AARoads Forum

Non-Road Boards => Travel Mapping => Topic started by: oscar on November 02, 2015, 03:49:27 PM

Title: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on November 02, 2015, 03:49:27 PM
I'm starting this topic, to steer any new comments to one place.

The draft system's routes can now be viewed in TM's draft highway browser, with an index for all California routes in the HB (including Interstate and U.S. routes) at http://tm.teresco.org/devel/hb.php?rg=ca. Additional business routes are being added as I find them. I also need to draft or find real route files to replace obvious "placeholders" for a few routes like CA 18 Business Big Bear or CA 44 (the maps for those routes are copies of one of Si's recent Russia updates, because nothing screams "placeholder" quite like a map full of Cyrillic characters). So this system still needs some work even to get it ready for review, and I would encourage people to hold off on comments other than on basic matters such as routes (especially business routes) to add or delete.

One major issue that needs to be resolved, pre-review, is how to deal with all the relinquishments of state route segments to local governments that have been happening lately. I think the prevailing sentiment is to find a way to overlook mid-route relinquishments that otherwise would chop routes into little pieces. The draft route files ignore such relinquishments for now. However, I did remove one short route, CA 225 in Santa Barbara, that was relinquished in its entirety. For relinquishments at one end of a route, we might or might not want to treat them as truncations. Once I have a handle on all the relinquishments out there, I'll post here a better-developed proposal on how to deal with relinquishments.
:
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: vdeane on November 02, 2015, 06:39:44 PM
Good to know that anyone wanting to clinch CA's state highways needs a Russian visa. ;)

Regarding the relinquishments, how is signage around them?  I can see three cases:
1. Route remains signed, either due to a desire to sign some form of continuity or because nobody can be bothered to remove the signs
2. Route signage just disappears at the start of the relinquishment and reappears at the end of it
3. Route is signed as beginning/ending at the borders of the relinquishment

Cases 1 and 2 seem to pop up all over other systems without issue (though some states seem to be allergic to signing routes over portions they don't maintain even when it would make for a better system; it probably depends on whether a state views route numbers as an inventory system that happens to help travelers or a system to help travelers that happens to handle inventory).  3 is obviously no longer part of the system.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: rschen7754 on November 02, 2015, 09:48:03 PM
CA 195 was removed at the end of 2014 - http://www.cahighways.org/193-200.html#195 and http://enwp.org/California_State_Route_195 explain what happened.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on November 02, 2015, 10:13:35 PM
CA 195 was removed at the end of 2014 - http://www.cahighways.org/193-200.html#195 and http://enwp.org/California_State_Route_195 explain what happened.

Already removed from TM's draft Highway Browser, as was CA 86S (which I still need to fold into CA 86), CA 225 (relinquished to death), and CA 275 (mostly decommissioned. with the short remnant unsigned). CA 51 (unsigned, concurrent with I-80BL Sacramento) will be removed next time I edit the .csv (route index) files to add missing business routes.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: english si on November 03, 2015, 06:24:04 AM
The bit of CA1 south of I-10 is signed as To CA1 in Santa Monica. The [To] plates become [South] ones on entering Venice.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on November 03, 2015, 06:56:24 AM
The bit of CA1 south of I-10 is signed as To CA1 in Santa Monica. The [To] plates become [South] ones on entering Venice.

Yeah, that's one of those aggravating mid-route relinquishments, which also affect other routes. Better signed than many other relinquishments, where the relevant city seems to have just retained the old state route signage to fulfill the typical statutory mandate for continuation signage. I'm disinclined to break CA 1 in pieces at Santa Monica, but not in Dana Point or Newport Beach, solely because Santa Monica is less sloppy about signing its relinquishment.

There's also a CA 1 relinquishment in Oxnard, but unlike the others Caltrans plans to move CA 1 to a new alignment (already open to traffic, but Caltrans' not yet moving CA 1 signage to the new routing has been extensively complained about elsewhere on this forum).

