Merits of grab bag systems overlapping other systems

[si404]

ISTM that'd be more hassle for maintainers of states with aggressive freeway upgrade programs (North Carolina and Iowa come to mind)

Puerto Rico was mentioned wrt a situation where unsigned Interstates were removed and so there was no freeway system in the region unless a grabbag was created/extended:

Likewise, were the unsigned interstates to go away, I'd desire a freeway system for Puerto Rico (I'd say Autopista, but many of them are Expresos for some reason, and at least on road marked "expreso" on Google Maps isn't a freeway).  Maybe the freeway sections of the Seward and Glenn Highways in Alaska as well, though there's a case to be made that they might be like the sections in Tasmania (though they're longer and don't have the A route/M route distinction).

Mapping all freeways in NC/IA/etc is absolutely not what is being proposed. Both in the "mapping all freeways" bit, and in the "in NC/IA/etc" bit.

What is proposed is specifically mapping select freeways even if they are entirely concurrent with other routes in, and only in, regions that are not otherwise covered by a freeway system (eg usai).
----

In the specific Australian case, I'd consider Australia "as one" and would not put freeway / motorway sections to aussf which are fully concurrent to numbered routes (in HB) just because they are in an (Australian) region where we don't have a numbered motorway.

Thinking about it, that's what I did in insular parts of Spain, which now only have the Autonomous Community system, even though some of those are Autovia.

[michih]

Does that means creating and maintaining duplicate route files limited to freeway segments?

We only discuss about thouse routes in regions where we don't have any tier 1 system.

ISTM that'd be more hassle for maintainers

I think that all existing (and potential) routes are in Si-land.

For instance, eursf routes in my regions are not concurrent to other routes (except of some French routes which will be replaced by D routes once those systems will be active).

[Jim]

I'm in favor of coherent even if overlapping systems if they can reduce the true grab bag systems.  I believe we'll move several items out of usasf when usanyp is activated.  I wouldn't mind a usanyt for the Thruway that would 1) get the Berkshire Spur out of usasf, and 2) allow someone to choose to map travels on the mainline Thruway as a segment that spans I-87 and I-90.  Similarly, a usaflt could grab the two Florida's Turnpike segments from usasf.  Do the rest of Florida's toll routes have posted state numbers and are already in usafl?  Would people find it useful to be able to list the PA Turnpike as a single entry as it changes I- designations?  I also agree with vdeane that such systems would not be useful when there's a single route already with a single number like the Mass Pike or Indiana Toll Road.  Though I suppose they could be if we put them in a national system like usatt (U.S. Tollways and Turnpikes?).  There is the argument some have made about having to maintain those concurrencies when things change, which might be a concern in some regions, but I don't see NY or PA, for example, modifying the Thruway or Turnpike in any meaningful way.

Non-serious addition: usaezp for all roads that accept E-ZPass tags.

[Markkos1992]

Would people find it useful to be able to list the PA Turnpike as a single entry as it changes I- designations?

I probably would not.  Unlike the NJ Turnpike and the NY State Thruway (only one segment not part of interstate), the PA Turnpike is completely with interstates.

A usapt system for other PA Turnpike routes would not be useful IMO either due to many being interstates, and we would also have to split PA 66.

[si404]

I probably would not.  Unlike the NJ Turnpike and the NY State Thruway (only one segment not part of interstate), the PA Turnpike is completely with interstates.

PA state highways 60, 43, 66 and 576 wave. Oh wait, you are just talking about the mainline.

we would also have to split PA 66.

Would we? An analog might be TCH (which, incidentally is a system entirely concurrent with other systems). Despite changing the shields of certain provincial routes, they are in the provincial route systems and the TCH system.

I'm easy either way on US Turnpikes/Thruways/etc.

[Markkos1992]

I probably would not.  Unlike the NJ Turnpike and the NY State Thruway (only one segment not part of interstate), the PA Turnpike is completely with interstates.

PA state highways 60, 43, 66 and 576 wave. Oh wait, you are just talking about the mainline.

we would also have to split PA 66.

Would we? An analog might be TCH (which, incidentally is a system entirely concurrent with other systems). Despite changing the shields of certain provincial routes, they are in the provincial route systems and the TCH system.

I'm easy either way on US Turnpikes/Thruways/etc.

PA 66 and I-376 (old PA 60) would only be an issue if we made a usapt system that included all of the branches.  Only one part of I-376 (US 422 EB (Exit 15) to PA 51 (Exit 31)) is part of the PA Turnpike System.  Of course, PA 43 would have the same issue due to the portion in Uniontown concurrent with US 119 and US 40 that is maintained by PennDOT.

[theFXexpert]

I'm in favor of coherent even if overlapping systems if they can reduce the true grab bag systems.  I believe we'll move several items out of usasf when usanyp is activated.  I wouldn't mind a usanyt for the Thruway that would 1) get the Berkshire Spur out of usasf, and 2) allow someone to choose to map travels on the mainline Thruway as a segment that spans I-87 and I-90.  Similarly, a usaflt could grab the two Florida's Turnpike segments from usasf.  Do the rest of Florida's toll routes have posted state numbers and are already in usafl?  Would people find it useful to be able to list the PA Turnpike as a single entry as it changes I- designations?

I do like the idea of the NY Thruway and PA Turnpike systems being trackable and it would be personally useful to me.

For Florida, almost all of the toll roads operated by FTE, CFX, MDX, and THEA are in usafl already. (Although putting these in a usaflt system would make it easier to display toll shields)

There are some smaller county/local operated facilities such as: the Osceola Parkway, Orchard Pond Parkway, Card Sound Road, Lee County Bridges, etc...
I'm fine with keeping county toll bridges/roads out of scope if no one feels strongly about including them.

I lean against including the Selmon Connector operated by the Turnpike Enterprise since FDOT inventories it as a bunch of ramps and doesn't even give it a hidden SR number.

Alligator Alley and the Sunshine Skyway are 1 to 1 with interstates and can be excluded.