AARoads Forum

Non-Road Boards => Off-Topic => Travel Mapping => Topic started by: english si on November 05, 2015, 04:21:07 PM

Title: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: english si on November 05, 2015, 04:21:07 PM
This thread is about the proposed usanp system on Travel Mapping.

Scope
This system started as a way of including the highways in Yellowstone NP (which aren't US routes, though dilly-dallying over this system for 5 and a half years has meant that they remained US routes on CHM), but there's clearly more routes.

Currently I have the following routes pencilled in for inclusion (with route files made that can be seen here (http://www.teresco.org/tm/devel/hb.php?sys=usanp&rg=)):

Yellowstone NPNational Park Service maintained ParkwaysOther
Obviously there are others that might be included, and some of these might not be needed because they merely duplicate other routes, or fall better into another system.

Any roads that ought to be added? Any routes that ought not to be?
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on November 05, 2015, 04:42:01 PM
A few quick comments (one already noted in e-mail):

-- route name VA GWMemPkwyFtH => VA GWMemPkwyMtV -- while there is an obscure Fort Hunt neighborhood along the route, Mt. Vernon is the far more famous destination at its southern end.

-- in DC GWMemPkwy, waypoint VA27 => WasBlvd -- VA 27 probably doesn't extend into the part of DC west of the Potomac River. Dave's draft VA 27 route file has the route ending short of the VA/DC line, while Mapmikey's Virginia Highways site has it ending right at the DC line but not reaching the parkway,

-- in Colorado, add ParkEntRd (and rename the US36 waypoint on TraRidRd accordingly), to account for the part of (pseudo?) US 36 within Rocky Mountain NP.

-- in DC and MD, maybe add Beach Drive within NPS-maintained Rock Creek Park 00 though that would make the usanp route set a bit Washington DC-centric, and definitely should get lower priority than the connecting Rock Creek Parkway.

-- in VA, maybe add the part of Spout Run Parkway north of Lorcom Lane in Arlington (south of there, it's VA 124), but it's pretty short and the above DC-centricity comment applies here too. At least change the SprRunPkwy point on the GW Parkway => SpoRunPkwy.

I was going to suggest, in Maryland, adding the Cabin John Parkway connector between I-495 and the Clara Barton Parkway. But it seems not to be NPS maintained, and moreover seems to be technically unsigned I-495X, so it might be better added to usai than to usanp.

Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on November 05, 2015, 06:06:03 PM
One caution on numbered routes supposedly passing through national parks (such as US 34 through Rocky Mountain NP, which I had earlier mentioned as a candidate for this route set):  Not all highways passing through national parks are NPS-maintained.  Some exceptions:  CA 190 and CA 178 in Death Valley National Park, and HI 11 through Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.  At least for CA 190 and CA 178 (and indeed for I-40 through a national park in Arizona), the highways were there first, before the parks were established or expanded across the highways.

OTOH, in California CA 120 is defined by statute to extend to the western boundary of Yosemite NP, and restart on the other side. Aside from suggesting yet more changes to usaca (not just a split for CA 120, but also truncations of CA 41 and CA 140, a short truncation of CA 180, and possibly a split of CA 89 at Lassen Volcanic NP), that suggests that Tioga Pass Rd. maybe other Yosemite entrance roads, and perhaps Lassen Peak Highway through Lassen Volcanic NP, should be added to usanp.

The bottom line is whether national park roads should be included in usanp may depend on whether the respective states consider their national park roads to be part of their state highway systems. That is more likely for the more recently-created national parks.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: mapcat on November 05, 2015, 07:26:03 PM
Random question: what color are you considering for these on the maps?
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Duke87 on November 05, 2015, 07:50:16 PM
For VA ColPkwy, the point marked "ToVA132" should be labeled "VA132Y".

Yes, VA 132Y is signed: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2806784,-76.70247,3a,43.5y,182.07h,86.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfTq_aKP8hwyFw6U0-yJONQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Mapmikey on November 05, 2015, 08:00:29 PM

I was going to suggest, in Maryland, adding the Cabin John Parkway connector between I-495 and the Clara Barton Parkway. But it seems not to be NPS maintained, and moreover seems to be technically unsigned I-495X, so it might be better added to usai than to usanp.





