Renumbering has become a VERY hot topic on some threads the last few days, and failing to find a thread that dealt with the principle of the matter I am creating this one to allow the crew to get their feelings on the issue out there.
Personally, I am a proponent of it. I am a firm believer that numbering systems should be logical, informative, and provide a backup system for navigation even in our digital obsessed world.
Sure there are some short term costs, confusion, etc. but I don't see these one time issues as serious barriers to fixing the system.
California of course renumbered their highways in the 60's, just for one example.
On some level I feel like the entire enlargement mirrors the debate over going to the metric system, with similar objections and proposals from both sides. But I digress.
So is renumbering a good idea? Or leave it as is?
My opinions can be summarized thusly:
Quote from: kphoger on June 25, 2013, 08:57:26 PM
In keeping with my dislike of parent/child numbering relationships, I propose we randomize the highway numbers. Few people besides roadgeeks know about numbering grids; even fewer actually care. And there is an insane number of unused designations out there.
Using a random sequence generator to build a pool of numbers from 1 to 999, I came up with the following. I probably left a few out by mistake, and I included some that aren't quite "official" yet.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1092.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi410%2Fkphoger%2Frand_zps72d89023.png&hash=05b439b6b9867bf2d4fb104a2300149515681296)
(By the way, this took waaaaaay too long!)
Quote from: kphoger on June 25, 2013, 11:31:57 PM
PS Any system is better than one where there are eight separate routes numbered 295.
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2017, 03:09:53 PM
If I could go back in time (and somehow had the power to make this kind of decision), I would nix the idea of having any sort of E-W or N-S numbering scheme for highways. None of this "running out" of numbers nonsense, no need for bypasses or spurs to somehow resemble a supposed parent's number, no roadgeek fights over numbers like 99 or 101 or 238 or 400, no quibbles about whether a diagonal route should get an even or an odd number. Just assign random numbers from 1 to 999. By my count, we wouldn't even be a third of the way to "running out" of Interstate highway numbers.
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2017, 04:21:31 PM
I prefer random route numbers over any organized system, because organized systems invariable fall apart at some point.
Few people besides roadgeeks know about numbering grids; even fewer actually care
That can and should be fixed.
Drivers education should include a comprehensive unit on roadway design and navigation, and the exam should cover the same. And the exam should be mandatory with every renewal.
Even if the numbering scheme is not critical under normal circumstances, it still provides a layer of redundancy for civil defense scenarios.
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 30, 2021, 01:13:03 PM
Even if the numbering scheme is not critical under normal circumstances, it still provides a layer of redundancy for civil defense scenarios.
Can you provide one example? Just 1. Where the current highway number does not provide "a layer of redundancy for civil defense scenarios" but a renumbered highway system (presumably in a perfect grid) would provide it.
RENUMBER.
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 30, 2021, 01:13:03 PM
Few people besides roadgeeks know about numbering grids; even fewer actually care
That can and should be fixed.
Drivers education should include a comprehensive unit on roadway design and navigation, and the exam should cover the same. And the exam should be mandatory with every renewal.
Even if the numbering scheme is not critical under normal circumstances, it still provides a layer of redundancy for civil defense scenarios.
So.... you would prefer that people be more confused than they currently are, just so you could have better grounds for renumbering. This is ridiculous logic.
1. People neither know about the current numbering system nor care about it.
2. Therefore, people are not confused by numbers that violate the current numbering system.
3. People should be forced to learn the current numbering system.
4. Then people would be more confused by numbers that violate the current numbering system.
5. Because the current numbering system would then be more confusing, it should be renumbered.
6. After that, and after the initial widespread confusion due to mass renumberings subsides, people would be less confused.
Except we left out Part 3b, which is that, after having been forced to learn the current numbering system, people still wouldn't care about it.
Renumber I-5, I-10, I-90, and I-95 into I-1000, a super beltway.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 30, 2021, 01:32:43 PM
Renumber I-5, I-10, I-90, and I-95 into I-1000, a super beltway.
I-1000 will be routed over the hypotenuse in Chicago, I presume?
For those new to the conversation, or who lost track during the other threads, here is a recap:
– Our highway system needs to be renumbered.
– Why? People aren't confused by what we have.
– That's just because people don't understand the system.