The story on relinquishments has more complexities, which is why I'm not getting into the whole story just yet.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: gpw0 on November 22, 2015, 09:08:57 AM
The point “CalSt” appears twice on CA1, once in Ventura, and once in San Francisco.


iPhone
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: DTComposer on November 30, 2015, 01:57:59 AM
Doesn't CA-237 need to go east to I-680? Looks like this has it ending at I-880.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on November 30, 2015, 07:04:47 AM
Doesn't CA-237 need to go east to I-680? Looks like this has it ending at I-880.

Yes. Looks like the numbering of some exits needs updating, in addition to adding new ones east of I-880.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: yakra on December 02, 2015, 12:12:47 AM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/NPyHgTkMStCXC/giphy.gif)
Has USANSF seriously never had anything in CA? (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/selecthwys.php?sys=usansf&rg=usa.ca)
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: Bickendan on December 02, 2015, 12:23:46 AM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/NPyHgTkMStCXC/giphy.gif)
Has USANSF seriously never had anything in CA? (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/selecthwys.php?sys=usansf&rg=usa.ca)
Not that I can recall.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on December 02, 2015, 12:42:02 AM
Has USANSF seriously never had anything in CA? (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/selecthwys.php?sys=usansf&rg=usa.ca)

AFAIK, that's right. Off the top of my head, I'm not coming up with any significant unnumbered freeways in California. A freeway segment of the Pacific Highway (old US 101) in San Diego, and San Francisco's Central Freeway, come to mind, but I think they were too short to qualify for USANSF.

BTW, old US 101 in San Diego County, including the Pacific Highway freeway, would be a candidate for the draft historic routes system.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: rschen7754 on December 02, 2015, 01:29:28 AM
The recently-completed Westside Parkway in Bakersfield could be considered, though the chances are high that it will be rolled into CA 58.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: english si on December 02, 2015, 05:37:07 AM
AFAIK, that's right. Off the top of my head, I'm not coming up with any significant unnumbered freeways in California.
usansf is 'numbered state freeways', rather than 'select named freeways' (which is usasf). There were obviously a lot of candidates for inclusion with that system (CA15, CA22, CA24, CA47, CA52, CA55, CA57, CA60, CA71, CA73, CA85, CA87, CA90, CA91, CA103, CA110, CA113, CA125, CA134, CA163, CA210, CA237, CA241, CA242, CA259, CA710, CA905). Of course, there's no point in adding them there now, given the whole state system is enroute.

Shoreline Drive in Long Beach is almost good enough for usanf, and I'd argue for it as I've clinched it! ;)
Quote
BTW, old US 101 in San Diego County, including the Pacific Highway freeway, would be a candidate for the draft historic routes system.
Indeed, annoyingly with that system is that CA only recently started a splurge of signage and GMSV hasn't got recent enough imagery yet. I'm treating it low priority to add routes, but I'm slowly working through CA. I'm currently doing US40, then there's US6 which I've found one sign for, US99, and other stuff that might exist.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: DTComposer on December 03, 2015, 12:04:40 AM
AFAIK, that's right. Off the top of my head, I'm not coming up with any significant unnumbered freeways in California. A freeway segment of the Pacific Highway (old US 101) in San Diego, and San Francisco's Central Freeway, come to mind, but I think they were too short to qualify for USANSF.

I don't know what the minimum length might be, but an argument could be made for a portion of Central Expressway in Sunnyvale (3.1 miles), and also the section of La Cienega Boulevard in Los Angeles between Stocker and Rodeo (also about 3 miles).

Shoreline Drive in Long Beach is almost good enough for usanf, and I'd argue for it as I've clinched it! ;)

Part of Shoreline Drive often stands in for a freeway in television shows and commercials. However, there are plans to "de-freeway" the section along the Los Angeles River, making the interchanges with 6th/7th Streets and 3rd Street/Broadway into at-grade signalized intersections.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on December 03, 2015, 01:36:06 AM
I don't know what the minimum length might be, but an argument could be made for a portion of Central Expressway in Sunnyvale (3.1 miles), and also the section of La Cienega Boulevard in Los Angeles between Stocker and Rodeo (also about 3 miles).

