usaca: California State Highways

[yakra]

Hm. If the standard is CR__ for blue pentagon routes in the rest of the country, changing them to CH__ in one state doesn't seem the best option...

[neroute2]

The county roads that have numbers (most do not, such as in the example you posted), but are not marked with blue pentagons like the ones in the County Signed Route program, don't follow any particular numbering scheme. Some of them are indeed called "Road X" or "Ave Y", as in this example from Madera County (which I photographed only because that county really loves its -half roads/avenues):

Zoom in on my photo; the numbers are posted.

"Road 30 1/2" is no more a county numbered route than "Half Street" is a DC numbered route. It's simply a named road designated by its place in the grid.

[Bickendan]

You mean the numbers under the suffixes (the 143 and 9)?
If so, I would have confused them for the block number as that's Portland's method (eg, SE Division St/2500) :/

[neroute2]

If there are no objections to the additions, can we please get them added? Thanks.

[oscar]

If there are no objections to the additions, can we please get them added? Thanks.

I'm not even going to review your proposed additions until mid-July. I'm on the road, with little free time, for the next few weeks.

Not every point request gets granted. Indeed, one of my recent point requests was rejected.

[neroute2]

Ah. Bureaucracy. Gotta love it.

[michih]

Not every point request gets granted. Indeed, one of my recent point requests was rejected.

Why? If an user needs a point, I would just add it! Jim and I just add points we need without asking the maintainer at all....

[mapcat]

Why? If an user needs a point, I would just add it! Jim and I just add points we need without asking the maintainer at all....

I don't think it's a good policy for collaborators to edit other collaborators' files without telling them.

[michih]

Why? If an user needs a point, I would just add it! Jim and I just add points we need without asking the maintainer at all....

I don't think it's a good policy for collaborators to edit other collaborators' files without telling them.

Telling them afterwards but doing the modification ourselves when needed.

I think if a "normal" user requests a wp we should generally add it except there is already a wp very close to it or if there is any very good reason.

[Jim]

My general rule is that if it's a totally obvious fix or addition that I'm 99% sure won't be an issue, I'll make it and notify the maintainer with a mention in the commit message and/or a note in the forum.

In this specific case, I think it's best of Oscar makes the changes when he's back, as the system is just in preview and beginning its major peer review.  These requests should be addressed as part of that.

[oscar]

Not every point request gets granted. Indeed, one of my recent point requests was rejected.

Why? If an user needs a point, I would just add it! Jim and I just add points we need without asking the maintainer at all....

I'm not in favor of adding every point requested by a user. For example, I'd want to size up whether the proposed new points are too close to existing points (or could replace nearby points), or would re-clutter up route files I went to some trouble to streamline.

Anyway, we're talking about just a few weeks, and there's no urgency to small improvements in user maps or statistics, or for anybody to mess with files I'm still working on. Patience, please!

OTOH, I'm not maintaining the draft historic route files in California (nor the usanp files, though I contributed many of those files, and would be willing to make fixes with Si's concurrence). That part of neroute2's point request list could be covered by someone else without stepping on my toes.

[the_spui_ninja]

Not every point request gets granted. Indeed, one of my recent point requests was rejected.

Why? If an user needs a point, I would just add it! Jim and I just add points we need without asking the maintainer at all....

I'm not in favor of adding every point requested by a user.

Also, sometimes the point requester thinks over the request and realizes it doesn't make much sense (I've done this before).

[oscar]

The requests below that I'm implementing will be pulled in later, along with some New Mexico updates I've mentioned in another Updates thread.

Also, I've moved this topic from Updates into the "In-Progress Systems and Work" topic for usaca. neroute2, as I've reminded you before, point suggestions/requests for systems still in progress should be made in the topic(s) for those systems, not in Updates which is for changes in active systems. That goes double for requests including two in-progress systems (in this case, usaca and usaush) with different developers.

CA1:
[CA9]
MisSt_E http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.97684&lon=-122.03185
(old alignment and route makes a turn)
[YouAve DimLn DavAve]
SwaRd_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.02857&lon=-122.21639
(old alignment)
[SwaRd] -> SwaRd_N
[x110-111 GazCrkRd x113]
BeanHolRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.22208&lon=-122.40624
(old alignment)
[x114 PesCrkRd CA84 X378976]
StaRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.33761&lon=-122.39418
(old alignment)
[TunCrkRd]

All in my local copy. StaRd is really close to x378976, but I was able to delete that shaping point.

CA17:
[x20]
GleDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.11986&lon=-121.97600
(awesome old alignment, worth a drive if you're in the area)
OldSanCruzHwy http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.12781&lon=-121.97587
(old alignment)
[CA35]

GleDr added to my local copy. OldSanCruzHwy is way too close to GleDr, and isn't needed for shaping or other purposes, so I'm leaving that out.

CA17BusSco: are GraCrkRd and CA17(5) not the same interchange, hence should have only one point? I came southbound on Glenwood Drive and turned right on Scotts Valley Drive, and all I missed of the southbound route was the exit 5 offramp.

The point at GraCrkRd is needed at the very least to reflect that people like you who didn't enter or leave CA 17 at exit 5 haven't clinched the entire business route (which includes part of GraCrkRd for northbound travelers, and a parallel ramp for southbound travelers). It also reflects that travelers need to make a 90-degree turn there to stay on the business route, and helps the business route display separately from the mainline except at the endpoints.

Did you see any signage for the business route? My recollection is that signage was sketchy at best.

