usaush: United States Historic US Routes

[si404]

I've found and added a few US40His routes in California, and one in Mississippi (I know it's not signed with brown signs), nothing else in those states are affected by it.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7297/commits/166815cfb14e01463b6a6000fb8b014bacd85103

[Duke87]

I can't read the tiny text on the bottom of this sign

The top line says "Original Route 1926", the rest says "Continues on NW 39th Expressway" the same as the other sign mentioning the discontinuity you linked to. Logically this implies go get on I-44 to get there.

I didn't see the further signs as I did what this one said and turned right. I'm counting it as a fair clinch since I followed the sign. 🤷

Like this, you mean? (I've added links to the relevant routes in the quoted bit)

Ha, those were added recently weren't they. Weren't there last I looked at Mapview. Very well, you're a step ahead of me here, carry on.

[neroute2]

Why the gap between 66HisOkl and 66HisVin? The latter is signed left onto SH-66, making the missing turns obvious.

[neroute2]

US66HisStL has the wrong alignment in Joplin. I may have already reported this.

[si404]

Ha, those were added recently weren't they. Weren't there last I looked at Mapview.

6 weeks ago - not that long ago.

Why the gap between 66HisOkl and 66HisVin? The latter is signed left onto SH-66, making the missing turns obvious.

You can't see that sign following the route on Streetview - you have to be slightly off it, hence why I missed it. That does help solve the Schroninger's Route problem between those two end points. However, there's not the next right turn and this feeding onto OK66 the other way is hiding in the historic imagery (it's gone at later dates, muddying the matter). I'll merge them together as that confirms the route there.

US66HisStL has the wrong alignment in Joplin. I may have already reported this.

I'll have a look, and probably have it right locally (especially if you have reported it before), but would be waiting until I've got all the files in that area up to date with a big submit with full changelog as I don't want to step on other contributors toes too often.

[si404]

IMO, the Lincoln Highway and Great River Road are more worthy than some of the things we currently include (not that I endorse removing anything,  I'm on the "include as much as possible" train). Both are signed extremely well, sometimes better than state routes. In the case of the LH, it's often signed better than Old 40 and Old 50 in California/ Nevada and are functionally equivalent to historic US routes.

Anything is signed better than Old 40/Old 50 in Nevada (because they are not signed at all), but the LH is patchily signed in the state. There's a few old route markers dotted about, and one sign, but nothing forming something that could form something resembling a signed route.

As for California, the Lincoln Highway is better signed where it is signed, but Old 40 is signed more often where the two run in the same corridor. LH vs Old 50 is the opposite - Old 50 is only signed on the short bit in Folsom, and so has a high signs:length ratio that the LH (which is pretty well signed where it is signed) can't match!

(signage per following the routes on GMSV - there may be new signs, or ones I've failed to see).

Best to know your Lincoln Highways (yes, plural) then.
https://www.lincolnhighwayassoc.org/map/

That map is very useful, but is very fussy. There's not much signing of multiple routes - California, Iowa and Indiana are the only ones who bother. Some states have it well signed, others barely at all.
check the system you have exactly 25% clinched to see what I found that was signed

Lewis and Clark Trail too, there's a good online map for it (https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/87266b6613aa443cb437ef26c2077fff/) and it's really well signed in my experience.

Very well signed in the Dakotas and down the Missouri towards St Louis. It's like another Great River Road. It's OK signed in the St Louis area and the Pacific Northwest. It's not signed at all, AFAICS, in Montana.

[cl94]

IMO, the Lincoln Highway and Great River Road are more worthy than some of the things we currently include (not that I endorse removing anything,  I'm on the "include as much as possible" train). Both are signed extremely well, sometimes better than state routes. In the case of the LH, it's often signed better than Old 40 and Old 50 in California/ Nevada and are functionally equivalent to historic US routes.

Anything is signed better than Old 40/Old 50 in Nevada (because they are not signed at all), but the LH is patchily signed in the state. There's a few old route markers dotted about, and one sign, but nothing forming something that could form something resembling a signed route.

Far more than one sign. Above Lake Tahoe, the original alignment up Kings Canyon, and Victorian Ave in Sparks are the ones that immediately come to mind, but there are others I'm forgetting the exact location of and don't feel like looking through hundreds of miles of GSV to find. And yes, NV will sign multiple routes, as those three signs are on different routes.