I've been told that the minimum length was 5 miles, though that might've been because I was pushing for addition of a freeway just under 5 miles long, and if I'd asked about a longer freeway I might've been given a higher cutoff.

In any case, the old "grab-bag" U.S. named but unnumbered freeways system (most needed for the likes of Florida's Turnpike and the New Jersey Turnpike) isn't being systematically expanded (edit: some CO and TX toll roads have been recently added) and is more likely to shrink, though individual state and provincial route systems now include some unnumbered highways at the discretion of their Travel Mapping maintainers. Just the numbered highways in California are a real handful, and I don't see any unnumbered highways that really cry out for addition to the route set (a position I'm also taking for my other in-dev route set, Alaska).
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: Bickendan on December 03, 2015, 02:37:44 AM
That 5 mile cutoff doesn't quite make sense, given that Eugene's Delta Highway, connecting I-105/OR 126 and OR 569 is in the system.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on December 03, 2015, 02:55:45 AM
That 5 mile cutoff doesn't quite make sense, given that Eugene's Delta Highway, connecting I-105/OR 126 and OR 569 is in the system.

Yeah, I did always suspect that the supposed 5-mile cutoff was just an excuse not to add my route to the system, and if that didn't work some other excuse would've been contrived for me.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: yakra on December 03, 2015, 04:10:53 PM
I've been told that the minimum length was 5 miles,
That I do remember, a minimum of about 5 miles, yes. But it was a wibbly-wobbly minimum -- RI37 was included in the earliest revisions, for example.

though that might've been because I was pushing for addition of a freeway just under 5 miles long, and if I'd asked about a longer freeway I might've been given a higher cutoff.
HuhWhat? I'd doubt that.... Tim proposed the 5 mile minimum a few days into the early discussions (Jan `09) of the "Select state route freeways" system, and what would and would not be included given certain criteria. It clarified the "Exclude very short freeways" guideline in his OP. Doesn't seem to be anything too specific leading up to it.

In any case, the old "grab-bag" U.S. named but unnumbered freeways system (most needed for the likes of Florida's Turnpike and the New Jersey Turnpike) isn't being expanded and is more likely to shrink, though individual state and provincial route systems now include some unnumbered highways at the discretion of their Travel Mapping maintainers.
Wait, what? The only case I'm aware of is a couple named routes in the Ontario Freeways system. Otherwise, state systems are just the numbered state routes. Are there other exceptions now?
(Edit: If you ask about NASA Rd 1 or TXOSR in Texas, I can explain!)

Has USANSF seriously never had anything in CA? (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/selecthwys.php?sys=usansf&rg=usa.ca)
Not that I can recall.
I thought it was so damn screwy that I looked around the old forum for an explanation...
January 2009: Tim starts the "Select state route freeways" thread. Bickendan participates, discussing some of the routes he's working on and submitting.
2009-09-02: Bickendan starts the "California State Highway System" thread. USACA is in development.
2010-01-24: Tim starts the "US Select Numbered State Freeways" thread, breaking the numbered routes out of USASF.  He notes: "I have removed all routes from this system that fall into state highway systems that are presently being worked on or have already been completed."
(By 2010-06-16, when all .GGM data was archived prior to the conversion to .WPT, there were no vestigial .GGM files left in the USANSF folder. I think that before that there may have been a couple (automated) cleanups of extraneous route files.)

Ah, so that explains that. CA routes got nixed pretty early on. I'd forgotten that USACA has been in development THAT long!

