usaca: California State Highways

[mapcat]

I'm not crazy about either one of these really short routes. The Westside Parkway west of Bakersfield (possible replacement for part of CA 58) would be a much better candidate.

Well, when they were in the HB, some users cared enough about them to include them in their .lists, just like they do short signed routes. All three (including CA 259) have exits, which points to them being more than glorified ramps.

OSM calls erstwhile CA 710 part of the Long Beach Fwy, but it doesn't seem likely that it will ever connect to the rest of that route. I didn't see any signage other than "To" something when I was on it a few weeks ago.

[si404]

My partial clinch of CA710 was on foot on the roads either side (I worked so hard in the hot early morning September sun for that mile and now all I have to show for it is some crappy photos of diggers and rubble )

There isn't any 'To' signage northbound - the Freeway Entrance signs heading north are 'EAST I-210' and 'WEST CA134' respectively (ignoring that the first ramp can go west on I-210 and the second ramp can go anywhere - and direction signs show this)

There isn't any signage southbound on the road other than some little gore ones for Del Mar Blvd, and the 'California <s>Blvd</s> END FWY' sign, though To CA110 signs exist on CA134 and I-210.

[mapcat]

There isn't any 'To' signage northbound - the Freeway Entrance signs heading north are 'EAST I-210' and 'WEST CA134' respectively (ignoring that the first ramp can go west on I-210 and the second ramp can go anywhere - and direction signs show this)

OK, that's what I remember too...assumed the TO had been removed in error or by someone walking by wanting a souvenir.

[oscar]

I was one of the drivers claiming CA 710, and CA 259, mileage before I decided to take them out of the HB. With CA 222, I didn't bother, since I knew it was doomed the moment I clinched it. That really looks like a route Caltrans would like to remove from its inventory, but the legislature and/or the city of Ukiah won't let that happen, preferring the state maintain it for the non-monastery users along the way.

I didn't clinch CA 244 (which really is a glorified set of ramps), even during multiple trips on I-80 east of Sacramento, because I didn't even know it was there until I belatedly spotted it in a Caltrans bridge log. That route file was inherited from Bickendan, and I hadn't done any work on the file (concentrating on the longer routes most in need of finalization, so I could synch other routes to them).

[Duke87]

I had also claimed CA 710. In my case, though, I only claimed it once I noticed it was in the HB. I drove it unaware it even had a number, I was there to check out the freeway stub.

I fully agree with the decision to nix it from usaca since it is indeed unsigned.

I could get behind putting it in usasf.

[oscar]

I just pulled in several route file updates, in southern California mainly in the area east of Los Angeles and between CA 91 and CA 210. Most of the changes are to streamline the route files and re-synch them with intersecting routes. But some routes have new and/or relabeled endpoints, or major mid-route changes, which will affect list files:

CA 60 and CA 71 -- relabeled endpoints, to fix incorrect or unsigned exit numbers

CA 66 -- state legislature truncated east end to I-215

CA 79 -- reroute between San Jacinto and Beaumont

Both CA 66 and CA 79 also have mid-route segments relinquished to local maintenance (and removed from the legislative route definitions), which I am more reluctant to remove from the route files than end-of-route relinquishments that I can just treat as truncations. Those local governments are required to maintain continuation signage, but such requirements seem to be generally treated as a joke. I would nevertheless keep in the route files the relinquished CA 66 segment, and one of the two relinquished CA 79 segments.

For CA 66, and CA 79 in Temecula, I-15's junctions with the relinquished segments still refer to them as part of their respective state routes. The relinquished segment of CA 66 (roughly between TowAve in Pomona and PepAve in Rialto) has no green-spade CA 66 signage on the route itself, but there is a lot of official and unofficial old US 66 signage to guide travelers, and there are no turns to lead travelers astray. The relinquished parts of CA 79 in Temecula between temporary points TemLim(ELim) and TemLim(NLim), and the implied concurrence with I-15, are also fairly easy to follow, despite the missing continuation signage within Temecula city limits other than on the implied concurrence with I-15.

CA 79 in San Jacinto, between MenAve(SanJacSLim) and End(SanJacOldNLim), is another story. Travelers need to make three turns to follow the relinquished segment to the rest of CA 79, and there is no signage at two of those turns (between Ramona Blvd. and State St., and State St. and Ramona Expy) to guide travelers. I was thoroughly confused when I tried to do that in winter 2016, and only after multiple time-wasting passes through San Jacinto was I able to accidentally clinch the relinquished segment. I would break CA 79 in two in San Jacinto: a main segment from Hemet south to I-8 via Temecula and Julian, and a northern segment between San Jacinto and I-10 in Beaumont, with MenAve(SanJacSLim) => MenAve and End(SanJacOldNLim) => End.

EDIT: Another batch of updates to be pulled in, mainly state freeway routes in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. One of those routes, CA 2, includes a mid-route relinquishment I haven't figured out how to handle, so I just polished up the rest of the route in the meantime. This is the section from I-405 east via Beverly Hills to the West Hollywood city limit near La Brea Ave.

[oscar]

Two more batches of updated files have been, or are being, pulled in. This should complete my updates for Caltrans District 11 (San Diego and Imperial Counties), though some other parts of the state are covered as well.

A few changes that won't necessarily be reflected in users' error logs:

-- For CA 94, the exit for CA 15, and the two adjacent exits, were misnumbered. So 2A, 2B, and 2C are now 1D, 2A, and 2B.

-- For CA 163, 11 -> I-15 (no exit number for that merge). Also, south end of route extended one block, from AshSt (still used as a waypoint) to ASt. The southbound lanes clearly end at AshSt. However, the northbound lanes start at ASt, as confirmed by both the route log and Caltrans' online Postmile Query Tool.

