usaush: United States Historic US Routes

[si404]

Scope: routes signed with Historic USxx signs

Routes already mapped: see http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?sys=usaush&rg=

Issues: long banner text with dates are hard to implement, as is the historic bit

Requests: other signed routes - where are they?

Comments: over to you

[the_spui_ninja]

Well here's something: http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html
As far as I can tell from the pics there is an extant US20His in Marlborough and Becket, MA (although I have no idea of the routings).
There are also some links at the bottom that may or may not be useful.

I'm not sure whether this info is relevant or not, but I put it here for what it's worth.

[Bickendan]

Hist US 30 The Dalles should be removed: Its entire length is still US 30.
The segment that should be included is from Troutdale to I-84 exit 35 near Warrendale. In fact, I'll send this to Jim now.

[si404]

Hist US 30 The Dalles should be removed: Its entire length is still US 30.
The segment that should be included is from Troutdale to I-84 exit 35 near Warrendale. In fact, I'll send this to Jim now.

Thanks for correcting my misinterpretation the description given in discussions of US30 in OR.

Collaborators - please feel free to make alterations to routes in your regions like Bickendan has done.

[yakra]

Issues: long banner text with dates are hard to implement, as is the historic bit

As usaush.csv is currently formatted, NM HistoricUS66PRE-1937SFe is what would have to go into a .list file to mark a segment as clinched. That's a mouthful. Clunky.
My preference: usaush;NM;US66;His;SFe;Santa Fe;nm.us066hissfe;
That example doesn't include the date information. Leaving it out doesn't seem to create any collisions between same-numbered same-city routes, from my quick look at the CSV. I have no problem including it, as long as it's in the city field, e.g. usaush;NM;US66;His;SFe;(PRE-1937) Santa Fe;nm.us066hissfe; or such.

Collaborators - please feel free to make alterations to routes in your regions like Bickendan has done.

I remember there was one route in TX that needed some fixes. Don't remember which one though...
Edit: I guess not. Maybe I was thrown off by tx.i040bsgle having the points in reverse order from tx.us066hisgle, or something.

Routes in my regions, a checklist:
tx.us066hisgle / tx.us066hisgle;I-40(0);;;EXIT0;
tx.us066hisadr
tx.us066hisveg
tx.us066hiscon
tx.us066hisgro
tx.us066hisala
tx.us066hismcl
tx.us066hissha
ks.us066hisgal / ks.us066hisgal;KS26/66;;;LABEL_SELFREF;

[Si's post with shield images]

[si404]

Well here's something: http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html
As far as I can tell from the pics there is an extant US20His in Marlborough and Becket, MA (although I have no idea of the routings).

and Weston, MA, New Lebanon, NY, North East, PA, Sandhills, NE...

Sadly the Ostriches haven't roamed those parts for a long time, so route discernment is difficult (the Becket, MA is a tiny former alignment segment where the turnpike diverted it - called Morse Rd).

I've also found a US6His in Provincetown, MA, with a same lack of decent and recent GMSV


I've also fixed the .csv

[mapcat]

You've made it known that you don't believe that a route being coextensive with an existing route should preclude it from being included in any set it's qualified to be in, and I don't disagree with you in principle. But in the case of Historic US 20 (Painesville, OH), the entire route is also the current routing for US 20. To me this seems unnecessary. At least a small part of Historic US 20 (Norwalk, OH) deviates from the unbannered route.

[vdeane]

Well here's something: http://www.historicus20.com/historic-route-signage.html
As far as I can tell from the pics there is an extant US20His in Marlborough and Becket, MA (although I have no idea of the routings).

and Weston, MA, New Lebanon, NY, North East, PA, Sandhills, NE...

Sadly the Ostriches haven't roamed those parts for a long time, so route discernment is difficult (the Becket, MA is a tiny former alignment segment where the turnpike diverted it - called Morse Rd).

I've also found a US6His in Provincetown, MA, with a same lack of decent and recent GMSV


I've also fixed the .csv

A small portion of the New Lebanon one appears to follow a local street.

[si404]

the entire route is also the current routing for US 20. To me this seems unnecessary.

Tell that to the people who erected signs! There's loads of US20His concurrent with US20. And US6His in Provincetown doesn't even have the excuse of the road still being on the original alignment when it does it!

[Ib3kii]

Just out of curiosity, what color will these routes be on the map?

Thanks,

[si404]

colors are changeable, but the default will be brown.

Are there any routes I've missed?

What needs to happen to get this system to preview?

[Jim]

colors are changeable, but the default will be brown.

Are there any routes I've missed?

What needs to happen to get this system to preview?

I guess I don't know how we know when this is substantially complete.  I doubt there's an authoritative list out there somewhere we can refer to.  I admit I've been blindly running site updates that include new usaush routes without paying much attention to what's in them (or not).

[Ib3kii]

colors are changeable, but the default will be brown.

Thank you.

[sipes23]

I guess I don't know how we know when this is substantially complete.  I doubt there's an authoritative list out there somewhere we can refer to.  I admit I've been blindly running site updates that include new usaush routes without paying much attention to what's in them (or not).

I know it's not an ideal solution, but could we call our selection authoritative and add to it as more new historic routes are "found"? I know it would count as original research in the Wikipedia sense, but do we have a problem with the US Historic roads being a little beta all the time?

[Highway63]

Who's putting these together? Apologies if I missed an announcement, but I see IL and MO US 66 files have been created. I don't have any problem with it (I certainly wouldn't have had time to do it), but if a signed route changes that could affect things.

On the portions where the historic route overlaps an active route, are waypoints being taken from existing files? If so, should concurrencies automatically show up yet? Or can that not happen until the system is activated? I'm marked as having 0% of 66 in IL/MO, and I have a bunch of interstate/business loop portions that would count.