My own reaction is that we're starting to overdo this, and adding national seashore roads would be overdoing it some more.
Agreed. My plan was never to just add routes willy nilly, but I'm happy to add stuff that I would feel isn't 'worthy' enough just to spark discussion (especially if, like many of the ones Nick proposed, it was proposed by the state's maintainer).
In keeping with the origins of this system (which started as an attempt to do something with supposed US routes through Yellowstone), we might focus on through routes that, if not included in other systems, would leave glaring gaps in user maps, as would result from removing everything in Yellowstone from USAUS. Another is to use USANP as a final destination for some USASNF routes (like the George Washington Parkway in Virginia), as one step to getting rid of USASNF. A third is to include the longest parkways and especially the multi-state ones, such as Skyline Drive/Blue Ridge Parkway in VA and NC, and the Natchez Trace Parkway in MS/AL/TN. Those are just some possible limiting principles, others might make sense too.
They are pretty good and broadly similar to mine - fill gaps caused by National Parks in other systems (I'd count through routes as well as extensions of state highways that dead end at the park boundary in this), include the parkways that are their own NPS unit.
And then we have all the non-NPS historic routes, which are at least parked for now in USANP. I'd at least move those into a separate system at some point, but after first giving some thought to issues raised in this forum about mapping such routes, such as multiple alignments for some routes at different points in time.
What issues raised - the conversation was mostly "we're not yet quite sure where to put them" with the question of whether they are simply bannered US routes, their own system, or part of a 'National Parks, Scenic and Historic Highways' system. Hopefully my adding them will spur discussion (and yes, they are signed with dates on - eg
here and
here and in that one case 'SPUR' banners rather than date banners (
here, though there are other signs for that spur route)) on where to put them, criteria for inclusion, etc that we have here.
dropping things like Rock Creek Parkway, which would probably be a locally maintained road if not for the quirks of jurisdiction surrounding the District of Columbia.
Surely such routes fill a gap caused by DC only having one District numbered road?
Likewise, Trail Ridge Road can get dropped since it's just US 34
True, but it is an attraction in its own right, and I'm very happy to have routes entirely concurrent with others (eg, if I was in charge of New York, the Thruway mainline would be a route, due to it having it's own shield (and exit numbering) rather than the current position of not including it as it is entirely concurrent with I-87 and I-90) and it's in a region I maintain. It was requested by Oscar (IIRC) as well, who is conservative in what he includes. I don't particularly care if it's in or out, but I don't see why it should be removed just because it is part of US34.
the roads in Yellowstone... eh, they're already in USAUS. Their "official" status is weird but consensus in general (not limited to the roadgeek community) is that all of those highways have implied routes through the park and they usually appear as such on maps.
But at the same time does it make sense to miss off a quarter of the Grand Loop Road (which would meet your two narrow requirements for inclusion)? And if we're including that, why not the other routes? And given we are rather pedantic when it comes to state routes, etc, why do we relax the standards for inclusion when it comes to US routes. The existence of US routes across Yellowstone was kept purely because the USANP system never really got sorted and we needed it as a temporary stopgap to deal with the issue of the routes not being included unless we put US routes on roads that aren't.
I also wonder whether we're spending too much time on this right now (especially the historic routes), when we still don't have activated state route systems in about half the U.S. states, or provincial systems in most of Canada. Even if some team members have time and energy to spare, getting reviews/comments from other team members can draw them away from getting their new state/provincial systems up and running.
Very true.
Though while the historic routes took me an age (and I've not got CA US6, US40, US99 or US101's signed historic routes in there), there's little else that I could have done (looked at yakra's TX routes, I guess - job for tomorrow!). But the thing was that it was a fun project that I wanted to do (follow US66 in GMSV) that I then put to use on TM, rather than a TM thing that didn't need to happen yet but I did that instead of something else.