Here's my question with regards to this: are there any sections of "future interstate" out there that are not concurrent with other numbered state or US routes? If not then this system is completely redundant and I'd be all for just junking it.
Is something redundant just because it the route itself is concurrent with other route?
As for "named freeways" in other states, they warrant inclusion in the project, certainly, but perhaps if there's only one or two of them in a state they can just be thrown in with the state highway system.
There is the issue of whether or not they fit in the state system, or are their own thing. I'd argue the latter.
Yesterday, I looked through my 'grab bag other routes in Europe' stuff (mostly UK at the moment, though I've got some French D roads that are freeways, and a couple of other routes too) that will fill in some gaps in the phase 3 networks (I agree about aiming for full systems) and found 5 routes that are mapped as A roads on official maps:
2 signed with the number '(Tunnel)', but are private roads (owned by a public corporation) and can't be A roads. The OS gives them numbers, but they would be unsigned spurs...
1 in official documents as a named A road with no number
1 might be a trap street by the Ordinance Survey, and is given a number by them, but without a field check, I have no idea (but it always stood out like a sore thumb as a Dual Carriageway that wasn't classified). OSM now has it, but I can't find reference on the council's website.
1 that is half spur of the A23 and half spur of M23 that isn't signed according to the strict guidelines for spurs (ie signed away from the mainline) and I got asked why it wasn't included by a collaborator who wanted it added.
These named routes can go in the A road system as they could be argued as being A roads (however I'd probably extract them into a phase 3a system (or a phase 1a system in the case of the Kingsway Tunnel when that happens)
However stuff like
Yeadon Way or the
West Approach Road are useful roads to have on CHM, but are definitely not A roads.
If someone wants to develop an NPS system in the future for things like Natchez Trace, I see no reason why not.
I have the Yellowstone routes done, to which we can add Natchez Trace / Blue Ridge, etc as and when files are made for them.
ISTR Tim saying once that a lot of it would be out -- being more expressway than freeway in nature. (True, we're no longer taking Tim's word as Gospel, but I'm just noting that, being that I'm on the same page in this case.)
I'm pretty lukewarm on including the Alberta bits.
Indeed, as am I. Those AB bits scream 'maybe part of phase 3a'
I say, leave off wibbly-wobbly "will become" criteria in favor of AASHTO approval.
As for whether something is signed, well... I'm kinda in favor of it... but OTOH, for interstates in the main, we did include routes that are in the FHWA/AASHTO logs but unsigned. OTOOH, Future Interstates are a different animal. Discuss?
I'd say add unsigned official routes.
Do we include freeway portions of routes defined by law with an interstate number? After all, many states don't seem to go for future interstates, especially when the number is guaranteed.
Do we include freeway portions that will become interstate with an active plan with a number - eg I-74 across Cincinatti, IL 390, but not I-x69 to Owensboro? Which is, I believe, what we have now.
As such routes are temporary and get folded in (though NC I-26 has lasted a long time) then I'm not sure why not. But at the same time, I'm also not sure why go beyond signed / official. Collaborator's discretion? Like other things (I refer you to the back end of
this post of yours). Duke87 might feel the system redundant, which is one reason why we don't have the NYST, despite being a signed named freeway. I'd include it, but he's in charge of New York and if he doesn't want to that's fine. Personally, purely for the sack of the mapping looking cool, I'd probably overadd (I'd also include bits entirely concurrent with existing interstates) routes to this system, but I'm also happy if the consensus ends up only including signed routes.
Yes. I've considered this on the past too. Also: Oklahoma Turnpikes.
I knew there was one obvious system I forgot. OK Turnpikes - absolutely.
Disagree here; for the most part I don't favour cluttering up a numbered system with other stuff of different signage/shield type.
Concur (see above comments about adding named routes to gbna. Also note that I tried to get three of them in it before (the two with (Tunnel) as a number, and the unnumbered A road), but Tim outright refused), so I'm not adverse to including oddities.