I have seen a map that shows this as I-495X and there is definitely a BEGIN STATE MAINTENANCE sign at the south end of I-495X beginning from WB Clara Barton Pkwy...

https://goo.gl/maps/HE7c8FpmyaB2

Mike
Title: I-495X in Maryland (was: US National Parks Highways (in dev))
Post by: oscar on November 05, 2015, 09:37:05 PM
The MDRoads site agrees that I-495X is official. CHM's data and ours include unsigned Interstates, so adding it to our data would be consistent with past practice.

I'll put in a pull request to add MD I-495X to the usai system, as soon as I finish up with adding state business routes to the draft usaca system.
Title: Re: I-495X in Maryland (was: US National Parks Highways (in dev))
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 05, 2015, 11:35:48 PM
The MDRoads site agrees that I-495X is official. CHM's data and ours include unsigned Interstates, so adding it to our data would be consistent with past practice.

I'll put in a pull request to add MD I-495X to the usai system, as soon as I finish up with adding state business routes to the draft usaca system.

However, is it 'official' in the eyes of the FHWA?
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: english si on November 06, 2015, 05:38:26 AM
-- route name VA GWMemPkwyFtH => VA GWMemPkwyMtV -- while there is an obscure Fort Hunt neighborhood along the route, Mt. Vernon is the far more famous destination at its southern end.
I've dealt with that.
Quote
-- in DC GWMemPkwy, waypoint VA27 => WasBlvd -- VA 27 probably doesn't extend into the part of DC west of the Potomac River. Dave's draft VA 27 route file has the route ending short of the VA/DC line, while Mapmikey's Virginia Highways site has it ending right at the DC line but not reaching the parkway,
That's an error from copying the usasf route and then not double checking labels after noticing that it crosses into DC for a bit.
Quote
-- in Colorado, add ParkEntRd (and rename the US36 waypoint on TraRidRd accordingly), to account for the part of (pseudo?) US 36 within Rocky Mountain NP.
Both US routes are signed at Deer Ridge Junction and neither have a gap in route log. Both are NPS maintained though.
Quote
DC-centricity comment
If that's where routes tend to be, then that's where routes tend to be.
Random question: what color are you considering for these on the maps?
Brown. Other suggestions welcome.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: english si on November 06, 2015, 05:45:26 AM
One caution on numbered routes supposedly passing through national parks (such as US 34 through Rocky Mountain NP, which I had earlier mentioned as a candidate for this route set):  Not all highways passing through national parks are NPS-maintained.
Indeed, and there's the question of whether NPS-maintained routes like US34 through Rocky Mountain NP ought to have a route file added to usanp, when they are covered already.
Quote
possibly a split of CA 89 at Lassen Volcanic NP
NPS site says: (http://www.nps.gov/lavo/planyourvisit/current_conditions.htm) "Lassen National Park Highway (The portion of Highway 89 which extends through the park, 30 miles)."
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: NE2 on November 06, 2015, 12:21:19 PM
The MDRoads site agrees that I-495X is official. CHM's data and ours include unsigned Interstates, so adding it to our data would be consistent with past practice.

I'll put in a pull request to add MD I-495X to the usai system, as soon as I finish up with adding state business routes to the draft usaca system.

However, is it 'official' in the eyes of the FHWA?
No. Neither is the east part of I-695 Baltimore.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on November 06, 2015, 12:28:00 PM
Whatever the Interstate status of the Cabin John Parkway, it seems clear enough that it doesn't belong in USANP.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on November 06, 2015, 01:54:40 PM
Quote
possibly a split of CA 89 at Lassen Volcanic NP
NPS site says: (http://www.nps.gov/lavo/planyourvisit/current_conditions.htm) "Lassen National Park Highway (The portion of Highway 89 which extends through the park, 30 miles)."

Yeah, I've seen conflicting information I'll need to sort through.

