Changes to the California Highway Web Page: July-October 2018

Started by cahwyguy, October 13, 2018, 07:30:10 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cahwyguy

Phase 2 of the site refresh is done -- the second half of the "Mapping Project Phase". In this phase, maps illustrating each route were added to the County Sign Route pages. This uncovered loads of errors in the database, and loads of errors in Google Maps. It also shows much more visually the rhyme and reason behind the county sign routes. It is a shame that the counties have not done a better job signing these routes or calling attention to them -- many of them look quite useful and interesting to drive. It is also interesting that many counties do not choose to participate in the program, or do so only sparingly.

Next up: A normal update, processing headlines, legislative actions, and CTC minutes.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways


Max Rockatansky

Quote from: cahwyguy on October 13, 2018, 07:30:10 PM
Phase 2 of the site refresh is done -- the second half of the "Mapping Project Phase". In this phase, maps illustrating each route were added to the County Sign Route pages. This uncovered loads of errors in the database, and loads of errors in Google Maps. It also shows much more visually the rhyme and reason behind the county sign routes. It is a shame that the counties have not done a better job signing these routes or calling attention to them -- many of them look quite useful and interesting to drive. It is also interesting that many counties do not choose to participate in the program, or do so only sparingly.

Next up: A normal update, processing headlines, legislative actions, and CTC minutes.

The issue is that the program has been so poorly maintained by most counties that it's hard to tell what is really official regarding the Signed County Routes.  Tulare County is by far the worst offender in terms of lack of Signed County Route maintenance but on the whole there doesn't seem to be any consistent standards across the board.  It's really too bad, there are lots of useful routes in the system that still serve a navigational purpose and it certainly could be greatly expanded on in rural areas IMO. 

mrsman

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2018, 12:47:26 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 13, 2018, 07:30:10 PM
Phase 2 of the site refresh is done -- the second half of the "Mapping Project Phase". In this phase, maps illustrating each route were added to the County Sign Route pages. This uncovered loads of errors in the database, and loads of errors in Google Maps. It also shows much more visually the rhyme and reason behind the county sign routes. It is a shame that the counties have not done a better job signing these routes or calling attention to them -- many of them look quite useful and interesting to drive. It is also interesting that many counties do not choose to participate in the program, or do so only sparingly.

Next up: A normal update, processing headlines, legislative actions, and CTC minutes.

The issue is that the program has been so poorly maintained by most counties that it's hard to tell what is really official regarding the Signed County Routes.  Tulare County is by far the worst offender in terms of lack of Signed County Route maintenance but on the whole there doesn't seem to be any consistent standards across the board.  It's really too bad, there are lots of useful routes in the system that still serve a navigational purpose and it certainly could be greatly expanded on in rural areas IMO.

Totally agree.  The navigational benefits for having an expanded county highway system would be tremendous, but only if the routes are properly signed.  As we see with decomissioned state highways that are supposed to be signed for navigational purposes (but are never done), this is easier said than done.

IMO it is up to the gov't authorities (County or state) to properly sign the best routings with good signage to help the motoring public.  Let's not have everyone rely solely on GPS.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: mrsman on October 14, 2018, 08:07:19 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2018, 12:47:26 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 13, 2018, 07:30:10 PM
Phase 2 of the site refresh is done -- the second half of the "Mapping Project Phase". In this phase, maps illustrating each route were added to the County Sign Route pages. This uncovered loads of errors in the database, and loads of errors in Google Maps. It also shows much more visually the rhyme and reason behind the county sign routes. It is a shame that the counties have not done a better job signing these routes or calling attention to them -- many of them look quite useful and interesting to drive. It is also interesting that many counties do not choose to participate in the program, or do so only sparingly.

Next up: A normal update, processing headlines, legislative actions, and CTC minutes.

The issue is that the program has been so poorly maintained by most counties that it's hard to tell what is really official regarding the Signed County Routes.  Tulare County is by far the worst offender in terms of lack of Signed County Route maintenance but on the whole there doesn't seem to be any consistent standards across the board.  It's really too bad, there are lots of useful routes in the system that still serve a navigational purpose and it certainly could be greatly expanded on in rural areas IMO.

Totally agree.  The navigational benefits for having an expanded county highway system would be tremendous, but only if the routes are properly signed.  As we see with decomissioned state highways that are supposed to be signed for navigational purposes (but are never done), this is easier said than done.

IMO it is up to the gov't authorities (County or state) to properly sign the best routings with good signage to help the motoring public.  Let's not have everyone rely solely on GPS.

