usaca: California State Highways

[oscar]

I-5: make StoDr visible

My problem is that StoDr only has an on-ramp to NB I-5, but no exit from either direction of I-5. Caltrans accordingly has not posted or assigned an exit number. StoDr would be weird on a long all-freeway route where every waypoint label between the Mexico and Oregon borders is an exit number-based interchange number.

A shaping point is needed somewhere in the vicinity of StoDr, so I can't just remove the point. It also doesn't seem part of the CA 1 interchange (waypoint 79) or any other.

More to follow as I recover from my vacation.

[neroute2]

What's wrong with a named point for an interchange with no number? We do the same on I-10 in Florida, where you can turn around at a rest area.

[michih]

I-5: make StoDr visible

StoDr would be weird on a long all-freeway route where every waypoint label between the Mexico and Oregon borders is an exit number-based interchange number.

I don't think that we should omit the wp for that reason. If you don't like StoDr, you could also call it 79A or 80. There is precedence in other regions.

[Markkos1992]

I-5: make StoDr visible

StoDr would be weird on a long all-freeway route where every waypoint label between the Mexico and Oregon borders is an exit number-based interchange number.

I don't think that we should omit the wp for that reason. If you don't like StoDr, you could also call it 79A or 80. There is precedence in other regions.

Based on what rickmastfan67 did with I-4 and mapmikey did previously with I-495, I would go with StoDr.  I will note that I did not check to see if it was in the footprint of another interchange in which the one point per interchange rule may apply.

[michih]

I will note that I did not check to see if it was in the footprint of another interchange in which the one point per interchange rule may apply.

No, far away: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=33.473885&lon=-117.674737

[rickmastfan67]

Based on what rickmastfan67 did with I-4

Only did it that way because of it being for the 'future' I-4 Express lanes (and what signage posted ATM lists no number), but was partially opened as a detour route for 75B ramps that were being re-configured.  Plus it will be a 'full' interchange with a road that's completely separate from 75B.

[yakra]

NJ I-80 also semi-recently went to named labels instead of "fake" numbers for a few points near its W end.

StoDr would be weird on a long all-freeway route where every waypoint label between the Mexico and Oregon borders is an exit number-based interchange number.

I definitely sympathize with this though. Made me grit my teeth a bit when I did it...

[oscar]

49hissan: CemAve -> NeiSt
49hissan: HowRd is a private driveway

HowRd will be deleted. No need to replace it with a shaping or other point.

58busbor: the west end is at exit 196, so CA58(193) and GepRd get deleted and BorRd -> 20MuleRd_W

West end is clear enough, and will be changed. East end is more of a puzzle, now that CA 58 (including the part that connected with the business route) has been relocated as part of the just-opened Kramer Junction bypass project. The now-bypassed old connection was signed from what is now Old Highway 58, but May 2019 GMSV (before completion of the Kramer Junction bypass) doesn't show a new east end at CA58(199), or at US 395 in Kramer Junction. Or Caltrans could just effectively decommission the Boron business route by removing its signage at CA58(196).

I've posted a query at the AARoads forum, maybe someone has driven through Boron since the bypass opened and noticed a signage change at CA58(199). Otherwise, I'll leave the east end of the business route dangling at Old Highway 58 for now, until we find out more about how the Kramer Junction project collaterally affects the business route.

I'll make the above changes, as well as edits to the CA 58 and US 395 route files for the new Kramer Junction bypass.

[yakra]

CA49: BroWay -> Bro, or delete

[oscar]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3535 includes various spot changes here and there in CA. These are just a start on catching up with peer review changes, as I recover from a prolonged low-level illness.

The most significant changes are in the Kramer Junction area. CA 58 was relocated there to a new freeway. Also, I had the west end of CA58 Business (Boron) at the wrong exit from CA 58, and that will be fixed. I've left alone the east end of that business route, at the old CA 58 alignment, until I find out more about how it's affected by the new Kramer Junction bypass.

Also some (not all) label fixes for CA 1, CA 2, CA 29, CA 49, CA 49 Historic (San Andreas -- all changes made for that short route), and I-5, and a typo fix for I-305.

[oscar]

Pull request submitted for changes to CA 161 and CA 260, as well as a few minor changes in Canada:

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3586

The main change is to merge or.ca161.wpt into ca.ca161.wpt, so that CA 161 is treated as a California-only route rather than part in California and part (technically, at least the westbound lane) in Oregon. ca.ca161.wpt now will also have the waypoints that were in or.ca161.wpt, which will be deleted.

This change will break any list file (including my own) with a line for OR CA161. Just edit your CA CA161 line to replace CA/OR with the east endpoint of your OR CA161 entry (for most of you, CA139/39; for at least one user, MerRd).

I also deleted CA 260 in Oakland, which was a duplicate of the CA 61 (Posey/Webster Tubes) segment. This treats CA 260 like CA 51 and CA 164 (those routes still exist on paper, but are signed as something else). This change should not break any list files (including my own), with your CA 260 mileage auto-credited to CA 61 (Posey/Webster),

[neroute2]

34's west end is now signed at RiceAve: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6208.msg2480329#msg2480329

[yakra]

I gotta play some major catch-up on this thread as well as a few others.

Is CA79 one of those routes with local relinquishments that have either already happened or are planned for the future, with a final decision on whether to split up or keep as one route TBD? (Is there any discussion on CA79 upthread?)

In any case, a few "Lim" labels with parentheses look suspicious (nonstandard use of parens or endpoint label styles, too many words)...
TemLim(ELim)
TemLim(NLim)
MenAve(SanJacSLim)
End(SanJacOldNLim)
If they're being kept around as notes for future reference, suggest hiding them.

[oscar]

^ Right now, I'm focused on getting canqc ready to activate (likely by the end of the month), before turning my attention to usaca.

Those Lim labels indeed reflect relinquishments that have already occurred. I think the one in Temecula should be ignored, since the original route is easy to follow, and there's signage for the relinquished segment on I-15. The one in San Jacinto will likely warrant a route split, since you have to take several unsigned turns to follow the original route, and I got thoroughly lost when trying to clinch the route there several years ago. That's similar to the situation in Sacramento with CA 160, though an End 160 sign at the south end of the relinquishment sealed the deal for me, so I made that route split already.

I need to catch up on possible plans for CA 79 to be completely rerouted to avoid the mess in San Jacinto.

EDIT: There is indeed a plan, which has cleared environmental approvals, that would have CA 79 bypass the downtowns of both San Jacinto and Hemet, and also might reroute part of CA 74. However, the plan remains stalled in the pre-construction phase pending funding for the non-local half of project costs.

[rickmastfan67]

So, should CA-241 have a point for the exit with S18 like CA-261 does?

If so, 33 -> 32 & the new S18 point becomes the new 33.