– Correct. They don't, nor do they care. Therefore, they aren't confused.
– They should.
– Why? So they'd be more confused? How would that be better?
– Because then they'd be more knowledgeable drivers, which might come in handy sometime.
– But, as I said, they don't care.
– They should.
– But they don't.
– But they should.
– But they don't.
– But they should.
– But what we have now isn't causing any actual problems. You know, in real life.
– That's just because people don't understand the system.
– Correct. They don't, nor do they care. Therefore, they aren't confused.
– They should.
Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2021, 01:25:26 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 30, 2021, 01:13:03 PM
Few people besides roadgeeks know about numbering grids; even fewer actually care
That can and should be fixed.
Drivers education should include a comprehensive unit on roadway design and navigation, and the exam should cover the same. And the exam should be mandatory with every renewal.
Even if the numbering scheme is not critical under normal circumstances, it still provides a layer of redundancy for civil defense scenarios.
So.... you would prefer that people be more confused than they currently are, just so you could have better grounds for renumbering. This is ridiculous logic.
1. People neither know about the current numbering system nor care about it.
2. Therefore, people are not confused by numbers that violate the current numbering system.
3. People should be forced to learn the current numbering system.
4. Then people would be more confused by numbers that violate the current numbering system.
5. Because the current numbering system would then be more confusing, it should be renumbered.
6. After that, and after the initial widespread confusion due to mass renumberings subsides, people would be less confused.
Except we left out Part 3b, which is that, after having been forced to learn the current numbering system, people still wouldn't care about it.
Exactly on the bolded. The grid doesn't impact people's lives in any meaningful way. Renumbering to a strict grid doesn't change that. And teaching them about the grid doesn't change that.
This entire topic is about HighwayStar's OCD.
Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2021, 01:46:47 PM
For those new to the conversation, or who lost track during the other threads, here is a recap:
– Our highway system needs to be renumbered.
– Why? People aren't confused by what we have.
– That's just because people don't understand the system.
– Correct. They don't, nor do they care. Therefore, they aren't confused.
– They should.
– Why? So they'd be more confused? How would that be better?
– Because then they'd be more knowledgeable drivers, which might come in handy sometime.
– But, as I said, they don't care.
– They should.
– But they don't.
– But they should.
– But they don't.
– But they should.
– But what we have now isn't causing any actual problems. You know, in real life.
– That's just because people don't understand the system.
– Correct. They don't, nor do they care. Therefore, they aren't confused.
– They should.
HighwayStar wants us all to have advanced degrees in electrical engineering so we know how electricity works.
No, we don't need an EE degree so we know how electricity works. We need it so we know how to plug in the toaster in the morning. (Ooo, is that an analogy?)
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 30, 2021, 12:56:42 PM
Personally, I am a proponent of it. I am a firm believer that numbering systems should be logical, informative, and provide a backup system for navigation even in our digital obsessed world.
Sure there are some short term costs, confusion, etc. but I don't see these one time issues as serious barriers to fixing the system.
As much as I sympathize with the idealism of a logical numbering system, I can't help but cast a skeptical glance on its practicality in the real world. Is your proposal
really a one-time deal? I ask this because, no matter how rigid one makes a numbering system, there will almost certainly be a case that doesn't neatly fit the pattern. I-99 happened in part because I-79 and I-81 were already taken, and it's debatable as to whether the route would have been better off as a 3DI. US 101 was never a child of US 1 in
this universe. Texas probably had
some reason for
really strongly wanting to bring back suffixed Interstates.
So, when you fix all the flaws in the current system, what do you do once a new flaw or inconsistency is eventually introduced? Fix it all over again? It's bound to happen, because any system like this ends up being the work of more than just one master designer. You might say, "Yes, fix it again," but it's not unreasonable to argue that the system is "good enough" and an endless series of overhauls is just a frivolous case of people making work for themselves and having resources wasted in the process.
Quote
California of course renumbered their highways in the 60's, just for one example.
Okay, and then what? Did they keep renumbering them over and over again? The Renumbering Zealouts have probably been drooling over I-238 for decades now. When is the state gonna let them sink their teeth into that one?
Quote
On some level I feel like the entire enlargement mirrors the debate over going to the metric system, with similar objections and proposals from both sides. But I digress.