Which certainly was the case with J37 in Tulare County.  All the map services and GPS data try to get people on Bear Creek Road to Balch Park as opposed to J37/Balch Park Road which is nowhere near as haggard.  Trouble is out here in California that any area that doesn't have a posted speed limit is by default a 55 MPH zone.  Most map services don't know how to reconcile this fact and often suggest dangerous routes or impractical ones. 

andy3175

Quote from: mrsman on October 14, 2018, 08:07:19 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2018, 12:47:26 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 13, 2018, 07:30:10 PM
Phase 2 of the site refresh is done -- the second half of the "Mapping Project Phase". In this phase, maps illustrating each route were added to the County Sign Route pages. This uncovered loads of errors in the database, and loads of errors in Google Maps. It also shows much more visually the rhyme and reason behind the county sign routes. It is a shame that the counties have not done a better job signing these routes or calling attention to them -- many of them look quite useful and interesting to drive. It is also interesting that many counties do not choose to participate in the program, or do so only sparingly.

Next up: A normal update, processing headlines, legislative actions, and CTC minutes.

The issue is that the program has been so poorly maintained by most counties that it’s hard to tell what is really official regarding the Signed County Routes.  Tulare County is by far the worst offender in terms of lack of Signed County Route maintenance but on the whole there doesn’t seem to be any consistent standards across the board.  It’s really too bad, there are lots of useful routes in the system that still serve a navigational purpose and it certainly could be greatly expanded on in rural areas IMO.

Totally agree.  The navigational benefits for having an expanded county highway system would be tremendous, but only if the routes are properly signed.  As we see with decomissioned state highways that are supposed to be signed for navigational purposes (but are never done), this is easier said than done.

IMO it is up to the gov't authorities (County or state) to properly sign the best routings with good signage to help the motoring public.  Let's not have everyone rely solely on GPS.

Agree. There was a conspicuous effort to remove many of the Tulare signed county routes, and I can only think of one location that I think is off of SR 65 where one could find a shield. Not only the county's signs are gone, but so are the county route markers from the intersecting state highways. Usually if a county forgets to sign its routes, at least the state will post a sign. But that is not the case in Tulare.

All of J41 over Sherman Pass was unsigned, meaning Inyo has no signed county routes as far as I know. Many of the county routes I've seen signed in rural counties such as Del Norte and Tehama tend to be old and faded once you're off the state highway system. Signing county routes is generally an afterthought, and the best examples I've seen is the most recently implemented signed county route: 66 across San Bernardino County. CR 66 even has cardinal directions, which is more than most California signed county routes have.

I do wish California would sign former state routes reverted to county or municipal control as county routes with the same number to make navigation easier, but that is unlikely to occur. 

Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: andy3175 on October 15, 2018, 12:47:18 AM
Quote from: mrsman on October 14, 2018, 08:07:19 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2018, 12:47:26 AM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 13, 2018, 07:30:10 PM
Phase 2 of the site refresh is done -- the second half of the "Mapping Project Phase". In this phase, maps illustrating each route were added to the County Sign Route pages. This uncovered loads of errors in the database, and loads of errors in Google Maps. It also shows much more visually the rhyme and reason behind the county sign routes. It is a shame that the counties have not done a better job signing these routes or calling attention to them -- many of them look quite useful and interesting to drive. It is also interesting that many counties do not choose to participate in the program, or do so only sparingly.

Next up: A normal update, processing headlines, legislative actions, and CTC minutes.

The issue is that the program has been so poorly maintained by most counties that it's hard to tell what is really official regarding the Signed County Routes.  Tulare County is by far the worst offender in terms of lack of Signed County Route maintenance but on the whole there doesn't seem to be any consistent standards across the board.  It's really too bad, there are lots of useful routes in the system that still serve a navigational purpose and it certainly could be greatly expanded on in rural areas IMO.

Totally agree.  The navigational benefits for having an expanded county highway system would be tremendous, but only if the routes are properly signed.  As we see with decomissioned state highways that are supposed to be signed for navigational purposes (but are never done), this is easier said than done.

IMO it is up to the gov't authorities (County or state) to properly sign the best routings with good signage to help the motoring public.  Let's not have everyone rely solely on GPS.

Agree. There was a conspicuous effort to remove many of the Tulare signed county routes, and I can only think of one location that I think is off of SR 65 where one could find a shield. Not only the county's signs are gone, but so are the county route markers from the intersecting state highways. Usually if a county forgets to sign its routes, at least the state will post a sign. But that is not the case in Tulare.

All of J41 over Sherman Pass was unsigned, meaning Inyo has no signed county routes as far as I know. Many of the county routes I've seen signed in rural counties such as Del Norte and Tehama tend to be old and faded once you're off the state highway system. Signing county routes is generally an afterthought, and the best examples I've seen is the most recently implemented signed county route: 66 across San Bernardino County. CR 66 even has cardinal directions, which is more than most California signed county routes have.

I do wish California would sign former state routes reverted to county or municipal control as county routes with the same number to make navigation easier, but that is unlikely to occur.

It's too bad that former state routes can't get the same treatment they do in Florida where they retain their number and for awhile has their own version of the state shield.  With Tulare County the only route I've ever found Signed was J37, J19 is Signed on the Fresno County side.  With J37 I suspect that navigation is so difficult and GPS data is so unreliable that Tulare County Maintained the signage.  Most J37 shields are fairly recent and were placed in the last decade or top based off the wear/fade they display. 



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.