I thought the idea that I'd never looked over any In-Dev CA routes to record my travels around the Bay Area in 2006 and just never noticed was just too crazy. Indeed, I did look them over back before the numbered routes were culled from USST (as it was then known), and just forgot about it over the next six years. :)

I found a dusty old file squirreled away on my HD -- yakra.addendum.usst -- containing future .list file segments for the then in-dev system. Aah, memories... (And lack thereof...)
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: Bickendan on December 04, 2015, 01:46:15 AM
Oh yeah, USACA has probably be one of the longest in-development systems we've had. It should have been activated way back when, because I did get every. Single. Route. done, but peer review never happened, and Tim wanted some of the bloated routes trimmed down (CA 18 was one of the more ridiculous ones in terms of shape points. Another hold up was trying to get the interstates up to spec, and I-710's southern end was the big hold up on that end (Shoreline Dr, as per the Thomas Guides? Queen Mary Dr? The connector to CA 47, as per Daniel Faign?), and wanting to bring the US highways to spec with exit numbers but meeting big resistance from Tim on it.
In the end, I just had massive burnout on the project, having drafted Oregon's routes (which I've noticed aren't up to our standards and I've been slowly fixing that, lol), Washington's Select Numbered Freeways, USACA and BC/AB/SK/MB/YT/NWT's select highways. Oh, and Spain and Portugal's autovia/autopistas.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: yakra on December 08, 2015, 02:05:54 AM
CA1:
A point for Bear Valley Rd between SFDBlvd_S & SFDBlvd_N might be nice for those of us whose destination was Point Reyes National Seashore. :D
OTOH if you think that's too close to SFDBlvd_S, you can tell me to get stuffed. (Full disclosure: I probably took Sir Francis Drake Blvd in from Larkspur; this would allow me to have a nonzero segment mapped in this area.)
Speaking of which, SFDBlvd may not meet labeling convention. SirFDBlvd SFraDBlvd SFDraBlvd SirFraBlvd SirDraBlvd or FraDraBlvd yadda yadda...

Has the Devil's slide bypass tunnel actually opened, then?
Looks like it -- I recommend adding a couple points for the old alignment south of SanPedTerRd (which doesn't meet labeling convention), and nixing the shaping points that'd fall between them.

CA17:
CA1(441B) -> 1B
A potential slimdown of shaping points may still be in the works, so I'll hold off commenting on that.
Exits around 21-22 *may* need renumbering. (Are 2, 12 & 16 correct?)

CA24:
Collapse 15A & 15B into a single point 15, using the coords from CA I-680 46A.
The adjacent shaping point may not be required per lateral tolerances.
Sliding the adjacent-adjacent point a bit west may help keep things nicely centered if you decide to nix it.
10 -> 11
9 -> 10
8 -> 9
Meh, there could be some argument for collapsing 4A & 4B into a single point.
2A & 2B too.
Google & OSM label exits 1A/B/C as exit 2 variants. I see no numbers in GMSV.

CA35:
I see some potential for hidden -> visible shaping point conversion, including on the VISIBLE_DISTANCE segment.

CA82:
I'd bet that nearly all the shaping points could be deleted or replaced with a visible counterpart.
I'd consider deleting many of the crossroad points that don't lead to a freeway interchange.

CA82:
Delete SanClaSt & SotoRd?

CA152:
Shaping -> visible point at FraLakeRd between US101_S & CHG9 (CRG9?).
Delete shaper just E of US101_S unless required per lateral tolerances
More potential for hidden -> visible shaping points, and breaking up VisDist segments.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on December 08, 2015, 06:10:32 AM
CA1:

....

Has the Devil's slide bypass tunnel actually opened, then?
Looks like it -- I recommend adding a couple points for the old alignment south of SanPedTerRd (which doesn't meet labeling convention), and nixing the shaping points that'd fall between them.

The tunnel is indeed open. I drove it last time I was out there, and have coordinates at each end for the closed intersections where the new route splits from the old alignment.

That stretch of CA 1 has a lot of minor state parks along the way. Much as I'm partial to adding waypoints for state park entrances, I'm going to have to leave some out to bring/keep waypoint density within reason. In particular, visitors to Gray Whale Cove SP will need to make do with the new waypoint near the southern end of the Devil's Slide tunnel.

As for your other notes (including the Point Reyes access), I'll hold them until I restart work on usaca. I first need to get usanm activated (could be by the end of the month), and do another round of fixes on usaak to address comments there. 
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on December 09, 2015, 11:45:30 PM
Some suggested edits … additions:

CA 127
Ibex Springs Rd
Dumont Dunes Rd

CA 168
Add WP for Deep Springs College
WauRd is signed, I believe, as Death Valley Rd

CA 178
Greenwater Valley Road (labeled as Furnace Creek Wash Rd)

CA 190
Change Furnace Creek Wash Rd to Greenwater Valley Rd, which is what most park reference material calls it
TumLoop - Texas Springs Campground?
Airport Rd - Visitor Center? Airport Road has no sign.
DeaValNP - Cow Creek Road (signed and official name)
StoWellAir - Is the Air necessary here? Less of an airport than a gift shop and campground.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on December 16, 2015, 05:12:30 PM
Here are some route splits/truncations, at national park boundaries, I plan to make to the in-dev route files. These are based on legislative route definitions in the state Streets and Highways Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635); paper 2002 Caltrans route logs; online 2015 Caltrans bridge logs (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog2.htm) (with much of the information included in the older paper logs); and GMSV imagery.

In Yosemite National Park:

CA 120: Route split, with the Manteca segment ending at the west park boundary, and the Lee Vining segment starting at the east park boundary. The statutory route definition is unusually explicit that CA 120 does not enter or cross the national park. Caltrans's route and bridge logs follow the statutory definition. There is some non-Caltrans signage at a key junction within the park, pointing motorists to CA 120 on either side of the park, but that's not enough to override the state's definition of its own route. The Yosemite NP website notes that a key road connecting the two CA 120 segments was never state-maintained -- it started off as a private mine road, which then was donated to the National Park Service.

CA 41: Route truncated to end at the southern park boundary. Like with CA 120, there is non-Caltrans signage pointing motorists toward CA 41. However, Caltrans' logs cut off the route at the park boundary, and there is an End CA 41 sign to underscore that.

CA 140: Route truncated to end at the southwestern park boundary. Similar to CA 41, except I didn't see any End signs.

In Lassen Volcanic National Park:

CA 89:  Route split, with the Lake Tahoe segment ending at the southwestern park entrance, and the Mt. Shasta segment starting at the junction with CA 44 at the northwestern park boundary, The statutory route definition is unclear about whether there is a break in the route (it does say that one route segment proceeds north from the CA 44 junction, but is vague on where in the national park the segment to the south ends). But Caltrans' logs clearly show CA 89 does not exist within the park. No End signs I could find, and GMSV coverage within the park is from 2007 and incomplete (my guess is the camera car went there in late autumn just before the park shut down for the winter, but after a snow closure kept it from driving all the way through the park).

In Pinnacles National Park (formerly Pinnacles National Monument):

CA 146:  Both route segments truncated to end at the west and east park boundaries, respectively, removing a few miles from each segment (there is no drive-able road from one side of the park to the other, so we already had split route files). This is confirmed by Caltrans' logs, and End CA 146 signs at both park entrances.

In Kings Canyon National Park:

CA 180:  I already truncated the route at the eastern Cedar Grove entrance to the park, which had been previously mapped to end a few miles inside that part of the park. That much is clear, from the statutory route definition, Caltrans' logs, and the End 180 sign at the Cedar Grove park boundary.

Before getting to Cedar Grove, the highway crosses the separate Grant Grove section of the park for about four miles, before exiting the park then ending about 22 miles later at Cedar Grove. I would not split the route at Grant Grove. The legal and Caltrans route definitions suggest such a route split, though unclearly. But not only are there no End signs at the Grant Grove park boundaries, there is a Caltrans-spec CA 180 route marker at a major junction well within the Grant Grove section of the park. (But Caltrans postmile markers appear to be only outside the park.) Also, chopping up the route at Grant Grove would leave a significant section of CA 180 between Grant Grove and Cedar Grove with no state route connection to the rest of the state highway system (indeed, no road connection at all, except through Grant Grove). This situation is unclear enough for me to leave this alone.

In Death Valley National Park:

CA 178 and CA 190:  No changes. The park was established (in 1994) after the state highways were already in place, and neither the state legislature nor Caltrans have adjusted those route definitions to take them out of the new park. Also, I've seen Caltrans-spec route markers for both routes (including an End 178 marker) well within park boundaries.

****

Now all this removes a lot of mileage, including through routes for Yosemite and Lassen Volcanic parks, from the California State Highways route set. But not to fear! Much of that mileage, and maybe some other major park roads, would be good candidates for addition to the in-dev U.S. National Park Highways (usanp) route set, which was designed in part to fill in gaps created by national parks in other route systems (such as the gaping hole created by the official non-existence of US highways within Yellowstone NP).

Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: english si on December 16, 2015, 07:37:22 PM
Feel free to add the missing bits to usanp (it's easier if you do it, as you will be chopping files up and have done the research).
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on December 16, 2015, 07:53:21 PM
Will do. The Yosemite roads would add Big Oak Flat Rd., a key connector between what's now shown as CA 120 and CA 140, and also connector between the west park entrance and Tioga Pass Rd. (which stops short of the west park boundary).

I would also add the Generals Highway, which connects CA 180 to CA 198 including the main drag through Sequoia NP, and is the only direct route between Sequoia and Kings Canyon NPs. Only quibble is that much of it is National Forest rather than National Park road, in the gap between the two parks.

I would not include the pair of short roads within Pinnacles NP boundaries. Too little mileage, none are through roads. Kings Canyon Rd., a dead-end road at the end of CA 180 in the Cedar Grove section of that park, is borderline (about 6 miles long), but I'll throw it in anyway.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: ntallyn on December 19, 2015, 01:18:34 PM
CA20:
* Labels for US101_N and US101_S are swapped.
* Is CA70 truly labeled North and West out of Yuba City/Bunney Junction? I suspect CA70_W should be CA70_S.

CA33:
* Is CA198 North/South? It not, CA198_S should be CA198_W and CA198_N should be CA198_E.

CA45:
* Is CA162 North/South? If not, CA162_N should be CA162_W and CA162_S should be CA162_E.

CA51:
* Does this no longer exist?

CA99:
* Same CA162 question. S->W and N->E here.

I only have my CA state routes done through CA99. When I find the time, I'll try to get through more of these.


Nick
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on December 19, 2015, 01:36:13 PM
CA51:
* Does this no longer exist?

It's unsigned, and completely concurrent with part of I-80BL Sacramento. We normally don't include unsigned routes, and there's no reason to make an exception here.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: ntallyn on December 19, 2015, 02:26:40 PM
CA51:
* Does this no longer exist?

It's unsigned, and completely concurrent with part of I-80BL Sacramento. We normally don't include unsigned routes, and there's no reason to make an exception here.

No problem. It was just in my old list that I was going through and verifying.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on December 19, 2015, 04:19:44 PM
No problem. It was just in my old list that I was going through and verifying.

Make sure you've caught up with the route splits I just implemented for 89 and 120, and truncations for 41, 140, 146, and 180. Most of the removed mileage, and some additional mileage (with possibly more to follow), can now be found in the in-dev usanp route set.

Other changes are likely to happen later as I resume work on California, including exit numbers on state routes that just got them. But I think I'm done with the major route changes, except for replacing a bunch of placeholders for newly-added routes with real route files, and truncations and (more unlikely) route splits from the relinquishments the legislature has been rather promiscuously authorizing lately.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: ntallyn on December 19, 2015, 04:38:51 PM
Make sure you've caught up with the route splits I just implemented for 89 and 120, and truncations for 41, 140, 146, and 180. Most of the removed mileage, and some additional mileage (with possibly more to follow), can now be found in the in-dev usanp route set.

Fortunately for me, the CA89 and CA120 splits don't affect me, and I caught the CA41 truncation. I haven't gotten to the other ones yet, but the only one that would affect me is CA140.

