are officially in the Nevada state highway system, and are as shown in the HB, per the January 2021 edition of State Maintained Highways of Nevada.

I'll go ahead and make the changes Markkos1992 suggested. But I'm not inclined to remove NV 223 or NV 231 from the HB at this time, especially since we've been sometimes too hasty to remove routes from the HB only to put them back in later. The mileposts on NV 231 might or might not justify treating it as "signed", under an expanded definition of qualifying route signage. If 231 and 223 get "enhanced mileposts" recently if unevenly rolled out in other parts of the state, that would probably move both routes back into "signed" territory. Besides, we're noodling over possibly routinely including unsigned routes in the HB (perhaps with a user option to omit such routes from their maps and statistics). I think that justifies keeping NV 223 and NV 231 in the HB for now, even if I would keep leaving out unsigned routes not already in the HB, as I've done in Las Vegas (except for one route initially left out, but added once NDOT belatedly added route markers).

[oscar]

Requested changes are now in the HB.

The possibly-unsigned NV 223 and NV 231 are still in the HB for now. My next road trip out west is likely to include a few days in northern Nevada, with a stop in Wells (but more time in Reno/Carson City, to bring its "field checking" up to what I've done in the Las Vegas metro area). That should give me some sense of how much NVDOT has been upgrading its route signage, such as with the "enhanced mileposts" it's been unevenly rolling out in at least southern and eastern Nevada.

[oscar]

Update, from my visit to Wells a few days ago.

NV 223 has one reassurance marker, that was not present last time a GMSV camera car passed through Wells.

I was only able to check out the eastern half of NV 231, since the western half was closed (might be just a seasonal closure). No route markers, or even enhanced mileposts, on the eastern half. But there's no GMSV coverage of the westernmost segment of the route, just east of the fee booth, which would be a logical place to put a route marker (though the east end would be more logical, with only a milepost at the NV 223 junction showing the 231 route number of Angel Lake Rd.). So I'm treating NV 231 as not unsigned, until someone reports otherwise, or GMSV sends a camera car to cover the entire route.

[Markkos1992]

So I'm treating NV 231 as not signed, until someone reports otherwise, or GMSV sends a camera car to cover the entire route.

Did you mean to type the above sentence as I wrote it above here?

[oscar]

So I'm treating NV 231 as not signed, until someone reports otherwise, or GMSV sends a camera car to cover the entire route.

Did you mean to type the above sentence as I wrote it above here?

Nope, I meant what I said, "treating ... as not unsigned", and therefore should stay in the HB until we have better confirmation of the lack of route signage.

Nevada definitely has routes in its primary highway system, with assigned numbers but no route number signage other than standard mileposts. But they are usually short, about one mile long or less. NV 231 is about 11 miles long, and provides access to the Angel Lake park and campgrounds. It would be uncharacteristic of NVDOT not to put a route marker somewhere, such as near the fee booth at the west end of the route, not covered by GMSV, or by my own field check due to an apparently seasonal road closure the day I was there.

In addition to NV 223 elsewhere in Wells, I also have some experience with other routes (including on my current trip in progress) where it appeared from GMSV that they were unsigned, but when I checked them in person they turned out to be signed.

A belated additional point: NV 231 apparently once passed our signage test, since it's been in the HB in awhile, including when Tim (who was strict about the unsigned routes rule) was managing and perhaps also created the usanv system. If NV 231 weren't already in the HB, we might presume from the incomplete info we have that it's unsigned, and not add it to the HB. But IMO existing routes like NV 231 should be presumed to be signed and to stay in the HB, until we have better evidence to the contrary.

One of our users has clinched NV 231, in addition to my having traveled and claimed mileage on the eastern half.