The statutory definition of CA 89 is not as clear as that for CA 120. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635) CA 89 has a segment ending at Lassen Volcanic NP (but not specifically at its southern boundary), and the next segment starting at CA 44 on the other side of the park. CA 120 ends specifically at Yosemite's western boundary and restarts at the park's eastern boundary, which suggests that the park segment of Tioga Pass Rd. should go into USANP rather than USACA.

CA 180 is kind of like CA 89. CA 180 clearly by statute ends at the Cedar Grove boundary of Kings Canyon NP, but before it gets there the Generals Highway passes through the Grant Grove section of that park. The statutory definition is not specific on whether CA 180 includes or excludes the part of the Generals Highway within the Grant Grove park area. Also, GMSV shows at least one Caltrans-spec CA 180 route marker within the park, around the junction with what used to be CA 198 (signed as "To CA 198"). I'll leave CA 180 intact for now.

EDIT: Quick look at GMSV indicates no end signage on either side of Lassen Volcanic NP, or of the Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon NP. But there is an End CA 180 sign at the Cedar Grove boundary for Kings Canyon NP, which is the statutory east end of CA 180. For CA 120, for which the statutory definition is clearer about the route not including anything within Yosemite NP, there are some obviously non-Caltrans markers within the park for CA 120, as well as for CA 140 and CA 41 (despite an End CA 41 route marker just south of the park boundary), but Caltrans-spec markers appear to be only outside the park.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 06, 2015, 09:48:20 PM
The MDRoads site agrees that I-495X is official. CHM's data and ours include unsigned Interstates, so adding it to our data would be consistent with past practice.

I'll put in a pull request to add MD I-495X to the usai system, as soon as I finish up with adding state business routes to the draft usaca system.

However, is it 'official' in the eyes of the FHWA?
No. Neither is the east part of I-695 Baltimore.

Well, if we were to add 'I-495X', then we would have to add 'I-480N' in Cleveland, even though it isn't official as well.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: mapcat on November 06, 2015, 11:01:08 PM
Random question: what color are you considering for these on the maps?
Brown. Other suggestions welcome.

Brown makes sense, although it would be nice if they could stand out from the state systems. Definitely not teal or red or blue. Maybe gold, since that was in use in CHM but has been unused so far here?
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on November 06, 2015, 11:40:16 PM
Well, if we were to add 'I-495X', then we would have to add 'I-480N' in Cleveland, even though it isn't official as well.

Don't worry about that. FHWA's NHS map viewer shows I-495X as a non-Interstate route, so that idea seems to be going nowhere.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on November 06, 2015, 11:53:07 PM
Brown makes sense, although it would be nice if they could stand out from the state systems. Definitely not teal or red or blue. Maybe gold, since that was in use in CHM but has been unused so far here?

CHM used a rather fugly orange for Future Interstates, at least. I don't miss that at all. A more pleasing gold would probably not have enough contrast against a white or pastel background. or worse still overlaid on a Google or OSM map.

There just aren't that many contrasty and distinguishable colors available to us. Four colors (no orange, please!) seems sufficient. But maybe use teal for NPS parkways, to match how we map NY state parkways?
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Jim on November 07, 2015, 08:38:51 AM
My intent down the road is to make the colors user-configurable.   For now, I'm open to suggestions.  I think the best yet-unused option is a dark purple.  Currently underutilized colors are magenta (usausb) and green (usaib).
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: mapcat on November 07, 2015, 09:20:01 AM
My intent down the road is to make the colors user-configurable.   For now, I'm open to suggestions.  I think the best yet-unused option is a dark purple.  Currently underutilized colors are magenta (usausb) and green (usaib).

Green would be good for a route set associated with parks, but since it's currently associated with business interstates that might be confusing. Purple would be a good choice.

Is there a reason we haven't used black (or dark grey) yet? Since there is no equivalent to CHM's blank outline maps, grey wouldn't be confused with borders.

User-configurable colors is a great idea.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Duke87 on November 07, 2015, 11:31:39 AM
User-configurable colors sounds positively lovely.

Personally I'd go and make NPS Parkways and whatever other appurtenant named systems get added the same color that "select named freeways" already is. No need for extra colors and at least in my mind, "roads listed by name rather than number" is all one category.

Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: froggie on November 10, 2015, 10:28:45 AM
Quote from: oscar
-- in DC GWMemPkwy, waypoint VA27 => WasBlvd -- VA 27 probably doesn't extend into the part of DC west of the Potomac River. Dave's draft VA 27 route file has the route ending short of the VA/DC line, while Mapmikey's Virginia Highways site has it ending right at the DC line but not reaching the parkway,

Technically correct on the termini.  As for the waypoint, it's signed as VA 27 from the Parkway.  I could see leaving the waypoint as VA27 for that reason.  Or it could be "ToVA27" since 27 doesn't technically begin until you cross the channel.

Quote
I was going to suggest, in Maryland, adding the Cabin John Parkway connector between I-495 and the Clara Barton Parkway. But it seems not to be NPS maintained, and moreover seems to be technically unsigned I-495X, so it might be better added to usai than to usanp.

Piggybacking off what others have already said, Cabin John Pkwy is by definition an unsigned SHA (i.e. state) route.  FHWA doesn't consider it an Interstate...MD SHA by default assigns spurs a letter suffix to whatever route it's a spur from, hence why they consider it "I-495X".
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Sub-Urbanite on November 14, 2015, 10:17:22 PM
Arches: Main scenic drive
Bryce: Main scenic drive
Canyonlands: Island in the Sky Road
Crater Lake: Rim Road
Death Valley: Badwater Road, North Road
Rainier: Paradise Road
Petrified Forest: Main scenic drive
Zion: Canyon road
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: english si on November 16, 2015, 10:38:11 AM
Whatever the Interstate status of the Cabin John Parkway, it seems clear enough that it doesn't belong in USANP.
I've just made a pull request adding it to USANF (and Jim has just merged in my pull request in the few minutes it has taken me to make this post)
Zion: Canyon road
Done, and I'll work my through the others in a minute. I'm holding off on CA as Oscar is better equipped to research that.

I, myself, have no problem with other people adding routes, making changes themselves, etc - especially when they are in regions they maintain.

I have added to this system, temporarily, some signed Historic US routes, as we haven't worked out where they will be put.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: SD Mapman on November 16, 2015, 10:39:40 AM
The western SD/NE WY parks are pretty well covered, but you could throw these in for continuity purposes (or not)

Devils Tower: main road through monument (which is NOT WY 110, contrary to what some maps would have you think)
Jewel Cave: spur road to visitor center from US 16
Wind Cave: connector road to visitor center (cuts off a loop of US 385)
Badlands: Badlands Loop Road is already SD 240, but could be added in the usanp system (like US 34 through Rocky Mountain).

If you really wanted to dig in, Wind Cave actually has numbered roads (NP 5 and 6) (they're gravel and don't go anywhere important, though).

Custer State Park also has numbered routes, but I don't know if those should go in a system and if they did go in where they would be.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Mapmikey on November 16, 2015, 11:31:43 AM
Other suggestions:

Main road through Everglades NP to Flamingo...
Loop road through Acadia NP (there is also one of these off of ME 186)
Big Bend NP loop between TX 118 and US 385
Main road through Mesa Verde NP

Mike
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: SD Mapman on November 16, 2015, 12:26:13 PM
The roads for both units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park could be added as well (East River Rd, Scenic Loop Rd, and Scenic Drive).
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Jim on November 16, 2015, 12:41:05 PM
It looks like, as a group, all "main routes" in national parks are going to end up being requested.  I'd be interested in seeing some at least informal guideline about what the system should include.  Is there some sort of official status of roads in national parks that will allow us to decide what to include when it falls in between the obvious includes like the main routes in a park and the obvious excludes like a gravel side road to a little campground? 

How about main roads to and through national seashores?  Are there any worthy of inclusion?

For my own request, I'd be interested in seeing the Denali NP main park road being included, even though it's bus/hike only.

