Author Topic: usanht: United States National Historic Trails  (Read 9914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bejacob

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:48:24 pm
Re: usanht: United States National Historic Trails
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2025, 08:30:00 pm »
Might it be worth implementing some sort of "minimum" standard for what types of routes should be included?

I know some of the MT secondary highways are gravel, but most of those I've driven have been acceptable. Same with the western half of Montezuma Canyon Road in Arizona, though the rental Toyota Corolla might not have been the best choice there.  :-\

Perhaps signage is not enough when considering "roads" that are not official at the state level or above. Could be a topic to discuss further.

Online Markkos1992

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3493
  • Last Login:Today at 01:27:34 pm
Re: usanht: United States National Historic Trails
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2025, 09:57:46 pm »
TN OVTrl has US412_N which should be US421_N

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • Last Login:August 19, 2025, 12:49:21 am
Re: usanht: United States National Historic Trails
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2025, 08:02:13 am »
Lincoln Hwy and some other routes in Illinois were updated recently, and now there are lots of broken concurrencies. Guessing maybe someone was using old files since many waypoints at state route/Lincoln Hwy junctions were deleted. Also, the Lincoln Hwy path was changed to make use of a closed connection here (US30_Osw).

Related issue in Iowa, where the west end of Lincoln Hwy no longer has a graph connection with I-29/480.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2025, 08:11:30 am by mapcat »
Clinched: