usaca: California State Highways

[oscar]

Starting on a review:

I'm arbitrarily starting in the middle of your comments, as I catch up on this now I'm back from Florida. Keep your other comments coming, while I catch up.

7: NinaLeeRd -> CarrRd

Leaving this alone. Carr Road seems to be discontinuous, thanks to the new port of entry, with Nina Lee a separate road helping to connect the two parts of Carr Rd., with signage at the interchange pointing travelers to Carr Rd. rather than identifying the bridge as part of Carr Rd. Anyway, NinaLeeRd is a point in use, would rather not disturb it.

9: MillSt -> GlenArbRd (more important)

Will do.

11: CA125/905 -> 1A?

Exit numbering is confusing, with 1A used for CA 11 EB to CA 125, and for CA 11 WB bypass ramp to La Media Rd. (CA 905 exit 7), while 1B is used for both CA 11 EB to Enrico Fermi Rd. and CA 11 WB to CA 125. Leaving this alone for now, maybe the exit numbering will be cleaned up once CA 11 is extended to a planned new border crossing.

12: FreDr is just westbound 12, so these waypoints should be deleted

Caltrans' Postmile Query Tool disagrees, putting CA 12 on the routing shown in the HB at this iunctiion, and identifying the one-way Fremont Dr. connector as not state-maintained. This also comports with my field-check of this junction.

12: CA121 -> CA121_S
12: CA29 -> CA29_S

The CA29/121 waypoint makes it unnecessary to add directional suffixes to the other junctions of CA 12 with CA 29 and CA 121.

12: I-80(40A) has been moved east

In my local copies of the CA 12 and I-80 files. The relocated point is only 0.06 mile from 40B. But the HB now treats them as separate interchanges (40A with Green Valley/Lopes, 40B only with I-680) -- they once were combined into a single interchange -- and I would keep that as is.

12: PotRd -> GlaRd; shift west to the overpass?

Point renamed, but not relocated.

Other CA 12 changes not otherwise discussed are in my local copy.

13: should 1B be added? it's not exactly the same interchange as 1A
13: I-80 -> I-80/580

1B really is part of the 1A interchange, connecting CA 13 to I-580 WB and from I-580 EB.

The other change will go into my local copy.

14: CA14Trk -> I-5Trk; ca.ca014trknew is an I-5 truck route
14: CA178_S -> CA178_W, CA178_N -> CA178_E

Going into my local copy. The new I-5TrkNew file will be added later.

[neroute2]

12: FreDr is just westbound 12, so these waypoints should be deleted

Caltrans' Postmile Query Tool disagrees, putting CA 12 on the routing shown in the HB at this iunctiion, and identifying the one-way Fremont Dr. connector as not state-maintained. This also comports with my field-check of this junction.

Because it's a ramp. They also don't show 12 eastbound using the right-turn ramp onto 29 south. Or the ramps to/from 99. Should BecRd (just east of 99) get a waypoint?

[oscar]

I wasn't sure what you were getting at. I'm now inclined to remove FreDr_W and FreDr_E from the CA 12 file (and also the corresponding point from the CA 121 file) just because they're too close to the CA121 point, and nobody's using them.

TM once routed CA 12 over Fremont Dr. I kept the FreDr points to underscore that CA 12 follows the other two legs of the triangle. Not needed for that purpose anymore.

[yakra]

12: CA121 -> CA121_S
12: CA29 -> CA29_S

The CA29/121 waypoint makes it unnecessary to add directional suffixes to the other junctions of CA 12 with CA 29 and CA 121.

Multplex splits, though. "For the multiplex splits, add a suffix: an underscore followed by a direction letter."

12: PotRd -> GlaRd; shift west to the overpass?

Point renamed, but not relocated.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1152448,-121.4858542,3a,25y,268.74h,85.99t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sD3GTvCS4TFHNjQUbXJ_lZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40 ?

13: should 1B be added? it's not exactly the same interchange as 1A
13: I-80 -> I-80/580

1B really is part of the 1A interchange, connecting CA 13 to I-580 WB and from I-580 EB.

OK per the manual, but see the bit about "Exits 4A & 4B".

[rickmastfan67]

12: CA121 -> CA121_S
12: CA29 -> CA29_S

The CA29/121 waypoint makes it unnecessary to add directional suffixes to the other junctions of CA 12 with CA 29 and CA 121.

Multplex splits, though. "For the multiplex splits, add a suffix: an underscore followed by a direction letter."

I agree with yakra on this one.

[neroute2]

12: PotRd -> GlaRd; shift west to the overpass?

Point renamed, but not relocated.

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.1152448,-121.4858542,3a,25y,268.74h,85.99t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sD3GTvCS4TFHNjQUbXJ_lZA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40 ?

That's the name south of 12. North of 12 is Glasscock Road, and this is a more important road.

[neroute2]

43: CecWay -> CecAve
43: CHJ22 -> Ave56 (county routes in Tulare County are no longer signed)
43: CHJ33 -> Ave112
43: shift LacBlvd north to the circle?
44: add CA273_S http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.586005&lon=-122.390858
44: add 2C at Hilltop Drive
44: BueVenDr doesn't exist
44: WalRd is an unsigned driveway; shift west to StaPinRd
44: BLn (BLine?) is a dirt track with no signs
44: LoopRd -> RockCrkRd
44/89: BriCrkRd is an unpaved trail with no signs
44/89: FR32N16_W (actually 33N16) -> FR16?
44/89: FR32N16_E -> FR32N16
44/89: FR33N70Y -> MtnHouRd
44: ButLakeRd -> FR32N21
44: BriCSRd -> FR31N06

[oscar]

44/89: BriCrkRd is an unpaved trail with no signs

Fair enough. But we need a shaping point in that area, and unsigned, unpaved narrow roads are common in that part of rural California. Absent a better alternative (which you've identified in some of your other comments), or unless a waypoint isn't needed for shaping or other reasons, this seems to be a "better than nothing" situation. Unless a hidden shaping point would be better than a labeled point (however iffy) in this location.