I'd also like to make sure that sources for these routes are being tracked.  Before we go into anything resembling "production mode" on TM, we need to update and maintain our sources.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: SD Mapman on November 16, 2015, 02:00:22 PM
Is there some sort of official status of roads in national parks that will allow us to decide what to include when it falls in between the obvious includes like the main routes in a park and the obvious excludes like a gravel side road to a little campground? 
Well, in my limited national park experience, the only "designated" roads I've come across are the Wind Cave routes 5 and 6 (the funny thing is that those are gravel side roads).

I feel like it's going to come down to an eye test, but that's just me.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on November 16, 2015, 02:44:54 PM
It looks like, as a group, all "main routes" in national parks are going to end up being requested.  I'd be interested in seeing some at least informal guideline about what the system should include.  Is there some sort of official status of roads in national parks that will allow us to decide what to include when it falls in between the obvious includes like the main routes in a park and the obvious excludes like a gravel side road to a little campground? 

How about main roads to and through national seashores?  Are there any worthy of inclusion?

My own reaction is that we're starting to overdo this, and adding national seashore roads would be overdoing it some more.

In keeping with the origins of this system (which started as an attempt to do something with supposed US routes through Yellowstone), we might focus on through routes that, if not included in other systems, would leave glaring gaps in user maps, as would result from removing everything in Yellowstone from USAUS. Another is to use USANP as a final destination for some USASNF routes (like the George Washington Parkway in Virginia), as one step to getting rid of USASNF. A third is to include the longest parkways and especially the multi-state ones, such as Skyline Drive/Blue Ridge Parkway in VA and NC, and the Natchez Trace Parkway in MS/AL/TN. Those are just some possible limiting principles, others might make sense too.

And then we have all the non-NPS historic routes, which are at least parked for now in USANP. I'd at least move those into a separate system at some point, but after first giving some thought to issues raised in this forum about mapping such routes, such as multiple alignments for some routes at different points in time.

I also wonder whether we're spending too much time on this right now (especially the historic routes), when we still don't have activated state route systems in about half the U.S. states, or provincial systems in most of Canada. Even if some team members have time and energy to spare, getting reviews/comments from other team members can draw them away from getting their new state/provincial systems up and running.

A side note on the Denali park road (a spur from AK 3 dead-ending within the park, but a longish 85-mile spur, so I'm not sure what to do with it): It's open to a limited number of personal vehicles, over a four-day period (plus a fifth day reserved for active-duty military families), each September. Those slots are assigned by lottery, and most applicants lose.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Duke87 on November 16, 2015, 08:20:58 PM
One of these is a subjective distinction, but my recommendation as to what should be in the system is to ask the following two questions:

1) Are there any portions of the road which are not already covered by existing US and state highway systems?
2) Is the road a major attraction unto itself?

If the answer to both questions is YES, the road warrants inclusion. If the answer to either is NO, then leave it out.

It seems like this idea first got started to address roads like Blue Ridge Parkway and Natchez Trace Parkway where the road itself basically is the national park, and that it's suffering from a bit of mission creep into roads that are redundant with existing systems or merely happen to be in a national park rather than being any sort of focal point of it.

I would advocate keeping things like the Going to the Sun Road, which is a prominent feature of Glacier National Park, but dropping things like Rock Creek Parkway, which would probably be a locally maintained road if not for the quirks of jurisdiction surrounding the District of Columbia.

