usaush: United States Historic US Routes

[si404]

Not sure I follow. Road names, like ElmSt & MainSt?

Yes

I see US66His etc. in the CA & NM commits.

Which I've since changed to road names.

I see OldSmiDr right now. Mind changing it to SmiCanDr, since you'll be the next one to have a commie LOL commit merged in for that file?

You're right, fixed now.

[Bickendan]

Si, remember when I had you switch out the Rowena Crest section of Hist US 30 for the Columbia River Gorge section a while back?
Turns out both are signed in the field! US 30 prime is also signed (or just becomes US 30H) through Rowena Crest after leaving The Dalles.
I'll upload the Rowena Crest section with my update to US 97 and the OR 99s. Since both segments of US 30H are in the Columbia River Gorge, the first segment should be renamed --
Crown Point?
Columbia River Gorge Waterfalls?
Multnomah Falls?
Troutdale-Dodson?

[yakra]

Not sure I follow. Road names, like ElmSt & MainSt?

Yes

Oh nice. I prefer that style too actually, and feel better about asking for it if Oscar already did so & you were happy to make the changes.
FWIW, I followed this same convention when developing cannss. EG, NS NS4 PepSt, instead of BrasdOrDr_WhateverDirectionalOrCitySuffix...

I remember there was one other US66His label in KS. Other than that I'm not aware of anything else you changed in my regions before these recent commits.

I see US66His etc. in the CA & NM commits.

Which I've since changed to road names.

Which I could have seen had I thought to do for Oscar's commits what I did for mine, and replace the arcane hexadecimal commit number in the GitHub url with "master" ;P
I don't see myself stopping posting on the Internet at 2am anytime soon though. :-/

You're right, fixed now.

Thanks!

[yakra]

MA US20:
US20His_Hun -> OldStaHwy
US20His_MarW -> MainSt_MarW
US20His_MarE -> MainSt_MarW

NE US20:
SmiCanDr +OldSmiSDr_W -> SmiCanDr

OK US59:
140Rd -> E0140
delete +X05930

OK US69:
140thRd -> E0140
delete +X05930

The rest looks good

[si404]

I've gone with everyone having names on existing routes, rather than USxxHis labels (some are OldUSxx or varients of, as that is what the road is named).

change log here: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1551/files (Jim's waiting on confirmation before pulling in)

[yakra]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1551/files#diff-ebbc96f75e12035e486661c9ef81de01
That's one funky filename. o_O
Isn't the Lincoln Highway outside the scope of the usaush system?

That said though, I approve of the changes in MA, NE, NY and OK.

[si404]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/1551/files#diff-ebbc96f75e12035e486661c9ef81de01
That's one funky filename. o_O

It's obvious what it is though. I didn't want to add 20-something points to the actual US30 file, but didn't want to play hunt-and-name them should we include the Lincoln Highway to the project.

Isn't the Lincoln Highway outside the scope of the usaush system?

It's not in the .csvs, but I've drafted IL and IN should we decide to add this route which is in the sphere of this system, but not currently its scope, to the project (either in this, or another, system).

[mapcat]

Can you post a link to where you found the endpoints for the US20His routes in Ohio? I'm wondering how you decided to limit them to those three particular segments.

[si404]

the end points are rather random. I basically took the existing US20 points after a sign, or where I guessed a sign might be.

However, more have been added (this recent document about getting the route really well done in IA has Bellevue, Monroeville, Norwalk, Wakeman, Elyria, Willoughby, Mentor, Painesville and North Perry have signs, so I need to extend the Painesville section at some point) or I just gave up trying to find. It doesn't help that GMSV is either too old, or that the signs are very hard to find. I haven't found too many - this one in Monroeville, this one in Willoughby, this one in North Perry, and this one in Painesville. Otherwise it is photos - eg Norwalk.

[mapcat]

the end points are rather random. I basically took the existing US20 points after a sign, or where I guessed a sign might be.

Then how is this any different from looking at an old map, seeing where US20 used to be routed, and calling that US20HisFoo?

I finally had a chance to GMSV US20HisEly from end to end and didn't see a single sign. Imagery was from 2013-2016.

The Monroeville sign in your link was the only one I found on US20HisNor (the imagery for the intersection shown in the article predates the unveiling).

I'm just looking for some justification for these two (US20HisPai seems safe), or a reason not to add the former alignment in Fremont (which is actually signed, albeit in a nonstandard manner).

[si404]

Then how is this any different from looking at an old map, seeing where US20 used to be routed, and calling that US20HisFoo?

