usaca: California State Highways

[si404]

If the Exit(Route) format were adopted, the qualifiers should be there [6(US 50) and 522(I-5)]

Absolutely. Always done with single-letter ones (even Tim did it) in Europe.

however, that implies that the dominant route (I-5 and US 50) are 'subservient' to CA 99 in this case.

No - the very opposite in fact! It's saying this is that route's exit numbering, not this route's.

I think ultimately this highlights the strength of the Route(Exit) format -- the route qualifiers have been built in by default, and it shows the dominant route and its exit number on the particular tags.

Yes, but it makes it look as if the route is interchanging with the route it is concurrent with!

Route(Exit) is fine for distinguishing multiple intersections with a route with exit numbers. Route(Exit) is deeply confusing for intermediate exits on a concurrency as there's no intersection with 'Route' - the intersection is 'Exit', and the number happens to come from 'Route'.

[oscar]

I blow hot and cold on whether to stick with Route(Exit), or move everything to Exit(Route).

Is a given route otherwise an exit-numbered route?
For example,
NH11 has I-89(12) and I-89(11)
NH101 has 6(93) and 7(93)

Sometimes. CA 99 is exit-numbered south of Sacramento. North of the concurrence with I-5 in Sacramento, CA 99 is mostly non-freeway, so it has few numbered exits. The junction with I-5 at its south end south of Bakersfield is I-5(221), but on the concurrencies with I-5 and US 50 in Sacramento, exit number(route number) is the format.

For another example brought up earlier, CA 166 is freeway with exit numbers only on its concurrence with US 101. The exits are labeled US101(exit number). It has one interchange each at its east end with I-5 and CA 99, but no exit numbers needed.

[rickmastfan67]

I blow hot and cold on whether to stick with Route(Exit), or move everything to Exit(Route).

Is a given route otherwise an exit-numbered route?
For example,
NH11 has I-89(12) and I-89(11)
NH101 has 6(93) and 7(93)

I always thought it should be the one in bold when a state/US highway was on an Interstate.  The other way was suppose to be only Interstate/Interstate.

[yakra]

Tim advised me on how to do NH101 specifically when I created usanh. I think the manual also bears this out, but I'm not bothering to check it right now.

[Bickendan]

Looks like we should codify one or the other then :/
My preference has been noted, methinks.

[si404]

The CHM Manual has the following (as people can't be bothered to look it up) - abridged to just the relevant bits.

Interchanges on exit-numbered highways

In multiplexes where the concurrency uses exit numbers from the other highway, put the highway number in parentheses. Drop the letter prefix of the concurrent highway if it is more than one character long: I-75 becomes (75). A5 can stay as (A5).

If the concurrent highway uses exit numbers but has a name instead of a number, use the truncated first word: Garden State Parkway is truncated as GarStaPkwy, and use the first part that is not the generic highway type: (Gar) for Garden State Parkway, (Bol) for Tangenziale di Bologna.

and

Waypoint labels for multiplexes:

For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with a numbered, exit-numbered route, use the concurrent highway designation with the exit numbers in parentheses.

For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with a named, exit-numbered route, use the first part of the truncated name followed by the exit numbers in parentheses.

Not that we have to go along with it, but the distinction was exit-numbered/not.

Of course, this was clouded as (IIRC) Tim stopped us using exit numbers on US highways for a long time.

[Bickendan]

I-10_W and I-10_E on CA 60?
Google Maps reports I-10W as 1A on the westbound lanes; GMSV and OSM report it as 1B. Given that 1A and 1B both exist to the east of that on the eastbound lanes, shouldn't I-10_W be 1 prime?

Unhelpfully, GMSV doesn't show the correct exit number for 6th Ave in Beaumont at the eastern terminus. It shows it as 93, which is I-10's for both CA 60 and 6th Ave. It should be 76. CalTrans messed that one up.

[Bickendan]

CA 1 should have an interchange point at the west end of the tunnel in Santa Monica for Ocean Ave.