Likewise, Trail Ridge Road can get dropped since it's just US 34, and the roads in Yellowstone... eh, they're already in USAUS. Their "official" status is weird but consensus in general (not limited to the roadgeek community) is that all of those highways have implied routes through the park and they usually appear as such on maps.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: english si on November 17, 2015, 07:07:33 AM
My own reaction is that we're starting to overdo this, and adding national seashore roads would be overdoing it some more.
Agreed. My plan was never to just add routes willy nilly, but I'm happy to add stuff that I would feel isn't 'worthy' enough just to spark discussion (especially if, like many of the ones Nick proposed, it was proposed by the state's maintainer).
Quote
In keeping with the origins of this system (which started as an attempt to do something with supposed US routes through Yellowstone), we might focus on through routes that, if not included in other systems, would leave glaring gaps in user maps, as would result from removing everything in Yellowstone from USAUS. Another is to use USANP as a final destination for some USASNF routes (like the George Washington Parkway in Virginia), as one step to getting rid of USASNF. A third is to include the longest parkways and especially the multi-state ones, such as Skyline Drive/Blue Ridge Parkway in VA and NC, and the Natchez Trace Parkway in MS/AL/TN. Those are just some possible limiting principles, others might make sense too.
They are pretty good and broadly similar to mine - fill gaps caused by National Parks in other systems (I'd count through routes as well as extensions of state highways that dead end at the park boundary in this), include the parkways that are their own NPS unit.
Quote
And then we have all the non-NPS historic routes, which are at least parked for now in USANP. I'd at least move those into a separate system at some point, but after first giving some thought to issues raised in this forum about mapping such routes, such as multiple alignments for some routes at different points in time.
What issues raised - the conversation was mostly "we're not yet quite sure where to put them" with the question of whether they are simply bannered US routes, their own system, or part of a 'National Parks, Scenic and Historic Highways' system. Hopefully my adding them will spur discussion (and yes, they are signed with dates on - eg here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1461719,-89.6688929,3a,37.5y,33.01h,79.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNATEoxiu7XE9HK4f7X7S5Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5198258,-105.2497286,3a,37.5y,58.38h,82.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIG7xij47r384FCcOUlFQuQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) and in that one case 'SPUR' banners rather than date banners (here (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9543078,-89.5501008,3a,15y,139.53h,87.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syKWVXA4gDtUXnZkGlfg9cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), though there are other signs for that spur route)) on where to put them, criteria for inclusion, etc that we have here.
dropping things like Rock Creek Parkway, which would probably be a locally maintained road if not for the quirks of jurisdiction surrounding the District of Columbia.
Surely such routes fill a gap caused by DC only having one District numbered road?
Quote
Likewise, Trail Ridge Road can get dropped since it's just US 34
True, but it is an attraction in its own right, and I'm very happy to have routes entirely concurrent with others (eg, if I was in charge of New York, the Thruway mainline would be a route, due to it having it's own shield (and exit numbering) rather than the current position of not including it as it is entirely concurrent with I-87 and I-90) and it's in a region I maintain. It was requested by Oscar (IIRC) as well, who is conservative in what he includes. I don't particularly care if it's in or out, but I don't see why it should be removed just because it is part of US34.
Quote
the roads in Yellowstone... eh, they're already in USAUS. Their "official" status is weird but consensus in general (not limited to the roadgeek community) is that all of those highways have implied routes through the park and they usually appear as such on maps.
But at the same time does it make sense to miss off a quarter of the Grand Loop Road (which would meet your two narrow requirements for inclusion)? And if we're including that, why not the other routes? And given we are rather pedantic when it comes to state routes, etc, why do we relax the standards for inclusion when it comes to US routes. The existence of US routes across Yellowstone was kept purely because the USANP system never really got sorted and we needed it as a temporary stopgap to deal with the issue of the routes not being included unless we put US routes on roads that aren't.
I also wonder whether we're spending too much time on this right now (especially the historic routes), when we still don't have activated state route systems in about half the U.S. states, or provincial systems in most of Canada. Even if some team members have time and energy to spare, getting reviews/comments from other team members can draw them away from getting their new state/provincial systems up and running.
Very true.

Though while the historic routes took me an age (and I've not got CA US6, US40, US99 or US101's signed historic routes in there), there's little else that I could have done (looked at yakra's TX routes, I guess - job for tomorrow!). But the thing was that it was a fun project that I wanted to do (follow US66 in GMSV) that I then put to use on TM, rather than a TM thing that didn't need to happen yet but I did that instead of something else.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: mapcat on November 17, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
Please consider adding (unmarked? former?) KY 70 & KY 255 in Mammoth Cave NP.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Duke87 on November 17, 2015, 07:08:48 PM
dropping things like Rock Creek Parkway, which would probably be a locally maintained road if not for the quirks of jurisdiction surrounding the District of Columbia.
Surely such routes fill a gap caused by DC only having one District numbered road?