Different concept. Converting to the metric system would be largely for the sake of being consistent with all but two other countries on the planet. There is no planet-wide numbering system that the U.S. has any reason to try to align itself with. (Should there be???)
Quote
So is renumbering a good idea? Or leave it as is?
On a large scale, I'm not with it, and for the most part, I'd leave it as it is, despite how much some of it annoys me.
Quote from: jmacswimmer on April 30, 2021, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 30, 2021, 01:32:43 PM
Renumber I-5, I-10, I-90, and I-95 into I-1000, a super beltway.
I-1000 will be routed over the hypotenuse in Chicago, I presume?
No, but it will be routed through Breezewood.
Quote from: GaryV on April 30, 2021, 01:55:50 PM
No, we don't need an EE degree so we know how electricity works. We need it so we know how to plug in the toaster in the morning. (Ooo, is that an analogy?)
No, we need an EE degree so, when the outlet the microwave is plugged into doesn't work, we know how to use the toaster oven instead.
Just use my map and everything will be amazing!
Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2021, 02:06:56 PM
Quote from: GaryV on April 30, 2021, 01:55:50 PM
No, we don't need an EE degree so we know how electricity works. We need it so we know how to plug in the toaster in the morning. (Ooo, is that an analogy?)
No, we need an EE degree so, when the outlet the microwave is plugged into doesn't work, we know how to use the toaster oven instead.
An EE degree is also helpful for when your laptop is acting up, so you know how to turn it off & turn it back on again.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 29, 2021, 09:24:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 29, 2021, 01:49:19 PM
I have yet to hear anyone present a convincing argument for why any highway should be renumbered at all–with the exception of one-off cases like two different same-numbered highways intersecting.
You could make the case that a number of Oklahoma highways could and should be renumbered to bring them into or out of the lettered-spur system. For instance, it might be better for SH-42 to be renumbered to SH-152A, as the residents of Dill City don't probably particularly need the number to find their way into town, and it's more there to ensure that the main road into town is well-maintained. That would mean the number 42 could be used for a road that's more important. The benefit here would be to clean up the system and make the basic rule "highways with letter suffixes are less important and those without are more important" more consistent.
Something like "SH-152 should be renumbered back to SH-41 because I think it is important enough that it deserves a two-digit/lower number" are silly, though.
Under certain circumstances:
If a road is getting an Interstate upgrade
If it helps alleviate confusion in any way
Otherwise, I would keep it the same
Quote from: stridentweasel on April 30, 2021, 01:59:04 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 30, 2021, 12:56:42 PM
Personally, I am a proponent of it. I am a firm believer that numbering systems should be logical, informative, and provide a backup system for navigation even in our digital obsessed world.
Sure there are some short term costs, confusion, etc. but I don't see these one time issues as serious barriers to fixing the system.
As much as I sympathize with the idealism of a logical numbering system, I can't help but cast a skeptical glance on its practicality in the real world. Is your proposal really a one-time deal? I ask this because, no matter how rigid one makes a numbering system, there will almost certainly be a case that doesn't neatly fit the pattern. I-99 happened in part because I-79 and I-81 were already taken, and it's debatable as to whether the route would have been better off as a 3DI. US 101 was never a child of US 1 in this universe. Texas probably had some reason for really strongly wanting to bring back suffixed Interstates.
So, when you fix all the flaws in the current system, what do you do once a new flaw or inconsistency is eventually introduced? Fix it all over again? It's bound to happen, because any system like this ends up being the work of more than just one master designer. You might say, "Yes, fix it again," but it's not unreasonable to argue that the system is "good enough" and an endless series of overhauls is just a frivolous case of people making work for themselves and having resources wasted in the process.
Quote
California of course renumbered their highways in the 60's, just for one example.
Okay, and then what? Did they keep renumbering them over and over again? The Renumbering Zealouts have probably been drooling over I-238 for decades now. When is the state gonna let them sink their teeth into that one?
Quote
On some level I feel like the entire enlargement mirrors the debate over going to the metric system, with similar objections and proposals from both sides. But I digress.
Different concept. Converting to the metric system would be largely for the sake of being consistent with all but two other countries on the planet. There is no planet-wide numbering system that the U.S. has any reason to try to align itself with. (Should there be???)