As far as California, this signed segment in Alta predates the final alignment of US 40 through the region.

[si404]

Far more than one sign. Above Lake Tahoe, the original alignment up Kings Canyon, and Victorian Ave in Sparks are the ones that immediately come to mind, but there are others I'm forgetting the exact location of and don't feel like looking through hundreds of miles of GSV to find. And yes, NV will sign multiple routes, as those three signs are on different routes.

The first two are on the same route, but you can't drive between them.

I did find those signs when I did do the hundreds of miles of GSV, and misremembered them as the concrete markers.

There's still nothing there that resembles a signed route - it's just random signs dotted along the route(s) with lots of twists and turns between them. Even if that counts as signed, it's a far cry from the 'extremely well signed' as you had made out the LH in Nevada to be.

I'll cede that Nevada does sign multiple routes - with the 'Pioneer Route' plate showing that.

[the_spui_ninja]

Lewis and Clark Trail too, there's a good online map for it (https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/87266b6613aa443cb437ef26c2077fff/) and it's really well signed in my experience.

Very well signed in the Dakotas and down the Missouri towards St Louis. It's like another Great River Road. It's OK signed in the St Louis area and the Pacific Northwest. It's not signed at all, AFAICS, in Montana.

Nice! I like the easter egg! I feel like I remember some Montana signs, but that could just be me as a South Dakotan assuming they exist since they're everywhere here. If this ever moves out of Easter Egg status, there's some tweaks and missing spurs (some states went overboard on signage) I know of that can be added.

[cl94]

It's amazing how, if you pass one sign multiple times a week, it gives the false impression that something is signed well. I cede that it isn't as well-signed as I thought. I should pay more attention the next time I'm driving the old LH, because now I'm curious about how many signs really exist. I could swear there was more than 1 sign along existing US 50 in Nevada.

And, believe it or not, you actually can drive directly between the two signs on old/current US 50. Need high clearance 4WD to do it these days (and the snow needs to be gone), but the old road still exists up Kings Canyon. Just hasn't been maintained in nearly 100 years.

[Jim]

The appearance of usatr as an Easter Egg, now back to devel and hopefully back on to preview some time soon got me thinking about this system again, which has been sitting in preview for over 6 1/2 years.  What are we waiting to have happen before we can activate?  Are those things really necessary and will they ever happen?  I don't think a perpetual preview status is fair to users who would probably like updates entries to keep their travels accurate as things change in a system that they have been tracking for years now.

[si404]

The appearance of usatr as an Easter Egg, now back to devel and hopefully back on to preview some time soon got me thinking about this system again, which has been sitting in preview for over 6 1/2 years.  What are we waiting to have happen before we can activate?  Will those things really necessary and will they ever happen?  I don't think a perpetual preview status is fair to users who would probably like updates entries to keep their travels accurate as things change in a system that have been tracking for years now.

It needs another pass over to make sure its accurate (Iowa, for instance, is rolling out US6His and US20His signs now), and then a full review (as opposed to the hodge podge)

It also needs the custom stats functionality - a lot of people didn't want these routes mucking up their stats.

There's also the issue that some maintainers aren't interested in maintaining these routes in their states - fair enough, but it is another thing to deal with!

[vdeane]

It also needs the custom stats functionality - a lot of people didn't want these routes mucking up their stats.

Considering how systems like usaal and usanyp also linger in perpetual preview, I question whether using preview status as a poor man's substitute for custom stats is really worth it.

[mapcat]

Is Historic US 10 in North Dakota anything to be concerned about? There are more.

[si404]

Is Historic US 10 in North Dakota anything to be concerned about? There are more.

I've added it. Elsewhere in the state it's CR10 or I-94BL, but between Mandan and Dickinson it's CR139 and an ND Scenic Byway called Old Red Old Ten Scenic Byway (after its pre-numbering trail name, and its former US number), which is signed mostly as 'Scenic Byway' with a Buffalo, but occasionally both the normal signage and also the disc from your GMSV links.

There's two spurs to Almont, with an Old Red Old 10 disc leaving that town, but no discs elsewhere. I've routed US10His along the main scenic byway and not included the spurs.