usaush: United States Historic US Routes

[yakra]

Bypass.

[si404]

Maybe I am confused as to why this page http://travelmapping.net/credits.php has so many governmental sources as references.

It's not the existence and use of Governmental sources for systems on this site that's an issue, but the demand for this system to be as sourced in the same way as them and if it can't be it should be ditched.

Absolutely, where Government sources exist and are helpful, go for it. However, just because something is different shouldn't mean its banishment. The problem with this system has always been the naysayers calling for its removal because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions. It's been far more work to deal with them than to hunt for signs, analysis the sometimes sparse data we have, etc.

This system won't have official sources. If no one cares, that's fine.

But you and froggie do care - "There's no background system source" is your complaint.

Are you saying you are revoking your objection? If so, great!

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

My poetry is shite, but not as bad as you reading comprehension - its clear that I'm describing others as Vogons here.

I've found some stuff from official sources to appease the Vogons. I doubt it will be enough, but:
AZ: AZ DOT Map with US66 His and US89A His mapped, US80 His signage discussed by ADOT (with map)
CA: pretty hopeless getting explicitly DOT sources - its just hobbyist/business group sites. There's some legislative designations, but only for US80 (I think US66 in the state has some federal legislation), AFAICS
IA: the DOT site "can't be reached"
IL: US66 His map (a more interactive one here)
MO: MO DOT: Historic Route 66 Scenic Byways
OK: OK DOT: Route 66 Maps
TX: TX THC Route 66 2018 survey

Of course, a lot of stuff is done at the county/city level as well. I can't be bothered to find these as more general sources - wikipedia, tile mapping, etc provided enough information for my (what wikipedia would call) 'original research'. There's perhaps nothing in the above sources that add anything, but I'll cite them anyway. We don't seem to add newspapers as sources for openings, so we shouldn't for announcements about signage being posted - those (and contributor field reports), while invaluable, won't get added to the sources list.

[si404]

From the US6 Historic (Durant) thread. Just because it deals with some general stuff (namely obstacles, banners and along the existing route).

The problem with the McPherson alignment is that there's now an airport runway in the way. Going all the way out on McPherson would result in two dead-ends. Now that 6 has been removed from Broadway in CB, I can creating a segment from I-480 to I-80 - but then does the on-Kanesville off-Broadway segment get included, omitted, or is there a second file? (That is, the piece currently there becomes "US 6 (Historic)(1934-82)"

We're not following what is the actual historic alignment, but what is signed as such (and AFAICS, this bit isn't signed). This isn't a documentation of the past alignment, but a documentation of the present. Certainly with 66 there's cases where the signed route is on the wrong frontage road as the freeway chopped the original roadway in two.

Date banners only should be used if they are on the actual signs (and I've dropped some when including them in a larger route).

I doubt that Historic 6 signs will be placed in Des Moines, since it's still alive on the post-1934 Hickman/Euclid alignment and this seems ripe for ROW/maintenance issues.

Sure - we're only included signed sections, so if it doesn't get signed, even if designated (I believe US6 in Iowa

Extension to/past Grinnell: Would completely overlap existing 6. (This is historically accurate, as the River-to-River Route in Grinnell followed 4th Avenue instead but almost certainly was moved to 6th when US 32 was paved in 1928.)

<snip>

Overall, I believe only Cass and Poweshiek counties specifically put up Historic 6 shields where it overlaps the existing route. Everywhere else, it's marked only where current 6 is not. I don't see any Historic 6 shields in West Liberty, for example.

I believe it is best to stick with segments of Historic 6 where it is NOT overlapping the modern route. For example, the Atlantic segment should end at the 71/83 intersection, because right now it's redundant to Oakland.

I agree it is stupid to sign Historic 6 on current 6 (unless for short bits linking sections off US6, such as that brief bit leaving Davenport). But it is signed, so surely we include it?

Also, Pottawattamie County signs it along vanilla US6 (at least partially): 1, 2,3, 4, 5

[bejacob]

This system won't have official sources. If no one cares, that's fine.

But you and froggie do care - "There's no background system source" is your complaint.

Are you saying you are revoking your objection? If so, great!

If sources aren't needed, then yes, I revoke my objection.

Do you believe the system is ready for activation?

[si404]

Do you believe the system is ready for activation?

Not quite - it needs a formal review first, but given the number of reviews ongoing (including of my system), it won't be this month that I ask for it. Not least as I've not finished the checking to make sure it's ready.

I expect we can activate before the end of the year though!

[yakra]

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

I see you've already got it in the HB. Fair play.
I would have used that same routing, because:
 • the main thru alignment curving around the corner at 216thSt_N and SouSt_E
 • this avoids 2 at-grade RXRs
 • in satellite view, McKenna Ave does look like the business center of town's main street
...but not been 100% confident in it.
I don't see signage in GMSV for any of the turns. (Ecch, this is like, cannss-level lack of clarity...)
Si, do you have any sources on the alignment/turns, or did you just come to pretty much the same conclusions I did?