[oscar]

I-10_W and I-10_E on CA 60?
Google Maps reports I-10W as 1A on the westbound lanes; GMSV and OSM report it as 1B. Given that 1A and 1B both exist to the east of that on the eastbound lanes, shouldn't I-10_W be 1 prime?

Both GMSV and CalNexus show that WB CA 60 exit 1B is for the Mateo St./Santa Fe Ave. offramp. GMSV shows the WB merge into I-10 as unnumbered. While CalNexus assigns 1A to the WB merge with I-10, EB it's assigned to the exit to SB I-5. I think I-10_W is better than inventing an exit number inconsistent with CalNexus, or using a CalNexus exit number WB that is used for an exit EB that is more than a half-mile away and connects to a completely different freeway. 

Unhelpfully, GMSV doesn't show the correct exit number for 6th Ave in Beaumont at the eastern terminus. It shows it as 93, which is I-10's for both CA 60 and 6th Ave. It should be 76. CalTrans messed that one up.

Caltrans hasn't assigned a CA 60 exit number for its junction with I-10, because it doesn't do exit numbers on non-freeways. CalNexus has the end of the CA 60 freeway at Jackrabbit Trail (exit 74) rather than I-10, perhaps because there are at-grade intersections east of Jackrabbit. I-10_E also matches how I've dealt with the exit number tangle at CA 60's west end (see above).

[Bickendan]

For a route having two distinct exits on its own mainline, it's obnoxious that CalTrans opts to make CA 259 a hidden designation and sign it only as 'To CA 210' northbound, and more obnoxiously, as 'I-215' opposed to 'To I-215' from CA 210.
Considering that this is a major connector between two freeways with its own exits (E St northbound, unshared with CA 210; Base Line southbound, shared with I-215; and Highland Ave both directions), and we do have unsigned Interstates in the database, most notably I-305, which CalTrans doesn't even acknowledge, I'd argue that CA 259 fits the bill for a variance and should be included, the fact that all the online maps (Gmaps, MapQuest, OSM, Bing, RMN [Yahoo seems to be dead?]) all show 259 notwithstanding.

[oscar]

For a route having two distinct exits on its own mainline, it's obnoxious that CalTrans opts to make CA 259 a hidden designation and sign it only as 'To CA 210' northbound, and more obnoxiously, as 'I-215' opposed to 'To I-215' from CA 210.

I'm not sure Caltrans "opt[ed]" one way or another. CA 259 has been signed in the not-too-distant past with at least one reassurance marker in each direction on the 259 mainline, but for whatever reason the markers aren't there any more.

If it was a deliberate decision rather than inadvertence, it might've been that 259 really is a set of glorified ramps between 210 and 215, covering the "missing movements" omitted from the 210/215 interchange. Enough pavement to assign it a separate route number, but not enough to possibly confuse the traveling public with route markers other than CA 210 NB and I-215 SB.

Removing CA 259 from the HB caused a little heartburn for me. But only a little.

[Bickendan]

I-10_W and I-10_E on CA 60?
Google Maps reports I-10W as 1A on the westbound lanes; GMSV and OSM report it as 1B. Given that 1A and 1B both exist to the east of that on the eastbound lanes, shouldn't I-10_W be 1 prime?

Both GMSV and CalNexus show that WB CA 60 exit 1B is for the Mateo St./Santa Fe Ave. offramp. GMSV shows the WB merge into I-10 as unnumbered. While CalNexus assigns 1A to the WB merge with I-10, EB it's assigned to the exit to SB I-5. I think I-10_W is better than inventing an exit number inconsistent with CalNexus, or using a CalNexus exit number WB that is used for an exit EB that is more than a half-mile away and connects to a completely different freeway. 

The ramp braiding certainly makes it complicated. If anything then, I don't agree with the _W _E labels for CA 60, as that's traditionally used for business loops and surface concurrencies. _W -> (16B) or I-10 prime?

Unhelpfully, GMSV doesn't show the correct exit number for 6th Ave in Beaumont at the eastern terminus. It shows it as 93, which is I-10's for both CA 60 and 6th Ave. It should be 76. CalTrans messed that one up.

Caltrans hasn't assigned a CA 60 exit number for its junction with I-10, because it doesn't do exit numbers on non-freeways.

