usaca: California State Highways

[oscar]

I assume authentic = CalTrans & fake = NPS?

Yes. But the NPS ones (unless they did the 180 markers in Grant Grove) look obviously fake.

[dfilpus]

CA 180 is signed (not not state maintained) through the Grant Grove section of King's Canyon National Park. It does end where the road enters the Cedar Grove section of the park.

Yeah, I saw the signs, which caused me heartburn when I reluctantly decided to split the route at Grant Grove. The legislative definition is not as clear as for CA 120, but Caltrans' view is that CA 180 officially ends at one side of Grant Grove, and resumes (along with its postmiles, which are absent from Grant Grove) on the other side before its final end at Cedar Grove.

The problem is that it appears that this road is not being included in usanp because it is signed. It should be in one of the systems, either usaca or usanp, but not both.

[oscar]

I had originally put two Kings Canyon Road segments in usanp, one in Grant Grove (between the two CA 180 segments) and one in Cedar Grove (at the east end of the eastern CA 180 segment). The Grant Grove segment needs to be restored to usanp. Its route file ca.kincanrd_gra.wpt seems to be still in the master, so it's just a matter of editing the usanp .csv file to add back in that file, and make clear that there are separate Grant Grove and Cedar Grove segments of that road in usanp.

Also, the north endpoint of Generals Highway (part of which is in Kings Canyon NP) is incorrectly labeled CA180, and needs to be changed to KinCanRd.

[yakra]

No underscores in filenames though. Just concatenate the abbrev to what would otherwise be the root.
EG, fl.fltpkmia.wpt, and not fl.fltpk_mia.wpt.

[oscar]

If you're asking whether the postmiles in the Cedar Grove section say something about whether the non-postmiled road through Grant Grove is counted as part of CA 180 ... good question to which I don't yet have an answer. But I plan to be back up there in a few days, and will try to nail that down.

I couldn't find postmiles near the boundaries of the Grant Grove section of the national park. But I've done the next best thing, using the Caltrans Postmile Query Tool (something I need to use more often). Clicking on various parts of Kings Canyon Rd, within Grant Grove, it takes you to the nearest postmile location outside the park. It shows the last postmile before entering the park from the west is TUL 110.553 (in Tulare County). The first postmile exiting the park to the north (on the way to the park's Cedar Grove unit) is FRE 112.09 (in Fresno County). The section of the road within Grant Grove is about four miles long, so it looks like the brief exit of CA 180 from Fresno County to Tulare County and back again might interrupt the postmile sequence.

[oscar]

Submitted update to CA 3, which extends it north a few miles to the eastern city limit of Montague. This is from my filed-check and clinch of the route on my way out of California into Oregon (but I'll be back for more later this month).

[oscar]

Most relevant to the active usaib and usausb systems, but also affecting some usaca routes: I've noticed that some of the on-freeway business route signage I remember in northern California seems to have been removed. This may be a district-by-district thing, mainly in Caltrans districts 1 and 2, but maybe also part of district 3 (signage for I-5BL Woodland seems to still be there, at least on I-5 SB). The ones I have in mind are the I-5BLs in Red Bluff, Dunsmuir, Weed, and Yreka, and the US 101 business routes in Ukiah, Rio Dell, and McKinleyville, though there might be others with removed signage I didn't notice.

Some of the GMSV imagery is about a decade old, and so is pretty useless. But I'll be flying back to Sacramento next week to resume my mega-cross country road trip. This half of the trip will be more relaxed than the first part, so I'll have time to do more complete field checks of business routes (as well as of other usaca routes) to try to nail this down.

Also, as I go through files for revisions, one change I'll be making throughout will be to relabel numbered/lettered county roads. The major ones are called "County Highways" (per a state law authorizing county highway systems), signed with blue pentagon shields. Most of them have labels beginning with CH. Then there are lesser county roads, which usually have no route markers and are signed on street blades or otherwise as "Road ___". Many of them have labels starting with CR (as do a few CHs which I relabeled in error). As I come across them, I'll be changing CR___ labels, generally to either Rd___ or CH____.

I'll be doing fixes on a few usaca routes (mainly to fix NMPs/broken concurrences and otherwise finalize), so  far including CA 12, CA 16, CA 32, CA 36, CA 44, CA 72 (west end truncated to Pico Rivera eastern city limit), CA 113, CA 116, CA 121, CA 169 (Weitchpec segment -- an long and unpleasant one-lane highway I clinched last week), CA 188, CA 211, CA 254, CA 255, and CA 299, before I return to California. Much work will remain to be done after my return home, and the eye surgery and recovery to follow.

The routes that were already finalized include at least: 1, 3 (pending addition of waypoint to concurrence with CA 299 in Weaverville), 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 24, 35, 41, 46, 47, 49 (with pending CR label fixes), 58, 62, 70, 74, 78, 79, 86, 88 (with pending label fix), 89 (both segments), 99 and its business routes, 111 (both segments), 115, 120 (both segments), 138, 140, 144, 154, 158. 165, 166, 167, 168 (both segments), 170, 173 (both segments), 177, 178 (Shoshone segment), 180 (both segments), 182, 190 (both segments), 202, 203, 207, 227, 236, 237, 253, 266, 270, 330, and 905. Some label fixes and other updates may be needed. But for the most part their waypoint coordinates are settled, and I'll use coordinates from those routes and the long-finalized Interstate and US main and business routes to update the remaining state routes and synch them up with already-finalized routes.