Thanks for the heads up!
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on April 02, 2016, 03:34:08 PM
CA1:
A point for Bear Valley Rd between SFDBlvd_S & SFDBlvd_N might be nice for those of us whose destination was Point Reyes National Seashore. :D
OTOH if you think that's too close to SFDBlvd_S, you can tell me to get stuffed. (Full disclosure: I probably took Sir Francis Drake Blvd in from Larkspur; this would allow me to have a nonzero segment mapped in this area.)
Speaking of which, SFDBlvd may not meet labeling convention. SirFDBlvd SFraDBlvd SFDraBlvd SirFraBlvd SirDraBlvd or FraDraBlvd yadda yadda...

BearValRd added in my local copy. Pretty close to what is now FraDraBlvd_S, but since I wiped out enough other points to cut the file size by about half, there's room to add back another one.

Quote
CA17:
CA1(441B) -> 1B
A potential slimdown of shaping points may still be in the works, so I'll hold off commenting on that.
Exits around 21-22 *may* need renumbering. (Are 2, 12 & 16 correct?)

First one done in my local copy. There are only three shaping points left. Exits 22A and 22B now 21 and 22. 2 was removed outright (not every little pair of RIROs, with no official or posted exit number, rates a waypoint), and 12 and 16 were renamed respectively CA35 and BearCrkRd since they also have neither posted nor otherwise official exit numbers.

Quote
CA152:
Shaping -> visible point at FraLakeRd between US101_S & CHG9 (CRG9?).
Delete shaper just E of US101_S unless required per lateral tolerances
More potential for hidden -> visible shaping points, and breaking up VisDist segments.

CA 152 re-do (already in GitHub) addresses all of these, except FraLakeRd is for now only in my local copy.

The other routes you mentioned, I'll get to later. Right now I'm focusing on the most major state routes, so I can swipe points from them to go into lesser intersecting routes.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on April 02, 2016, 09:19:03 PM
CA33:
* Is CA198 North/South? It not, CA198_S should be CA198_W and CA198_N should be CA198_E.

I just revamped that route file, but that issue still remains (I also didn't fix the inconsistency on the CA 166 junctions, and mis-fixed the one on the CA 150 junctions). This is something that constantly confuses me, and I'll have to straighten it out set-wide before the route set is ready for prime time.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on April 08, 2016, 11:48:20 AM
In Kings Canyon National Park:

CA 180:  I already truncated the route at the eastern Cedar Grove entrance to the park, which had been previously mapped to end a few miles inside that part of the park. That much is clear, from the statutory route definition, Caltrans' logs, and the End 180 sign at the Cedar Grove park boundary.

Before getting to Cedar Grove, the highway crosses the separate Grant Grove section of the park for about four miles, before exiting the park then ending about 22 miles later at Cedar Grove. I would not split the route at Grant Grove. The legal and Caltrans route definitions suggest such a route split, though unclearly. But not only are there no End signs at the Grant Grove park boundaries, there is a Caltrans-spec CA 180 route marker at a major junction well within the Grant Grove section of the park. (But Caltrans postmile markers appear to be only outside the park.) Also, chopping up the route at Grant Grove would leave a significant section of CA 180 between Grant Grove and Cedar Grove with no state route connection to the rest of the state highway system (indeed, no road connection at all, except through Grant Grove). This situation is unclear enough for me to leave this alone.

I've changed my mind on this one, and plan to split CA 180 to exclude the highway within Grant Grove, next time I do a pull request for updates to the usaca route set. This, even though I spotted a second Caltrans-spec CA 180 route marker within the Grant Grove part of the park (westbound, at the Big Stump picnic area entrance) when I visited it in February.

What clinches it for me is a 2014 Caltrans "transportation concept report" for route 180, http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/tcrs/sr180tcr/sr180_tcr_021314_final.pdf  At page 20, it says (and shows in a map) that the highway through Grant Grove "is not a part of SR 180". This is consistent with my re-review of Caltrans route logs, and the lack of postmiles or other Caltrans-spec signage (other than the two CA 180 route markers) within Grant Grove. Postmiles and other Caltrans signage resume as the highway continues on the other side of Grant Grove toward Hume and the Cedar Grove section of the national park.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: DTComposer on April 08, 2016, 03:41:53 PM
CA17:
CA1(441B) -> 1B
A potential slimdown of shaping points may still be in the works, so I'll hold off commenting on that.
Exits around 21-22 *may* need renumbering. (Are 2, 12 & 16 correct?)