Quote
So is renumbering a good idea? Or leave it as is?
On a large scale, I'm not with it, and for the most part, I'd leave it as it is, despite how much some of it annoys me.
There was a question about the "it will break again" issue in another thread, but my response is basically that in renumbering you distribute gaps for future roads where possible (akin to how Basic is coded with line numbers by 10), can use 3 digit or special route numbers in many cases, may actually transfer a number because another road is being replaced, or can use a state designation if all else fails.
In practical terms, with as slow as the US is to build roads, I think a well implemented renumbering of the US Highway system could last a century or more. The next 100 years will see only a minute fraction of the construction of the last 100, so past experience is not the best guiding principle here. The main point is to come up with a compliant numbering each time rather than let the problem compound itself and become enormous.
As to California, that is simply an example for those that might not be familiar. Again, I find the argument that "it will break anyway" unconvincing with the rate of new construction.
Actually the comparison to the metric system is not that different.
being consistent with all but two other countries on the planet why does this matter in the age of the internet, the smartphone, etc. You don't need to be consistent with other countries, I have seen a number of sites with international users where everything is converted to display correctly in your countries system. So why align them if most people no longer encounter the issue? Not actually advocating anything either way here, just illustrating the similarity I see.
My basic argument is a one time "fix" of the system is likely to last a
very long time now that it is mostly built, so if it annoys you why not just get it over with and solve the problem.
(For the fictional side of the question I have a thread on a comprehensive renumbering plan for US Highways over in Fictional)
Quote from: Angelo71 on April 30, 2021, 02:11:23 PM
Just use my map and everything will be amazing!
Wow! -- someone's even more northeast-heavy than Tom MacDonald and his associates in the '40's, when the basic system finalized in 1956-58 was being formulated. The "rust belt" phenomenon that emerged in the '60's had yet to be recognized ten years previously, so an assumption that the economic primacy in the NE quadrant of the nation would continue held sway. So that portion of the country, by current standards, is overbuilt compared with the remainder, where economic growth is still occurring (hence the presence of such "aftermarket" Interstates as I-49, I-22, the I-69 southern extension, etc.).
Quote from: sparker on April 30, 2021, 05:38:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo71 on April 30, 2021, 02:11:23 PM
Just use my map and everything will be amazing!
Wow! -- someone's even more northeast-heavy than Tom MacDonald and his associates in the '40's, when the basic system finalized in 1956-58 was being formulated. The "rust belt" phenomenon that emerged in the '60's had yet to be recognized ten years previously, so an assumption that the economic primacy in the NE quadrant of the nation would continue held sway. So that portion of the country, by current standards, is overbuilt compared with the remainder, where economic growth is still occurring (hence the presence of such "aftermarket" Interstates as I-49, I-22, the I-69 southern extension, etc.).
This is Virginia heavy. I don't think that he likes the rust belt, especially a certain city...
This thread should be in Fictional.
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 30, 2021, 05:36:04 PM
There was a question about the "it will break again" issue in another thread, but my response is basically that in renumbering you distribute gaps for future roads where possible (akin to how Basic is coded with line numbers by 10)
Geez, if you're citing BASIC in your design spec, there is something seriously wrong with the fundamental premise.
Quote from: Rothman on April 30, 2021, 06:49:57 PM
This thread should be in Fictional.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.
Fictional is probably the official position of NYSDOT as well.
On a non-Fictional note, my favorite rant is about the non-connectivity of the numbering system. We have many limited-access freeways deserving of a NHS number, and also have many partially-limited access highways that deserve a U.S. route number. We also have too many continuous through routes (or nearly so) that are overlapped with a bunch of U.S. route numbers, but are deserving of a single route number. But I also think (belongs in Fictional here) that there should be a third NHS numbering system (or lettering system like the Appalachian Highway Corridor System) that is entirely limited-access and partially-limited access corridors, with certain provisions for future connectivity.
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 30, 2021, 05:36:04 PM
in renumbering you distribute gaps for future roads where possible (akin to how Basic is coded with line numbers by 10)
I find that number-by-tens BASIC system to have other real-life applications as well, so I applaud you for referencing it. For example, I name files that way when I want to be able to find them again in order, but when I know I'll probably be sticking some in the middle of the list later. For example, when I'm saving image files to use later in a slideshow, and I don't identify them all in the correct order.
