usaush: United States Historic US Routes

[mapcat]

The routing in the HB for US66HisChi in Springfield changed at the same time that I-55BL was adjusted (June 23), but there's no updates entry for it, or any discussion here. Was the rerouting of Historic 66 confirmed in the field?

[michih]

but there's no updates entry for it

Because it's just a preview but not an active system?

[yakra]

Amarillo has started using proper signs

Someone has made a (not up-to-date) map of where the green/white (and occasional 'OLD US66' brown) signs are. It's a little bit of a hot mess - which is why I've not made a file for it.

A few more links found from surfing around from the first link. Saving for future reference.
https://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/historic-texas-highways/route-66-texas
https://www.thc.texas.gov/historic-highways/route-66/explore-route-66
https://www.thc.texas.gov/preserve/projects-and-programs/historic-texas-highways/route-66/route-66-survey/route-66-maps

[yakra]

It seems that the old signage along Georgia that the city had installed has gone, but that they signed it as if it was Historic US66, despite it never being such...

Not gone, just relocated...

[si404]

It seems that the old signage along Georgia that the city had installed has gone, but that they signed it as if it was Historic US66, despite it never being such...

Not gone, just relocated...

Nah, that one was another one that was there, but isn't now (April 19 GMSV shows it gone).

[si404]

Speaking of signs that have gone. I was looking at Oklahoma City.

It seems like they have had a problem with signs on NW23rd being taken/removed:
September 2012 westbound at May, March 2019 westbound at May. February 2017 westbound at Classen, March 2019 westbound at Classen.

They were never that good at signing it though. Here's where the signs I've found are (I'm going to document signs) and those other two are the only others I've found:
I-44 e/b approach at exit 124, May n/b at OK66, NW23rd eastbound at Lincoln, I-44 eastbound between exits 128A and 128B, I-44 westbound between exits 128A and 128B, I-44 ramp eastbound at 128B, US77 s/b ramp at Kelley Ave, US77 s/b approaching Kelley Ave, Broadway n/b approaching 2nd, 2nd w/b approaching Broadway, 2nd west of I-35.

What I can see is that OK state is relatively good at signing US66 Historic with the exception of in and around OK66 (when not concurrent with I-44). Cities are much more a mixed bag, and OK City is one of the worse ones - partially because the route is more complex than just 'the one main road through the town'.

Elk City has got signs that I must of missed initially (perhaps as they are all westbound): 1, 2, 3.

Also found signs in western OK as follows (west of El Reno) Near I-44 exit 50, Erick 1, Erick 2, Erick towards Texola, I-40 BL in Sayre at Elm, I-40 BL in Sayre at Pine, I-40 BL in Sayre at Washington
frontage road between I-40 exits 61 and 62, road marking south of Clinton, on 10th in Clinton, on Gary in Clinton, on OK54 west of Weatherford, on I-40BL in Weatherford, Main at Davis in Weatherford, just west of OK58, just east of OK58, at US281Spr

[si404]

To document these - two standalone US6His signs in Ohio: Edgerton and, at the opposite end of the state, Andover.

See the Iowa thread for more US6 signs there

Nebraska has US6His signs off US6 either end of Gretna (Angus Road, 216th St.

Historic US80 is signed in places according to AA Roads - along AZ80 (with a detour or two) and from Tucson to US60

[osu-lsu]

There are two other stand along Historic US 6 signs on either end of Chardon, Ohio, as well.

(I only got the WB one, seen above)

[si404]

(I only got the WB one, seen above)

I've found that one (near Grant Street), and here's the eastbound one.

[michih]

What has happened instead with usaush is that with no single authoritative data source for it available, it has been languishing in limbo, routinely getting adjustments made as new information is found but never brought to a state of being "done" because there is no measuring stick by which to declare it done.

In this regard, the usaush system is effectively another example of "stupid truck routes".

Ergo, as I see it, we have two realistic options here:
- We need to realize that, without an authoritative data source, this system is lacking in officiality and go ahead and 86 it. Then it's no longer a problem.
- We need to realize that, without an authoritative data source, this system is never going to meet the usual threshold of being ready, and go ahead and promote it to active status. Then any further changes will get noted in updates and any waypoint relabelings will have their old labels preserved if in use, and we don't need to redefine anything about how preview systems are handled.

Since we still work on improving usaush, I guess that we tend to option 2? Is there anything left to be addressed before activation?

Or does anyone tend to option 1?

[froggie]

My personal viewpoint on Historic US Routes is Option 1.  There's no background system source, it seems to be shifting with the winds, and there's no consistency.  Worse than Truck routes in those regards.

[bejacob]

My personal viewpoint on Historic US Routes is Option 1.  There's no background system source, it seems to be shifting with the winds, and there's no consistency.  Worse than Truck routes in those regards.

Seconded. While it's nice to be able to add some additional mileage, this entire system has been problematic from the beginning.
Here's an excerpt of my comments from 2 1/2 years ago.

Is the some sort of "official designation" by state DOTs for historic routes?
If not, who determines which routes are included?
How will we know if the route list is complete? Is there some "master" list?
What about routes that had different alignments over time?

This system just feels a bit slapdash especially if TM contributors are relying on "reports from the field" to make sure the route list is complete. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the effort and will be glad to add any new routes to my list file. I'm just looking for a bit of clarity on this route system. It's still somewhat confusing as to the criteria for a route to be included.

Those comments were quickly shot down so I let it go. While I'd hate to lose the roughly 500 miles I've driven on these routes, my comments from Feb 2016 seem just as relevant today as they did then. As far as I can tell, if the route is signed (officially or otherwise) it gets included. Not a bad approach, but as others have also pointed out, there is no source material and no consistency.

I'd be fine if the system got activated as is or dropped. As the saying goes, "this decision is above my pay grade."

[si404]

this entire system has been problematic from the beginning.

The system hasn't been problematic, but Vogonish attitudes demanding paperwork in triplicate from governmental sources have been.

There were some creases (the US20 guy), but we've ironed them out now.

[bejacob]

The system hasn't been problematic, but Vogonish attitudes demanding paperwork in triplicate from governmental sources have been.

Maybe I am confused as to why this page http://travelmapping.net/credits.php has so many governmental sources as references. I can't recall all the countless threads highlighting something official from state DOTs or the latest AASHTO meeting minutes. Correct my ignorance about whether national or regional systems need official sources before changes are made in the highway browser. This system won't have official sources. If no one cares, that's fine.

If it doesn't matter whether there is an underlying source, why has it been such a frequent topic of discussion?  I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm trying to understand.

As I said earlier, activate the system or kill it. I don't care either way.

[froggie]

Someone remind me not to ask Si to recite his poetry...