First one done in my local copy. There are only three shaping points left. Exits 22A and 22B now 21 and 22. 2 was removed outright (not every little pair of RIROs, with no official or posted exit number, rates a waypoint), and 12 and 16 were renamed respectively CA35 and BearCrkRd since they also have neither posted nor otherwise official exit numbers.

For CA-35 do you want to consider renaming to Summit Road? There's no reference to CA-35 anywhere along CA-17.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: Bickendan on April 08, 2016, 03:53:14 PM
In Kings Canyon National Park:

CA 180:  I already truncated the route at the eastern Cedar Grove entrance to the park, which had been previously mapped to end a few miles inside that part of the park. That much is clear, from the statutory route definition, Caltrans' logs, and the End 180 sign at the Cedar Grove park boundary.

Before getting to Cedar Grove, the highway crosses the separate Grant Grove section of the park for about four miles, before exiting the park then ending about 22 miles later at Cedar Grove. I would not split the route at Grant Grove. The legal and Caltrans route definitions suggest such a route split, though unclearly. But not only are there no End signs at the Grant Grove park boundaries, there is a Caltrans-spec CA 180 route marker at a major junction well within the Grant Grove section of the park. (But Caltrans postmile markers appear to be only outside the park.) Also, chopping up the route at Grant Grove would leave a significant section of CA 180 between Grant Grove and Cedar Grove with no state route connection to the rest of the state highway system (indeed, no road connection at all, except through Grant Grove). This situation is unclear enough for me to leave this alone.

I've changed my mind on this one, and plan to split CA 180 to exclude the highway within Grant Grove, next time I do a pull request for updates to the usaca route set. This, even though I spotted a second Caltrans-spec CA 180 route marker within the Grant Grove part of the park (westbound, at the Big Stump picnic area entrance) when I visited it in February.

What clinches it for me is a 2014 Caltrans "transportation concept report" for route 180, http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/tcrs/sr180tcr/sr180_tcr_021314_final.pdf  At page 20, it says (and shows in a map) that the highway through Grant Grove "is not a part of SR 180". This is consistent with my re-review of Caltrans route logs, and the lack of postmiles or other Caltrans-spec signage (other than the two CA 180 route markers) within Grant Grove. Postmiles and other Caltrans signage resume as the highway continues on the other side of Grant Grove toward Hume and the Cedar Grove section of the national park.
Park portions of the highway would then fall under the national park sets I imagine.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: TheStranger on May 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM
Has USANSF seriously never had anything in CA? (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/selecthwys.php?sys=usansf&rg=usa.ca)

AFAIK, that's right. Off the top of my head, I'm not coming up with any significant unnumbered freeways in California. A freeway segment of the Pacific Highway (old US 101) in San Diego, and San Francisco's Central Freeway, come to mind, but I think they were too short to qualify for USANSF.

I just remembered one from Orange County: the segment of Jamboree Road south of Route 261 that continues the limited-access road into Irvine.
Title: Re: California State Highways (in development)
Post by: oscar on May 07, 2016, 10:06:37 PM
Has USANSF seriously never had anything in CA? (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/selecthwys.php?sys=usansf&rg=usa.ca)

AFAIK, that's right. Off the top of my head, I'm not coming up with any significant unnumbered freeways in California. A freeway segment of the Pacific Highway (old US 101) in San Diego, and San Francisco's Central Freeway, come to mind, but I think they were too short to qualify for USANSF.

I just remembered one from Orange County: the segment of Jamboree Road south of Route 261 that continues the limited-access road into Irvine.

Is it controlled access? I don't recall a significant freeway segment south of where route 261 ends, at Barranca Pkwy. (as we now have it).

Anyhoo, I have enough on my plate getting California numbered routes into shape. I'm not going to even think about adding California unnumbered routes for many months.