With highways, you may need to expand the basic grid numbers to go beyond 99. Perhaps use 1-199 as the basic grid, and then make "three-digit" routes be numbered 200 or larger.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 30, 2021, 07:16:55 PM
Geez, if you're citing BASIC in your design spec, there is something seriously wrong with the fundamental premise.
Oh. Oops. I take it back, then.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on April 30, 2021, 01:32:43 PM
Renumber I-5, I-10, I-90, and I-95 into I-1000, a super beltway.
The equivalent route in Australia is numbered 1, which is why I have suggested using I-1 for such a route.
At the first casino I worked at, the rows of slot machines were initially numbered with only odd numbers, so after bank 1 you had bank 3, then bank 5, and so on. Whenever they rearranged or added banks, then sometimes you'd see even numbers added in between. That still doesn't explain how we got the first four rows of the Delta section going D-01, D-03, D-02, D-05 though. This did have the disadvantage that you never knew if a given even number was a valid bank number or not (For example, I remember there was an A-02, D-02 and E-02, but I don't remember if there was a B-02 or C-02, and there definitely wasn't an F-02, G-02, or S-02. S only had S-01 and S-08.)
The second casino I worked at had been open twice as long as the first one and it had been reshuffled enough times that the numbers were such a mess, even with they just handed out maps to the new employees that worked the floor.
Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2021, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 30, 2021, 05:36:04 PM
in renumbering you distribute gaps for future roads where possible (akin to how Basic is coded with line numbers by 10)
I find that number-by-tens BASIC system to have other real-life applications as well, so I applaud you for referencing it. For example, I name files that way when I want to be able to find them again in order, but when I know I'll probably be sticking some in the middle of the list later. For example, when I'm saving image files to use later in a slideshow, and I don't identify them all in the correct order.
With highways, you may need to expand the basic grid numbers to go beyond 99. Perhaps use 1-199 as the basic grid, and then make "three-digit" routes be numbered 200 or larger.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 30, 2021, 07:16:55 PM
Geez, if you're citing BASIC in your design spec, there is something seriously wrong with the fundamental premise.
Oh. Oops. I take it back, then.
BASIC's problem is relying on line numbers for flow control to begin with. In BASIC, you do something like "IF X=5 GOTO 200". In every other language, whenever you need to jump to a code block, you name the code block (usually by placing it in a function) and say "if x=5, do someAppropriateFunction()". This means that you can rearrange the code however you like and not need to worry about the line numbers.
Line numbers are only used when program execution crashes, to denote the last line that executed ("overflow at line 67"), so you just consult the line number on the version you just ran (usually your editor will keep track of them for you).
Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2021, 07:40:40 PM
With highways, you may need to expand the basic grid numbers to go beyond 99. Perhaps use 1-199 as the basic grid, and then make "three-digit" routes be numbered 200 or larger.
And that is the numbering system of my fictional country's interstates. My 300+ page atlas of 88 states will be drawn when I have the appropriate size paper (everything is already planned out. Might change some place names due to copyright and other reasons), and then shared in fictional upon completion in who knows how many years.
3dis for the 100-199 routes are 4di from 2100-9199, as 1002-1999 is reserved for additional auxiliary routes of 2-99.
Quote from: I-55 on April 30, 2021, 08:07:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2021, 07:40:40 PM
With highways, you may need to expand the basic grid numbers to go beyond 99. Perhaps use 1-199 as the basic grid, and then make "three-digit" routes be numbered 200 or larger.
And that is the numbering system of my fictional country's interstates. My 300+ page atlas of 88 states will be drawn when I have the appropriate size paper (everything is already planned out. Might change some place names due to copyright and other reasons), and then shared in fictional upon completion in who knows how many years.
3dis for the 100-199 routes are 4di from 2100-9199, as 1002-1999 is reserved for additional auxiliary routes of 2-99.
I've done a fictional map roughly the size of Texas, with 14 states (though we call them counties). What I've found works well is to draw it in Inkscape with a scale of 1 mile = 100px. You can then use the Measure Path tool to measure mileposts by dividing the pixel length of the path by 100.
For extra credit, you can use layers to show/hide labels for different zoom levels, and then export them as PNGs, tile them with tileup, and display the whole shebang as a slippy map using Leaflet.