That doesn't match with CA 126 at Commerce Center Dr (https://goo.gl/maps/rJ9vThhwd6k). OSM shows the mileage based exit 40A; GMSV shows a signed exit 13, with no exit number at I-5 most likely from it's non-freeflow interchange. CA 1 has exit 226 at CA 135 (https://goo.gl/maps/XVbpm8584412), and more impressively, CA 154 has a signed exit 32 on its only interchange as a super-2 (https://goo.gl/maps/FxFEyxSn1wJ2)! [/quote]CalNexus has the end of the CA 60 freeway at Jackrabbit Trail (exit 74) rather than I-10, perhaps because there are at-grade intersections east of Jackrabbit. I-10_E also matches how I've dealt with the exit number tangle at CA 60's west end (see above).
[/quote]I think with these examples (despite 126's incorrect exit number at Commerce Center Dr), CalTrans is dropping the ball with CA60(76). It probably should be I-10(93) for our uses.

[oscar]

I-10_W and I-10_E on CA 60?
Google Maps reports I-10W as 1A on the westbound lanes; GMSV and OSM report it as 1B. Given that 1A and 1B both exist to the east of that on the eastbound lanes, shouldn't I-10_W be 1 prime?

Both GMSV and CalNexus show that WB CA 60 exit 1B is for the Mateo St./Santa Fe Ave. offramp. GMSV shows the WB merge into I-10 as unnumbered. While CalNexus assigns 1A to the WB merge with I-10, EB it's assigned to the exit to SB I-5. I think I-10_W is better than inventing an exit number inconsistent with CalNexus, or using a CalNexus exit number WB that is used for an exit EB that is more than a half-mile away and connects to a completely different freeway. 

The ramp braiding certainly makes it complicated. If anything then, I don't agree with the _W _E labels for CA 60, as that's traditionally used for business loops and surface concurrencies. _W -> (16B) or I-10 prime?

While I don't see anything wrong with I-10_W and I-10_E, might I-10(16B) and I-10(93) work?

Caltrans hasn't assigned a CA 60 exit number for its junction with I-10, because it doesn't do exit numbers on non-freeways.

That doesn't match with CA 126 at Commerce Center Dr (https://goo.gl/maps/rJ9vThhwd6k). OSM shows the mileage based exit 40A; GMSV shows a signed exit 13, with no exit number at I-5 most likely from it's non-freeflow interchange.

CalNexus assigns exit number 40A for CA 126 there, and treats the east end of 126 as an exit-numberable freeway. Just the exit number doesn't match what's posted in the field. I used ComCenDr in case Caltrans has fixed, or soon will fix, its mistake.

CA 1 has exit 226 at CA 135 (https://goo.gl/maps/XVbpm8584412), and more impressively, CA 154 has a signed exit 32 on its only interchange as a super-2 (https://goo.gl/maps/FxFEyxSn1wJ2)!

CA 154 is not in CalNexus, but at least is a freeway even if just a Super-2. CA 1 at CA 135 (north junction) is in CalNexus, which confirms that the 226 exit number is on the books. OTOH, I'm not sure the HB should keep label 224 at the south CA 1/CA 135 junction, which is neither in CalNexus nor GMSV.

CalNexus has the end of the CA 60 freeway at Jackrabbit Trail (exit 74) rather than I-10, perhaps because there are at-grade intersections east of Jackrabbit. I-10_E also matches how I've dealt with the exit number tangle at CA 60's west end (see above).

I think with these examples (despite 126's incorrect exit number at Commerce Center Dr), CalTrans is dropping the ball with CA60(76). It probably should be I-10(93) for our uses.

Even if it be a mistake (which I think it isn't), not our job to invent CA60(76) to fix it. I-10(93) at least is a real exit number.

[Bickendan]

While I don't see anything wrong with I-10_W and I-10_E, might I-10(16B) and I-10(93) work?

That'll work fine.

[yakra]

I-10(16B) and I-10(93) seconded. (Thirded?)

Also, I-215(33) and pals -> 33(215) and pals.