CA26:
[SanGulRd]
RaiFlatRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.38906&lon=-120.52724
(probably more important than the listed roads in this area)
[PineSt x88 HigRd x96]
DefGraRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.41885&lon=-120.55914
(old alignment of the county road that became SR 26)
[JoyRd]

No can do. Both requested points are a mile or less from existing points. And those existing points are "important" for shaping (plus one is at a town center), while the requested points aren't, so I can't just eliminate those points in favor of the ones you requested.

CA35:
[GistRd]
BlaRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.20548&lon=-122.04832
(signed for Los Gatos, and location of a temporary closure to through traffic)
[OldSumRd]

In my local copy. OldSumRd was there for shaping, but BlaRd is about as good for that purpose, and OldSumRd isn't in anyone's list file, so I replaced OldSumRd with BlaRd.

CA39:
[LinAve]
CreAve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.83938&lon=-117.99546
GraAve http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.84549&lon=-117.99784
(access to/from Knott's Berry Farm; OSM's name "Paper Street" for Grand Avenue appears to be bullshit)
[LaPalAve]

Nope. Both requested points are less than a half mile from each other, and each less than 0.6 mile from existing points, so they'd be excessive even with the higher waypoint densities typical for urban areas. Also, the entire Knott's Berry Farm segment of CA 39 has been relinquished to the city of Buena Park (between the southern BP city limit and I-5), so both requested points might get glorked anyway once I settle on how to deal with such relinquishments.

Did you see any CA 39 signage in Buena Park south of I-5? (I could check GMSV, but it isn't always up to date so field observations are useful too). That's relevant to how I handle the Buena Park relinquishment. Buena Park is required by state law to maintain continuation signage, but such requirements are all too often completely ignored.

US40HisRos:
[KingRd]
RipRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.82651&lon=-121.19041
[PenRd]
EngColWay http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.85133&lon=-121.16450
SisRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.85222&lon=-121.16358
CalRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.86576&lon=-121.15188
(all parts of the original Lincoln Highway alignment)
[OldStaHwy]

US40HisAub:
[HighSt_S]
LinWay_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.89957&lon=-121.06995
[CA49_N]
LinWay_N http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.90383&lon=-121.06647
[CA49_S]
(old Lincoln Highway)

These have been copied over to the topic for U.S. historic routes, for the developer of that system in progress (which isn't me) to address as he chooses.

CA49:
[OldCA49_N]
NewChiRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.44074&lon=-120.85485
(paved through road into the hills)
[CA16]

In my local copy. Good suggestion, new point is a bit distant from existing points, and in a town that didn't have a waypoint.

CA82:
[Bro]
TroDr http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.59454&lon=-122.38321
(connects to I-280)
[MilAve]

In my local copy. Another point added in similar situation I noticed, SneLn about 0.3 mile north of I-380, but which somehow also has its own connection to I-280.

CA84:
[TriRd]
KinMtnRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.42606&lon=-122.26620
(paved scenic route to the coast, certainly more important than TriRd)
[CanRd]

In my local copy. TriRd was there for shaping, but KinMtnRd serves the same shaping purpose, so I replaced TriRd with KinMtnRd.

CA88:
[CHJ12] (shouldn't this be CRJ12?)
LibRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.23605&lon=-121.05106
(straight shot west to SR 99)
[VilDr]
...
[CA26]
DefGraRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.43170&lon=-120.57195
(paved cutoff to SR 26)
[x30-31 SugPineDr]

I added DefGraRd in my local copy, and deleted nearby x30 and relocated x31 to offset the added point. I'm not sold on LibRd. Yeah, it's a long-distance connector to CA 99, but so is county J12 less than two miles away, and I doubt many travelers looking for a shortcut will use an unnumbered road rather than a parallel numbered highway. EDIT: LibRd added to my local copy.

The CH vs. CR issue you and yakra flagged is something I'm noodling over. It's a system-wide issue. If I make that change, it will affect many other usaca routes and also some in active systems, as well as many list files including my own.

CA193:
[GoldHillRd X167946]
OldStaHwy_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.87650&lon=-121.13248
(old Lincoln Highway)
[TayRd]

Proposed point is only 0.08 mile from existing TayRd point, not worth a separate point. But I will rename TayRd as TayRd_W, and replace x167946 with a named waypoint.

CA193Geo:
[CamLn]
GarVlyRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.81634&lon=-120.82226
(paved cutoff, apparently an old alignment of SR 193?)
[ShooFlyRd]

In my local copy as GarValRd.

[neroute2]

The point at GraCrkRd is needed at the very least to reflect that people like you who didn't enter or leave CA 17 at exit 5 haven't clinched the entire business route. It also reflects that travelers need to make a 90-degree turn there to stay on the business route, and helps the business route display separately from the mainline except at the endpoints.

But I have clinched the entire business route, since I don't count ramps.

Did you see any signage for the business route? My recollection is that signage was sketchy at best.

Not on the route itself. The Goog does show a sign pointing left on the southbound offramp.

CA26:
[SanGulRd]
RaiFlatRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.38906&lon=-120.52724
(probably more important than the listed roads in this area)
[PineSt x88 HigRd x96]
DefGraRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=38.41885&lon=-120.55914
(old alignment of the county road that became SR 26)
[JoyRd]

No can do. Both requested points are a mile or less from existing points. And those existing points are "important" for shaping (plus one is at a town center), so I can't just eliminate those points in favor of the ones you requested.

I don't understand this. RaiFlatRd is very clearly the most important road in the area.

[Duke87]

Why can't a requested point be added within a mile of another point?

I mean, I get that Tim wanted to keep the number of points down back in the CHM days because he was concerned about server resources. But we are no longer required to follow to Tim's rules, nor do we have those resource constraints anymore. So I see no reason to be stingy with adding points.