[Bickendan]

Suggestions as I'm going through my .list...
CA 2: Revert cross street labels on the US 101 overlap back to the US 101 exit numbers
CA 23: Same
CA 99: Revert all overlap exits to the route(exit) format for consistency and clarity

[oscar]

Suggestions as I'm going through my .list...
CA 2: Revert cross street labels on the US 101 overlap back to the US 101 exit numbers
CA 23: Same
CA 99: Revert all overlap exits to the route(exit) format for consistency and clarity

The CA 99 suggestion is what I intend to do (also for I- and US- routes). But there's been some pushback on not following Tim's exit#(route#) edict, so not yet.

I'm avoiding the LA and SF metro areas in my current travels, and probably will do them last when I update the usaca routes. LA, especially, has a lot of headachy relinquishments, and seems to be the area where Caltrans is trying to move surface streets out of the state system, so state routes in that region will be a bit of a moving target.

[Bickendan]

What, you mean CA 42? :bigass:

[yakra]

The CA 99 suggestion is what I intend to do (also for I- and US- routes). But there's been some pushback on not following Tim's exit#(route#) edict, so not yet.

AFAIK, the exit-numbers-on-concurrencies situation has stayed the same since the end of CHM, with the exception that we've moved to allow US Routes to optionally use their own exit numbers where appropriate (which may not apply in these cases?)
I'll not rehash the guidelines again right here just yet, at risk of inadvertently causing more confusion than I might clear up. (Seems there's always been some trouble understanding it.

Oscar, can you point me to some examples in the HB of routes concurrent with CA99 where this could come into play & maybe cause some confusion?

[oscar]

The CA 99 suggestion is what I intend to do (also for I- and US- routes). But there's been some pushback on not following Tim's exit#(route#) edict, so not yet.

AFAIK, the exit-numbers-on-concurrencies situation has stayed the same since the end of CHM, with the exception that we've moved to allow US Routes to optionally use their own exit numbers where appropriate (which may not apply in these cases?)
I'll not rehash the guidelines again right here just yet, at risk of inadvertently causing more confusion than I might clear up. (Seems there's always been some trouble understanding it.

Oscar, can you point me to some examples in the HB of routes concurrent with CA99 where this could come into play & maybe cause some confusion?

CA 99's southern junction with I-5 follows route number (exit number) format, while its overlaps with I-5 and US50/I-80BL/I-305 in Sacramento are in exit number(route number) format.  I wouldn't call those "confusing", but they are inconsistenet formats within a single route file.

[oscar]

Just used some downtime (while still in California) for a pull request covering a batch of usaca changes. Some are minor label and point tweaks, including one to ca.i080 to match with updates to CA 193. Here are the more significant other changes.

CA65Ros -- finally updated file to reflect major relocation (bypass of Lincoln) from a few years ago, between exit 314 (Lincoln Blvd.) to *OldCA65 near Wheatland. No indication that the old route has become a business route. Also, 334 => CA70 (merge at northern end of this segment has no exit number, neither signed in the field nor assigned by Caltrans).

CA70BusOro -- north end changed to reflect signage (and an old Caltrans route log) indicating the business route follows Nelson Ave. rather than Garden Dr. back to CA 70.

CA84Rio -- north end truncated to southern city limit of West Sacramento; ferry crossing points north of Rio Vista to Ryer Island renamed. I am disinclined to split that route, and CA 220 (also serving Ryer Island), at their very short ferry crossings, both of which are free and take just a few minutes, even though we normally split routes at ferry crossings. AFAIK, those are the only two ferry crossings on the state highway system, both served by Caltrans-operated vessels.

CA160 -- south end extended one exit to new junction with the relocated CA 4; 1C => 1B (no signed exit number, but Caltrans has assigned 1B as its exit number); otherwise finalized, except for the part within Sacramento south of the American River.

I will likely later split this route in two, with the southern Rio Vista segment ending at Sacramento's southern city limit (SacLim) and the North Sacramento Freeway in its own segment. The relinquished segment within Sacramento has no Caltrans signage referring to it as part of CA 160 (indeed, there is an End CA 160 sign at Sacramento's southern city limit), nor is there locally-maintained continuation signage as required by state law (this in Caltrans' backyard! such state law requirements for relinquished route segments seem to be widely ignored). The old CA 160 route through Sacramento requires motorists to make two turns (northbound) or four (southbound), with no clues on how to make those turns to continue on CA 160. I'm reluctant to split routes for relinquishments, but this seems a particularly good case for a route split.

CA162Oro -- finalized, with tweaks to both endpoints (western one renamed and moved a little to MenNFLim, at the forest's eastern boundary; eastern one renamed to intersecting road ForCrkRd, rather than the unsiged continuation of Oroville-Quincy Highway).

CA168Bis -- west end moved about a half-mile east and renamed, to reflect the End sign and pavement change at the Sabrina Campground entrance short of road's end at the boat launch on Lake Sabrina. EDIT: This change isn't yet in the HB, will be added in my next route file update.

CA193 -- finalized, with the west end truncated at Lincoln's east city limit; also, some waypoints for junctions with CA 49 have been relabeled. This one I'm also inclined to split in two, with no signage directing motorists to follow I-80 and CA 49 between CA 193's Lincoln and Georgetown segments. I'm generally OK with implied multiplexes over just one route, but not ones like this requiring motorists to make the connection over two or more routes with no help from signs.

[yakra]

I am disinclined to split that route, and CA 220 (also serving Ryer Island), at their very short ferry crossings, both of which are free and take just a few minutes, even though we normally split routes at ferry crossings.

Should probably still be done, though... :\

[Bickendan]

(Obsolete and perhaps irrelevant) precedence came from the Mackenzie ice crossings in NWT. NT 3's has been replaced by the Deh Cho Bridge, but NT 8 still has two across the Peel and Mackenzie rivers.