usaush: United States Historic US Routes

[si404]

It would certainly need 'Iowa' in the _con csv, but if there's no other IA US20His files then city name or abbrev strike me as unneccessary. I'd go with Waterloo if an actual city is desired as it's the biggest.

stuff like the main cross-state route of US66His being US66HisChi in IL, US66HisStL in MO and US66HisOkl in OK is mostly due to every other bannered route in the US having (and I remember Tim being really adamant that the abbrev and city fields be used on the few bannered UK routes, even when there was only route with that number+banner combo and I suggested getting rid of a lot of them) abbrevs and cities in .csvs even if its a unique route and so it's mostly force of habit / conformity to existing standards rather than something I want to impose.

I know it's not an active system, but we have the following points in use on the routes that are replaced. I suggest adding the old route names as AltRouteNames just to preserve these travels, even if it gets updated out before too long.

ia.us020hiscor(6): CRL51 IA31
ia.us020hisfor(41): CHR75 CRN57 IA471_N
ia.us020hisiow(14): CRC65_E CRD15/D20
ia.us020hiswat(27): IA14 WATLIM
ia.us020hisjes(5): CRD20 CRV71
ia.us020hisman(17): CRW40 US20_E
ia.us020hisepw(11): US20_E US20_W
ia.us020hisdub(4): 4THST GRAAVE

[Jim]

Thanks.  I will go with no city/abbrev in the .csv, and "Iowa" in the _con.csv entry. For now I'm leaving out the alt routes, as I think Highway63 made some label changes anyway as part of the unification.  This will happen with tonight's update.  I will leave the 8 segment .wpt files for now, just have to remember to remove them once we're happy with the new route.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/9ebde91062cd8853646a243d1271b5f1ea42f8b9

[Jim]

Just poking around the route in Mapview, I noticed a broken concurrency between IA US20His and IA 57 between CRT47 and CRC 67.  Also US 20 needs a point where US20His meets it at IraAve.  US 59 needs a point where US20His meets it US59_N.

[Jim]

I have an update by email from Highway63 that includes hwy_data/IL/usaush/il.us066hischi.wpt and hwy_data/IL/usaush/il.us066hiscar.wpt.  However, it looks like there is only a file il.us066his.wpt.  I'll see if I can get the changes where they need to go.  Those who are editing these files, please coordinate with each other on changes before submitting and make sure everyone's aware of  changes that are made.

[Jim]

Looks like hwy_data/IL/usaush/il.us066hischi.wpt is now hwy_data/IL/usaush/il.us066his.wpt so I can apply those changes to that file, but I am not sure what to make of hwy_data/IL/usaush/il.us066hiscar.wpt.  New route?  Was that also supposed to be rolled into the single IL US66His?

[si404]

https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=il.us066hiscar exists.

I renamed US66HisChi as US66His to match IA US20His as both go border to border.

[Jim]

https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=il.us066hiscar exists.

Thanks.  Looks like I should have scrolled down in the CSV to all of the other alignments.  That makes it easier.

[mapcat]

What's the westbound routing of Historic US 40 through Sacramento? I found some info about the segment from L St/15th St westward, but how does it get from CA 160 to L St? There's this jog in the trace around D St (not a through street) that makes it seem to follow 12th to...something...to 15th(?) westbound from the end of 160. I found some signs on the eastbound routing but nothing going the opposite direction.

[neroute2]

What's the westbound routing of Historic US 40 through Sacramento? I found some info about the segment from L St/15th St westward, but how does it get from CA 160 to L St? There's this jog in the trace around D St (not a through street) that makes it seem to follow 12th to...something...to 15th(?) westbound from the end of 160. I found some signs on the eastbound routing but nothing going the opposite direction.

I asked the same years ago and never got a response. There's no continuous signed route and no obvious implied route, so I was unable to mark that piece as clinched despite probably driving all the potential pieces.

[mapcat]

What's the westbound routing of Historic US 40 through Sacramento? I found some info about the segment from L St/15th St westward, but how does it get from CA 160 to L St? There's this jog in the trace around D St (not a through street) that makes it seem to follow 12th to...something...to 15th(?) westbound from the end of 160. I found some signs on the eastbound routing but nothing going the opposite direction.

I asked the same years ago and never got a response. There's no continuous signed route and no obvious implied route, so I was unable to mark that piece as clinched despite probably driving all the potential pieces.

So why do we include it, then?

[pderocco]

The California Official map for 1964 can be found here:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239521~5511847
It (and previous years) shows the actual US-40 coming into town from the north on a one-way pair consisting of 12th St and 16th St, with the southbound direction jogging on F St to 15th St. These connect to an apparent two-way N St, which uses a one-way pair on 7th St and 8th St to get back to M St, and out the west side of town. N St is now one way, so the obvious currently drivable route is L St to 7th St to M St. I drove that a year or so ago, but drove it in the other direction too.

The last two years in which US-40 is shown on the official maps are 1965 and 1966:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239527~5511851
15th St and 16th St came down further to another one-way pair on P St and Q St. Then, another one-way pair on 3rd St and 5th St went back up to M St, whence it left town.

Whether anyone ever put up Historic US-40 signs on any of these routes, I don't know. I don't recall seeing any such signs anywhere in Sacramento when I drove around looking for that road, and I still don't see any "driving around" in GSV. So TM could remove it entirely from Sacramento, or use the cleaner 65/66 alignment, or the more "historic" 65 and before route. Is TM trying to show the actual signage on the ground, or the actual history?

[si404]

So why do we include it, then?

You answered your own question!

I found some signs on the eastbound routing

Should we not include the eastbound because the westbound isn't signed?

Perhaps it should be finessed onto the eastbound route rather than using couplets to imply a bi-directional route.

[neroute2]

Here's what I wrote five years ago: https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=97.msg17601;topicseen#msg17601

[mapcat]

So why do we include it, then?

You answered your own question!

I found some signs on the eastbound routing

Should we not include the eastbound because the westbound isn't signed?

Perhaps it should be finessed onto the eastbound route rather than using couplets to imply a bi-directional route.

I should have made it more clear that I was referring to the implied westbound routing. Certainly the signed eastbound routing should be included. However in light of the sign on 12th south of the implied turn, I'd also support revising the trace to use a 12th-H-15th-L westbound routing, even though evidently US 40 never actually took that path. It wouldn't be the first time a "Historic" route's signage didn't line up exactly with the actual routing.

[dharwood]

In preview road OK US66His, the point label I-40BL_W is used twice. This creates an unresolvable error in processing data. I think this came about because two separate roads were recently merged.