Some CA 163 exit numbers are assigned to different exits for each direction, such as southbound 1A for Ash Street (waypoint AshSt) and northbound 1A for I-5 (waypoint 1A). There's similarly dodgy exit numbering elsewhere in San Diego. The route file as originally drafted reasonably resolves those conflicts, so I left those waypoint labels alone.

[oscar]

I'm throwing out for comment an odd situation in the Oakland area. CA 260, which is basically just the Posey and Webster Street underwater tubes between Oakland and Alameda, is signed but only as part of CA 61. CA 112, which connects CA 61 south of the Oakland airport to I-880 and points west, has one CA 112 sign but is also signed as part of CA 61. 

Right now, we have separate route files for CA 112 and CA 260, plus a CA 61 route file for the highway connecting the two (plus some relinquished mileage at the south end of CA 260) which also includes CA 112 and CA 260. I would retain the separate CA 260 route file, and also the CA 61 concurrence with CA 112, to avoid user confusion and also to reflect the presence of both CA 61 and CA 112 signs on CA 112.

But there is a relinquishment gap between CA 260 and the non-concurrent part of CA 61. The legislative route definition of CA 260 truncated that route's south end about eight blocks in Alameda to Atlantic Ave. (the legislature required the city to maintain continuation signage, but as is common that requirement seems to have been treated as a joke). But the END sign for CA 61 at the Central/Webster intersection in Alameda, and Caltrans' route log, make it clear CA 61 does not extend north of that intersection, notwithstanding the CA 61 signage on CA 260. (Actually, the legislative definition for CA 61 has it authorized to cross downtown Oakland to I-580, and also extend well south of CA 112, but those highway segments were never built and probably never will be.)

So I would split the CA 61 route file in two, using the existing filename for most of the route passing by the Oakland airport, but adding ca.ca061pos.wpt (Posey/Webster Tubes) concurrent with and duplicating the CA 260 file.

UPDATE: Pull request #1711 submitted for above changes to CA 61, as well as other route file updates.

[oscar]

I'm continuing my cleanup of usaca routes, including synching them up with the increasing number of finalized routes. I'm down to about 30 routes left, most of them short but including some urban routes with relinquishment issues. I hope to take care of the rest by year's end, to get usaca ready for peer review (in addition to the comments received so far).

In my latest (pending) pull request, I've deleted the completely unsigned CA 25 business route in Hollister. The partially-overlapping CA 156 business route remains, since it appears to be only poorly signed (in a state like California, you can't be too picky about route signage quality).

I also removed from CA 130 to Mt. Hamilton the relinquished segment within San Jose city limits. The relinquished route has no continuation or other route signage, on the route itself or on connecting Interstates. This leaves CA 130 disconnected from the rest of the state highway system.

[SSOWorld]

I have found that CA authorities - state and local - don't maintain business routes whatsoever.  Even Interstate business routes.

[oscar]

I have found that CA authorities - state and local - don't maintain business routes whatsoever.  Even Interstate business routes.

Let's just say that maintenance is "uneven". But I've not spotted many candidates for deletion from the HB, since there usually is at least a little remnant signage to justify keeping them in the HB. Business routes often fade away as local authorities who maintain most BRs in California lose interest, but it takes awhile.

New BRs seem to be rare, though. For example, the relatively new CA 65 bypass of Lincoln has no business route on the bypassed road, and apparently Lincoln officials didn't ask for one. I've argued on the aaroads forum that they have been largely replaced by passenger-operated smartphones, and logo signage, to help drivers find downtown and other traveler services on their own.

[yakra]

I also removed from CA 130 to Mt. Hamilton the relinquished segment within San Jose city limits. The relinquished route has no continuation or other route signage, on the route itself or on connecting Interstates. This leaves CA 130 disconnected from the rest of the state highway system.

Nice! That means I've clinched it! 

[oscar]

Staying with San Jose, the next batch of route file updates will include CA 82. The part of that route within San Jose, between I-880 and US 101, was relinquished to the city in 2011. GMSV imagery from 2015 or later on I-280, US 101, and CA 87 shows signs for exits to CA 82 within San Jose, and on an exit ramp from NB I-880 showing CA 82 both west and east of I-880. So either Caltrans is being sloppy about updating its signs (not unheard of) or it's treating CA 82 like it still exists in San Jose. However, once you're on the former CA 82 between I-880 and US 101, there appears to be no CA 82 signage (even though state law requires that from the city), and in particular there is no such signage to guide drivers in either direction through the four turns required to stay on former CA 82 in San Jose.

I'm inclined to truncate CA 82 at I-880, later when I deal with some other relinquishments.

[mapcat]

Two point requests for recently deleted points:


On CA82, could you reinstate a point I was using at BroWay? It connects to an exit on US101, and without it there are no points at all on CA82 in Burlingame.


Same for G/HSt on CA132, which connects to a CA99 exit that provides access to downtown Modesto from the south (it's signed as the "Central Modesto" exit to CA132).



Thanks.

[oscar]

Two point requests for recently deleted points:

On CA82, could you reinstate a point I was using at BroWay? It connects to an exit on US101, and without it there are no points at all on CA82 in Burlingame.


Same for G/HSt on CA132, which connects to a CA99 exit that provides access to downtown Modesto from the south (it's signed as the "Central Modesto" exit to CA132).

Both make sense to me -- I tried to keep points for roads connecting to nearby freeways, but those slipped by me.

I'll add back those points in tonight's pull request, but perhaps under different names:

BroWay => Bro

G/HSt => GSt ?  I'm unsure about including two named roads in the same waypoint label, and like for interchange waypoints would just go with the lower-lettered street (exit ramp).