usaca: California State Highways

[redheadtraveler]

I'd like to contribute some food for thought on SR-259.  As we all know, the green wayfinding signage on the SR-259 mainline is silent about which route you are on.  The few sign that there are say "TO SR-210" or "TO SR-330".  This does not indicate the route you are actually on.  However, there are other markings that indicate you are on SR-259. 
1. The callboxes are clearly labeled as being on 259. 
2. The white identification signage beside all (most?) of the over and under crossings are clearly labeled with the route, county, and postmile.
     -  Highland Ave. UC is 259, SBD, 00.49 (NB dir)
     - 27th Street UC is 259, SBD, 00.81 (NB dir)
     - H Street UC is 259, SBD, 01.00 (SB dir)
     - 259/210 Sep is 259, SBD, 1.19 (SB dir)
3. The exit numbers correspond with the SR-259 postmiles.
4. The Caltrans TASAS Sequence Listing is the official system of record for all Caltrans state highways.  The Sequence Listing lists SR-259 in its entire length from PM L0.0 to PM 1.515.  According to the Sequence Listing, SR-259 begins at I-215 just south of the SB offramp to Baseline. The NB direction ends at SR-210 and the SB direction ends at 30th Street. 

Hopefully this is helpful.

[oscar]

^ Our rule on unsigned routes focuses on whether there are conventional route markers, that the traveling public can readily use to confirm the route they are on and navigate the highway system. Callbox signs are too hard to read, at speed, to perform that function. The white identification signs, as well as standard postmiles, also aren't much better, usually too low to the ground and with small hard-to-read numbers to guide travelers. Better than nothing, but no consensus within our team that they are enough. They do help confirm the existence, extent, and number of a state route, but in California we have better resources for that function, such as the online Postmile Query Tool.

The new CA 259 route marker mentioned upthread is more encouraging. I'm waiting to see a photo, and also whether it lasts longer than temporary construction zone route signage we've seen (but not for long) for otherwise unsigned highways like CA 114 in the Bay Area.

[yakra]

CA210 is missing a point at Exit 72.

[oscar]

CA210 is missing a point at Exit 72.

Fix in my local copy, to be pulled in along with my next pull request covering assorted edits in other states.

[redheadtraveler]

^ Our rule on unsigned routes focuses on whether there are conventional route markers, that the traveling public can readily use to confirm the route they are on and navigate the highway system. Callbox signs are too hard to read, at speed, to perform that function. The white identification signs, as well as standard postmiles, also aren't much better, usually too low to the ground and with small hard-to-read numbers to guide travelers. Better than nothing, but no consensus within our team that they are enough. They do help confirm the existence, extent, and number of a state route, but in California we have better resources for that function, such as the online Postmile Query Tool.

The new CA 259 route marker mentioned upthread is more encouraging. I'm waiting to see a photo, and also whether it lasts longer than temporary construction zone route signage we've seen (but not for long) for otherwise unsigned highways like CA 114 in the Bay Area.

Understood.  I wanted to add some other points to consider.  SR-259 is a quandary.  It is obviously a state highway (full freeway), but is has no wayfinding signage to identify it.  As a freeway, it also doesn't fall into the same classification as unsigned conventional highways, such as CA 114 and many others that function as, and are basically indistinguishable from city streets.  SR-259 may have to be an exception to the rule as nothing else seems to work with this particular highway.  We can look to the Bay Area of other exceptions to the rules.  Examples are the fact that we have a freeway named I-238, and the postmiles on I-580 run backward (east to west).

Anyway, as a newcomer to this discussion, just food for thought.

[Bickendan]

CA 271: We have it split into two segments, Piercy and Legget. As it's not marked as an overlap on US 101 between the two segments, it makes sense to have it as two distinct segments.
However, the Piercy segment's postmiles (17-23ish) suggest that it is overlapped on 101, even if unsigned on 101 as such. With this being the case, it may make sense to combine the two 271 segments into one.

[yakra]

CA162Oro: TehSt -> I-5BL

[oscar]

CA162Oro: TehSt -> I-5BL

No BL signage at that intersection, and the BL's signage overall is weak (though not enough to deep-six the route). So I thought it made sense to name the label for the well-signed cross-street name.

[rickmastfan67]

125: 17 -> 16
125: 17A -> 16A (I hate this practice of making up exit numbers), 17B -> 18A, 18A -> 18B
125: 18B -> 18C; move north to the connector?

Some more stuff about CA-125 I just noticed.

Seems we have a false multiplex with CA-94 as well ('current' points 15 to 17 in CA-125's file since NE2's corrections haven't been applied yet).  Pretty clear by imagery that they are both separate highways here and don't at any point share the same carriageways, and thus shouldn't have the 0.62 mile mulitplex.

The fix here should be the following:
1) Add a hidden shaping point between the two points on CA-125 (& fix the exit numbers of course) to break the mulitplex.
2) Add a hidden shaping point between the two points on CA-94 (9A/9C) to break the mulitplex.

[yakra]

Course, only one route needs the shaping point to break the multiplex.
Recommend http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.752844&lon=-117.012264 to keep the visual difference to a minimum.

[rickmastfan67]

Course, only one route needs the shaping point to break the multiplex.
Recommend http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.752844&lon=-117.012264 to keep the visual difference to a minimum.

True enough.

[oscar]

Changes to CA 125, including edits neroute2 recommended, included in https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4964

Users with CA 125 waypoints 18A and 18B in their list files should, after the update is processed, make sure your travels are accurately shown in the HB, since exit number changes in the vicinity of I-8 may have broken your list files.

[rickmastfan67]

Changes to CA 125, including edits neroute2 recommended, included in https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4964

Users with CA 125 waypoints 18A and 18B in their list files should, after the update is processed, make sure your travels are accurately shown in the HB, since exit number changes in the vicinity of I-8 may have broken your list files.

Oscar, I just noticed that Fletcher Pkwy is now posted as 18D going NB per 2021 StreetView.  Still shown as 18C going SB (but with an 18 gore sign).  Up to you if you want to adjust again.

[oscar]

Oscar, I just noticed that Fletcher Pkwy is now posted as 18D going NB per 2021 StreetView.  Still shown as 18C going SB (but with an 18 gore sign).  Up to you if you want to adjust again.

I noticed the two different exit numbers for the same interchange, not the first time Caltrans has done something like that. I went with the lower number 18C. No change needed, I think.

[rickmastfan67]

Oscar, I just noticed that Fletcher Pkwy is now posted as 18D going NB per 2021 StreetView.  Still shown as 18C going SB (but with an 18 gore sign).  Up to you if you want to adjust again.

I noticed the two different exit numbers for the same interchange, not the first time Caltrans has done something like that. I went with the lower number 18C. No change needed, I think.

Well, the strange thing, if you look at my streetview link, and go back two (Feb '19), you'd see it posted as 18C going NB.  So, it's a very recent change.