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 30, 2021, 08:29:03 PM
Quote from: I-55 on April 30, 2021, 08:07:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2021, 07:40:40 PM
With highways, you may need to expand the basic grid numbers to go beyond 99. Perhaps use 1-199 as the basic grid, and then make "three-digit" routes be numbered 200 or larger.
And that is the numbering system of my fictional country's interstates. My 300+ page atlas of 88 states will be drawn when I have the appropriate size paper (everything is already planned out. Might change some place names due to copyright and other reasons), and then shared in fictional upon completion in who knows how many years.
3dis for the 100-199 routes are 4di from 2100-9199, as 1002-1999 is reserved for additional auxiliary routes of 2-99.
What I've found works well for a fictional world map is to draw it in Inkscape with a scale of 1 mile = 100px. You can then use the Measure Path tool to measure mileposts by dividing the pixel length of the path by 100.
For extra credit, you can use layers to show/hide labels for different zoom levels, and then export them as PNGs, tile them with tileup, and display the whole shebang as a slippy map using Leaflet.
I use PowerPoint for planning routes and cities (only because I'm familiar with PPT, in the future I might expand my software selection). Generally I draw the state and national boundaries on a piece of graph paper, then scan it and insert into PPT, then place major cities and mainline interstates with shapes. Then when I draw the map freehand, Ill include everything else. If I was more familiar with Inkscape or another software I'd probably use it for the actual map since it'd probably be more precise and have shortcuts to certain functions, but right now it's hard to beat the hand drawns.
Most of the Inkscape functions I use for map drawing aren't even included in PowerPoint, like the aforementioned Measure Path tool (which actually measures the length of the path itself, as if you were driving down the road measuring it with an odometer, and not just calculating the height and width of the bounding box it sits in). It also didn't have layer support the last time I worked with it, which is vital to doing the neat tricks with Leaflet that I mentioned.
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 30, 2021, 05:36:04 PM
Actually the comparison to the metric system is not that different.
being consistent with all but two other countries on the planet why does this matter in the age of the internet, the smartphone, etc. You don't need to be consistent with other countries, I have seen a number of sites with international users where everything is converted to display correctly in your countries system. So why align them if most people no longer encounter the issue? Not actually advocating anything either way here, just illustrating the similarity I see.
If you're at a job site, especially one with no phone/internet signal or if your hands are too busy to use a phone or computer anyway, and you need to apply measurements in meters and/or subdivisions thereof, because that's what most of the world uses, thinking in British Imperial units isn't going to help you.
Washington and Nevada did their renumberings the best given they range based instead of grid. That said, it is a complete waste of time and money nowadays for a DOT to renumber the entire system. Renumberings made more sense when people relied more on maps and the actual field signage.
It is too costly to renumber the system. It is too bad that US 412, US 400, US 425 and some others are offenders, however, the motoring public could care less these days. They are sheeple and rely on their GPS and navigation systems.
I do like the suffix system it works for the original intent. Having said that who besides the few of us on this board and AASHTO know?
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 30, 2021, 08:29:03 PM
I've done a fictional map roughly the size of Texas
Wow, that must have taken a lot of paper. Texas is a big state.
Quote from: stridentweasel on May 01, 2021, 08:50:16 AM
If you're at a job site, especially one with no phone/internet signal or if your hands are too busy to use a phone or computer anyway, and you need to apply measurements in meters and/or subdivisions thereof, because that's what most of the world uses, thinking in British Imperial units isn't going to help you.
I never think in British Imperial units. I always think in US Customary units. In so doing, I avoid discrepancies in cases where the two systems are not equivalent.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 01, 2021, 12:29:37 PM
the motoring public could care less these days.
My personal opinion is that they could care
more. But not that they should.
Quote from: kphoger on May 01, 2021, 05:30:58 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 30, 2021, 08:29:03 PM
I've done a fictional map roughly the size of Texas
Wow, that must have taken a lot of paper. Texas is a big state.
It's a 10.3 MB SVG file, actually. As I mentioned above, I set the scale at 1 mile = 100px, but one of the quirks of the SVG file format is that I could have actually made a canvas 990 miles across and the file size would still have been more or less the same.