[si404]

Si, do you have any sources on the alignment/turns, or did you just come to pretty much the same conclusions I did?

The latter.

[Highway63]

I agree it is stupid to sign Historic 6 on current 6 (unless for short bits linking sections off US6, such as that brief bit leaving Davenport). But it is signed, so surely we include it?

Not as long as it's entirely redundant, because we don't know where the endpoint should be.

Also, Pottawattamie County signs it along vanilla US6 (at least partially): 1, 2,3, 4, 5

All of those pictures, save for one that's two miles away, are at the same intersection. Historic 6 is not marked with reassurance signs elsewhere in the county. It's a bare-minimum required for the one turn 6 makes there. Between there and Atlantic, the only sign is at IA 48. It's not signed at the IA 83 or south US 71 intersections, which makes me think I was wrong in saying that Cass does the whole thing.

[si404]

I agree it is stupid to sign Historic 6 on current 6 (unless for short bits linking sections off US6, such as that brief bit leaving Davenport). But it is signed, so surely we include it?

Not as long as it's entirely redundant, because we don't know where the endpoint should be.

The next waypoint after the signs run out? It might not be massively accurate, but it's better than nothing. We don't want to throw in points for city/county line because one city/county decides to sign and one doesn't - easier just to end it at the next highway. And the end points are arguably state lines, the current route, or a parallel interstate (depending on what state, what route, etc), just with large sections that aren't signed that we're not including.

Or we could go with a logical terminus concept - so, in the absence of info to the contrary, the route stops at the next major junction (similar to what you have asked for in OK extending routes to a more logical terminus like another route) rather than some minor road that happens to be the next point along.

All of those pictures, save for one that's two miles away, are at the same intersection. Historic 6 is not marked with reassurance signs elsewhere in the county. It's a bare-minimum required for the one turn 6 makes there.

True, they merely sign one interchange well, and put one other sign, but - as you say - they clear that bar of 'bear minimum'.

I was replying to "I believe only Cass and Poweshiek counties specifically put up Historic 6 shields where it overlaps the existing route." and said that Pottawattamie County "signs it along vanilla US6 (at least partially)" - that's surely undeniable.

Additionally, I don't see why it has to be signed loads. Especially as you take the opposite view for US66 and asked for it to extend through 4 TOTSOs with US281/US281Spr despite just one sign for all that navigation - a reassurance one just off US281Spr (where El Reno's section begins):

OK US 66 Weatherford: Again, wondering about the abrupt stop for the east end. I would encourage extending this to join El Reno's Hist 66.

But I'd be fine with chopping historic routes at their parent when there is a long signed (at least partially) concurrency with them, despite the existence of signs. Ditto not including sections entirely concurrent with their parent. I'd prefer to include such sections, despite them being silly, but...

[si404]

Not quite - it needs a formal review first, but given the number of reviews ongoing (including of my system), it won't be this month that I ask for it. Not least as I've not finished the checking to make sure it's ready.

Well, I was wrong, it is this month!

This system is ready for review. 

As well as the classic review, I'd like comment about routes in their states from those who will maintain them (if they haven't given them already):
CA, NM - oscar
GA - ntallyn
IA, IL, MO - Highway63
KS, MA, NE, OK, TX - yakra
OH - mapcat
OR - Bickendan
WA - compdude787

[Bickendan]

Only things on Oregon's side is dropping 99 Myrtle Creek and adding 30 Cascade Locks and 30 Columbia River Gorge extension.

[yakra]

ca.us080hisjac: McCainVlyRd -> McCVlyRd or McCValRd

[oscar]

ca.us080hisjac: McCainVlyRd -> McCVlyRd or McCValRd

I'd prefer McCValRd. "Val" is the abbreviation for "Valley" used for other California routes.

For ca.us080hiswin, CHS24 => CRS24 (reversion to the standard CR abbreviation for signed county routes is underway for other California routes). Similar change for any other CH__ labels in California historic route files, though I'm not sure there are any.

In general, many waypoints will need to be re-synched with intersecting/concurrent California Interstate/US/state routes. usaush was drafted while California routes were being extensively overhauled, with lots of changes made to their waypoint coordinates. Those coordinates now are stable (if you spot any that need to be changed, please reset them and let me know what needs to be changed in the non-historic routes).

I'll do a more complete look at CA and NM historic routes when I have more time.

[mapcat]

As well as the classic review, I'd like comment about routes in their states from those who will maintain them (if they haven't given them already):
OH - mapcat

US 6 in Chardon looks good. Silly, since it is marked along a few blocks of current US 6, but it's marked.
US 20 in the Painesville: I only found one marker (westbound in the westernmost segment). How did you determine the eastern end?

There is also a Historic 20 marker in Norwalk here (2018 imagery). I believe that you had included a Norwalk segment at some point in the past but deleted it. Here's one in Monroeville too. I'm not saying you need to add segments in either place, just attempting to be complete.

[mapcat]

@Highway63, could you address why you relocated Historic US66 in downtown Springfield IL when you adjusted the routing of I-55BL? Did the 66 signs move too?