Because it's signed as Historic US20 rather than merely the old route of it?

That said, I can't find any signs, despite GMSV being mostly recent enough to fit the June 2016 date for the supposed signage in the town.

I'm just looking for some justification for these two

Why isn't Norwalk safe? - as you say, GMSV is pre-unveiling of signage. The end points might need tweaking (the west end seems to be OH113, with nothing further west in Bellevue), but it's clearly signed in several places. Here's a third. Wakeman's GMSV is too early.

a reason not to add the former alignment in Fremont (which is actually signed, albeit in a nonstandard manner).

I didn't realise 'City Route 20' signs are valid for inclusion as Historic US20. 

And especially silly when you are saying that Historic US20 signs aren't enough for the Norwalk section!

[mapcat]

Because it's signed as Historic US20 rather than merely the old route of it?

*Some* of the route is signed, but a large part of your file seems to be guesswork. Ohio's historic US routes don't seem to be in the same class as the well-signed examples in California or Illinois. Granted, it would be pointless to have a 2-block route for the small segment signed in Monroeville and another tiny segment near another sign in Norwalk, but keeping all of US20HisNor in a single file demands a lot more guesswork than a route should require. The endpoints are ambiguous. The phantom Elyria segment is more than ambiguous.

Would it be better to unite all of these segments into a single one, since the organization (possibly just one extremely dedicated and/or obsessive gentleman) posting the signs evidently intends to use them to promote the entire route of US20?

I didn't realise 'City Route 20' signs are valid for inclusion as Historic US20. 

And especially silly when you are saying that Historic US20 signs aren't enough for the Norwalk section!

I didn't say I wished to include that segment, only that it was more clearly signed (as *something*) than the Norwalk section.

I'd prefer to hold off on all of the Ohio routes until signage becomes more consistent across the state. Is any other state as careless with its Historic Route signage?

[bejacob]

I'm somewhat puzzled by this set of routes. I've seen a fair number of "Historic US Route" X in my travels and have even driven some, so I like the idea of being able to add a few more to my list.

What I don't know are the criteria for including a Historic route? I assume it must be signed. What else? Must the route be decommissioned or have a segment relocated?

I can see why it might be necessary when a route is signed as "Historic" though a town when a bypass was created and the old route was not designated a "Business" route or replaced by a state route of the same number (WA 99 in Federal Way for instance). The idea of a Historic route having a concurrency with the same numbered route that still exists seems like an oxymoron (how can it be a historic route if it is still a current route? I can understand for the segments that deviate from the current route).

One route I know is signed but not included is Historic US395 in Riverside, CA. Are there others?

I like the idea of adding Historic routes, but there seems to be a lot of confusion about appropriate waypoints, signage, concurrencies, and which routes to include. At least with most other systems, there usually some sort of official list maintained by the state DOT.

Now that this system is in "preview," I'll probably add several routes to my list. I'm still not sure I completely understand what's being included or left out of this system, but I'll go along with whatever is in the HB.

[oscar]

I've seen Historic US 99E signs in Chico CA, and US 99W signs somewhere along I-5BL Orland (a poorly-signed BL that was really borderline for staying in the HB). I have a photo of one of the latter. The Chico 99E segment followed in part the decommissioned CA99 Business route through Chico, but continued south on Midway where the business route turned east on Park Ave.

Is there a more systematic way of identifying CA's generally well-signed historic US routes, other than randomly through reports on this forum?

[bejacob]

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!

I know I am quoting an old comment, but it helps explain my confusion with this system.

Just because some group erected "Historic Route" signs, what makes a route worth including?
Is the some sort of "official designation" by state DOTs for historic routes?
If not, who determined which routes are included?
How will we know if the route list is complete? Is there some "master" list?
Will early US "auto routes" like the Lincoln Highway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Highway (which covered parts of US30, US50, and others) be included especially in places where is deviates from the existing alignment? (I know a great deal of signage exists in the Midwest on parts of this route).
What about routes that had different alignments over time?
Once usaush is done, will there be a push to do the same at a state level? (Are there even any signed historic state routes?)

I like the idea of adding historic routes, I just wonder whether enough consideration was given to the above questions. The system is already in "preview," so there is probably little chance of going back now. A little clarification might however be useful moving forward.

I'm all in favor of adding new systems. I was glad to see usanp and several state systems (CA, FL, GA) added to "preview" recently. I've still got some big gaps in places like AL, LA, and MS where state systems have not yet been developed.

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.