Quote from: HighwayStar on April 30, 2021, 05:36:04 PM
There was a question about the "it will break again" issue in another thread, but my response is basically that in renumbering you distribute gaps for future roads where possible (akin to how Basic is coded with line numbers by 10), can use 3 digit or special route numbers in many cases, may actually transfer a number because another road is being replaced, or can use a state designation if all else fails.
Your premise is that US Highways must follow very strict rules so people will know where they are going. Now you're saying you can mix in some state highway numbers totally out of sync and that's just fine? How will people know where they are going if the numbers don't align properly?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 01, 2021, 05:57:21 PM
It's a 10.3 MB SVG file, actually. As I mentioned above, I set the scale at 1 mile = 100px
Yes, but you may have noticed I snipped that part out.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 01, 2021, 12:29:37 PM
It is too costly to renumber the system. It is too bad that US 412, US 400, US 425 and some others are offenders, however, the motoring public could care less these days. They are sheeple and rely on their GPS and navigation systems.
I do like the suffix system it works for the original intent. Having said that who besides the few of us on this board and AASHTO know?
The ones to blame are the people who assigned those ridiculous numbers.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 01, 2021, 12:29:37 PM
It is too costly to renumber the system. It is too bad that US 412, US 400, US 425 and some others are offenders, however, the motoring public could care less these days. They are sheeple and rely on their GPS and navigation systems.
WTF seriously? Were the people who used the original road maps "sheeple" because they didn't navigate by the stars? Am I a "sheeple" because I go to the grocery store instead of growing and hunting my own food?
The fact is that the vast majority of people use the technology available to them because its....easy and convenient.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2021, 08:48:05 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 01, 2021, 12:29:37 PM
It is too costly to renumber the system. It is too bad that US 412, US 400, US 425 and some others are offenders, however, the motoring public could care less these days. They are sheeple and rely on their GPS and navigation systems.
WTF seriously? Were the people who used the original road maps "sheeple" because they didn't navigate by the stars? Am I a "sheeple" because I go to the grocery store instead of growing and hunting my own food?
The fact is that the vast majority of people use the technology available to them because its....easy and convenient.
Sometimes GPS conflicts with road signs and people blindly follow the GPS.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2021, 08:48:05 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 01, 2021, 12:29:37 PM
It is too costly to renumber the system. It is too bad that US 412, US 400, US 425 and some others are offenders, however, the motoring public could care less these days. They are sheeple and rely on their GPS and navigation systems.
WTF seriously? Were the people who used the original road maps "sheeple" because they didn't navigate by the stars? Am I a "sheeple" because I go to the grocery store instead of growing and hunting my own food?
The fact is that the vast majority of people use the technology available to them because its....easy and convenient.
Sometimes GPS conflicts with road signs and people blindly follow the GPS.
By "sometimes" you mean "incredibly rarely" then sure.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2021, 04:45:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2021, 08:48:05 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 01, 2021, 12:29:37 PM
It is too costly to renumber the system. It is too bad that US 412, US 400, US 425 and some others are offenders, however, the motoring public could care less these days. They are sheeple and rely on their GPS and navigation systems.
WTF seriously? Were the people who used the original road maps "sheeple" because they didn't navigate by the stars? Am I a "sheeple" because I go to the grocery store instead of growing and hunting my own food?
The fact is that the vast majority of people use the technology available to them because its....easy and convenient.
Sometimes GPS conflicts with road signs and people blindly follow the GPS.
By "sometimes" you mean "incredibly rarely" then sure.
I know, just remember that computers aren't perfect.
Quote from: wanderer2575 on May 02, 2021, 02:17:23 PM
Eastern terminus of I-69/I-94 in Port Huron, MI.
Pre-2011: Right exit to the Blue Water Bridge to Sarnia, Ontario. Left exit to a connector road to M-25 (and to the westbound business loops).
(https://i.imgur.com/33g4FAi.jpg)
Late 2012 after completion of two-year project to reconstruct/widen/redesign: The movements were switched; new right C/D exit to M-25 and the business loops, keep left to the Blue Water Bridge. This split is about 3/4 mile west of the old configuration, but I think for all intents and purposes these are "same signs." (The new I-94/I-69 END sign is farther east at its old location.)