I'm just picking out this one example to raise a general issue that seems to apply to many of your other comments.

[neroute2]

I question whether an unmarked trail for which we don't have a reliable source for the name is really better than a hidden shaping point.

[neroute2]

45: Rd956 -> Rd95B
45: x11 -> WilBendRd, needs realigning
45: MainSt -> MainSt_E
45: Rd32 -> OrdFerRd
45: StJohnRd -> Rd24
46: SanRitaRd appears to be a private driveway with no signs
46: WooSt -> LostHilRd (that name is marked as going both ways, while the former is only south)
46: McComAve -> McComRd (or McCRd?)
47: FerSt -> 1B
47: SeaFwy_E -> I-710
47: CA103 -> 5
47 is consistently signed along Alameda Avenue to SR 91 (reassurance examples). This may not be state maintained, but it is part of the legal definition.

[oscar]

47: SeaFwy_E -> I-710

Not yet. That awaits replacement of the existing Gerald Desmond bridge, which is locally-maintained and definitely not Interstate-standard, with a new wider and higher bridge being built alongside it. The not-yet-opened new bridge and approaches have already been adopted into the state highway system as part of route 710, but that doesn't include the existing bridge and approaches. The project has been subject to numerous delays, but is expected to be finished early 2020, AIUI. That should resolve any questions about whether I-710 extends to CA 47, rather than ending where the HB now has it. Renaming the waypoint on CA 47 (and extending I-710 in the HB) can wait until then.

See a prior discussion of this issue, including conflicting information such as signage. See also the extensive discussion of this and other route 710 issues at the California Highways website.

47 is consistently signed along Alameda Avenue to SR 91 (reassurance examples). This may not be state maintained, but it is part of the legal definition.

The legal definition allows, but does not require, Caltrans to designate a road in that corridor if it meets state highway standards. Many legislative route definitions include unbuilt segments, such as CA 190 which legislatively starts in the Central Valley and ends in Death Valley, but with an never-built segment in the middle where it would've crossed the Sierra Nevada mountain range; or route 710 which legislatively still passes through South Pasadena but the residents there have effectively killed off that proposed freeway.

cahighways.org indicates that there are plans to fill the gap between CA 103 and CA 91 with an improved highway as part of a harbor access improvement project, which will become a state highway (presumably an extension of CA 47) whenever it's completed.

[neroute2]

47 is consistently signed along Alameda Avenue to SR 91 (reassurance examples). This may not be state maintained, but it is part of the legal definition.

The legal definition allows, but does not require, Caltrans to designate a road in that corridor if it meets state highway standards. Many legislative route definitions include unbuilt segments, such as CA 190 which legislatively starts in the Central Valley and ends in Death Valley, but with an never-built segment in the middle where it would've crossed the Sierra Nevada mountain range; or route 710 which legislatively still passes through South Pasadena but the residents there have effectively killed off that proposed freeway.

cahighways.org indicates that there are plans to fill the gap between CA 103 and CA 91 with an improved highway as part of a harbor access improvement project, which will become a state highway (presumably an extension of CA 47) whenever it's completed.

You're missing the part where Alameda Avenue is signed as SR 47. Including on obviously state-installed signs at the SR 103 split.

[neroute2]

49: GoldChaLn is too far south
49: ShaLn is a gated driveway with no signs
49: OldCA140 -> OldHwy
49: CH* -> CR*
49: SchRd appears to be a private driveway with no signs
49: CHJ20/132 -> CRJ132
49: MenNessRd is a gated driveway with only a sign for Blue Oak Ranch
49: GunRd -> GunClubRd, shift north
49: FouCroRd -> FriCityRd
49: CemPlaRd is a bridge with no access
49: BroWay -> Bro
49: OldCA49_S -> OldRte49_S, OldCA49_N -> OldRte49_N
49: NewChiRd -> MainSt_Dry
49: SheRd -> CRE16
49: MicaSt doesn't exist
49: CA153 -> ColdSprRd due to lack of signs at this end
49: MarSHP -> NorBea since there are multiple entrances to the SHP
49: SalFalRd -> SalFalCut
49: HighSt -> HighSt_W
49: NisGulRd doesn't exist
49: MarRd -> CRE20
49: why SunDr and not MainSt_DowE?
49: LegCamp -> SceHwyVC
49: CedLn doesn't exist
49: FR32 -> FR52
49: HenDotRd appears to be a driveway with no signs; move west to StrRanRd?
49: CHA24 -> DysLn

[oscar]

You're missing the part where Alameda Avenue is signed as SR 47. Including on obviously state-installed signs at the SR 103 split.

And so is Caltrans, as indicated by its Postmile Query Tool.

I saw the signage you mention, when I field-checked CA 47 (and the Henry Ford/Alameda corridor). But I decided, after further research, to truncate CA 47 in the HB to the CA 103 split anyway. As I've previously noted, signage isn't everything.

I don't always catch this stuff, so keep pointing it out. But sometimes I've already addressed the issue, as I have here.

[neroute2]

You're missing the part where Alameda Avenue is signed as SR 47. Including on obviously state-installed signs at the SR 103 split.

And so is Caltrans, as indicated by its Postmile Query Tool.

Caltrans's PQT only shows state-maintained highways. This part of SR 47 is not state-maintained.