(https://i.imgur.com/O4WF8En.jpg)
Too many motorists who hadn't yet updated their GPS units stubbornly insisted on keeping left for M-25 despite the signs and found themselves on the bridge heading into Canada. (A friend of mine who worked for MDOT at the time told me it happened with a few dozen people a day.) So not long after the new signs above went up, MDOT replaced them again with newer signs displaying American and Canadian flag graphics, adding a yellow toll banner, and replacing the "Fort Gratiot" control with "USA."
(https://i.imgur.com/S6J5bmM.jpg)
To answer the question: not. One of my favorite phrases is "literally nobody cares" . Sure, some people on the forum care, but there are 330 million people in this country and only a thousand or so active members here. Leave it the way it is. Renumbering only causes confusion.
Weren't there also signs at Port Huron warning that ramps had changed, and don't follow GPS instructions?
Quote from: kphoger on April 30, 2021, 07:40:40 PM
With highways, you may need to expand the basic grid numbers to go beyond 99. Perhaps use 1-199 as the basic grid, and then make "three-digit" routes be numbered 200 or larger.
Many years ago, I worked out a numbering system where the national grid was numbered in the range of 100-299, generally skipping numbers to leave room for additional highways, and then using the range 300-399 for highways that didn't fit the grid, and/or future expansion. 400-599 could be used in a grid-like manner for lesser/regional highways (with the ability for numbers to repeat -- 401 could be on the west coast, while another 401 might be somewhere along the Mississippi), 600-899 for local connectors and bypasses, and 900-999 for special-purpose highways (e.g. parks).
I'd then prefix the highways to indicate the general class of the road: X/A/B/C/D, with X being essentially interstate standard, etc. States could use the ranges 1-99 or 1000+ for state highways using the same letter/signage scheme.
Of course, the cost and confusion of such a complete renumbering would make it prohibitive (fictional), and unnecessary given the rise of GPS for long-distance navigation. But it was an intriguing exercise to go through.
Quote from: GaryV on May 02, 2021, 06:39:11 PM
Weren't there also signs at Port Huron warning that ramps had changed, and don't follow GPS instructions?
Yes, there were a couple portable VMSs stationed by the roadside for awhile, reading "Your GPS Is Wrong / Follow Posted Signs." I'm sorry I never got a photo of one.
Most of my renumbering ideas are purely fictional since I don't have a better reason than "because why not?". But here's one I mentioned here before that I'm dead set on:
Quote from: SkyPesos on March 30, 2021, 10:14:58 AM
- This ties into my idea to swap OH 161 and OH 16 west of Granville, to keep a single route number and exit number sequence on the whole freeway section. Because 161's western terminus is west of 16's, and Ohio completed the freeway about a decade ago and added exit numbers on non-interstates, currently, the mileposts and exit numbers drop down from where 161 ends and 16 continues the freeway, causing some duplicated exit numbers on the freeway. Two of the digits are the same, so white-out should be adequate for turning 161 signage to 16 :-D
I don't care about the grid. Give the first 100 to the 100 longest and then the rest get a higher number. So if highway 94 was say I-10 and 694 & 494 in the twin cities were 131 and 255 would anyway get confused?
Imagine how all of these discussions would be radically changed if routes had been numbered chronologically rather than geographically.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2021, 04:53:13 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2021, 04:45:28 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 02, 2021, 02:38:22 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on May 02, 2021, 08:48:05 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 01, 2021, 12:29:37 PM
It is too costly to renumber the system. It is too bad that US 412, US 400, US 425 and some others are offenders, however, the motoring public could care less these days. They are sheeple and rely on their GPS and navigation systems.
WTF seriously? Were the people who used the original road maps "sheeple" because they didn't navigate by the stars? Am I a "sheeple" because I go to the grocery store instead of growing and hunting my own food?
The fact is that the vast majority of people use the technology available to them because its....easy and convenient.
Sometimes GPS conflicts with road signs and people blindly follow the GPS.
By "sometimes" you mean "incredibly rarely" then sure.
I know, just remember that computers aren't perfect.
Neither are paper maps, and neither are road signs. I'm sure we've all found errors in an atlas and errors in the field. While I don't use a GPS device, I have certainly used Google Maps (ahead of time) to plot a route where I otherwise would have gotten lost, had I been going by paper maps and road signs alone.