Well, as I said, it's a subjective distinction. And on second thought, this is a bad example. Rock Creek Parkway is a more robust road than I realized it was. Go ahead and include it.

Quote
Quote
Likewise, Trail Ridge Road can get dropped since it's just US 34
True, but it is an attraction in its own right, and I'm very happy to have routes entirely concurrent with others

I suppose it ultimately comes down to the latter point. I dislike having routes that are entirely concurrent with other routes for OCD reasons. It's unnecessary clutter. It takes extra resources to include but adds no clinchable miles to the site, thus doing nothing to actually expand the scope of what travelers can claim credit for.

The precedent is already there though with the future interstates, though, so...

Quote
Quote
the roads in Yellowstone... eh, they're already in USAUS. Their "official" status is weird but consensus in general (not limited to the roadgeek community) is that all of those highways have implied routes through the park and they usually appear as such on maps.
But at the same time does it make sense to miss off a quarter of the Grand Loop Road (which would meet your two narrow requirements for inclusion)? And if we're including that, why not the other routes? And given we are rather pedantic when it comes to state routes, etc, why do we relax the standards for inclusion when it comes to US routes.

Well, we include unsigned interstates. There are also plenty of other examples of US routes being unsigned through national parks or even through cities (try following US 1 through Providence without having the route memorized, I dare ya) that are nonetheless included. Hell, even state highways that are only partially signed (e.g. NJ 171) are often included in entirety.

Meanwhile, if one goes by signage, the US routes through Yellowstone do not explicitly end at the park gates (there is no "END" signage). The signage merely vanishes unceremoniously until the other side.

Fair point about the Grand Loop Road, though. That's worth including since part of it is not concurrent with any of the implied US highway routings.
 
And then we have all the non-NPS historic routes, which are at least parked for now in USANP. I'd at least move those into a separate system at some point,

Yeah, definitely create a separate USAUSH system for those.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on November 20, 2015, 01:58:27 PM
One update on Historic US 66 in Albuquerque: NM 345 => UnsBlvd  That route was very recently decommissioned (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6780.msg150787#msg150787). I also expect minor changes to NM 333, which is included in the Albuquerque historic route.

I've made a conforming change to the I-40BL (Albuquerque) route file. However, the AARoads Interstate Guide says that BL is "decommissioned with remnant signage", and only one of the remnant signs photographed in 2008 (at a minor intersection) still remains, so the BL looks like a deletion from the HB. There is still plenty of historic route signage remaining, so it can stay in the HB as a not-yet-activated historic route.

In addition, changes have been made to I-40BL Grants, and will shortly be made to NM 122, that will affect Grants' Historic US 66 segment. As a general matter, for the historic routes in NM and CA, changes will be needed down the road to some of their route files to catch up to edits for related routes, once the in-dev state route systems there are activated.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: english si on November 21, 2015, 09:36:24 AM
I dislike having routes that are entirely concurrent with other routes for OCD reasons.
My OCD means I dislike the dislike (bring in the NYST mainline!), when we don't bother with certain routes as they are entirely concurrent, but are a valid part of the system. Future interstates were typically just US/State route freeways that are future interstates, but never was (until I added some) future interstates on interstates.

I have, however, removed Trail Ridge Road.
Quote
Well, we include unsigned interstates. There are also plenty of other examples of US routes being unsigned through national parks or even through cities (try following US 1 through Providence without having the route memorized, I dare ya) that are nonetheless included. Hell, even state highways that are only partially signed (e.g. NJ 171) are often included in entirety.
Those are elements that are part of a system, but not signed as such. This is something that isn't part of a system, nor signed as such!

Should I include in the GB Motorways system the M96 (http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=M96), which is signed as part of the system, but isn't part of the system? Of course not. Why then should I include roads that are neither signed nor part of the system!
Quote
Meanwhile, if one goes by signage, the US routes through Yellowstone do not explicitly end at the park gates (there is no "END" signage). The signage merely vanishes unceremoniously until the other side.
For some routes... US14, US16 and US212 don't reach the other side.
Quote
Fair point about the Grand Loop Road, though. That's worth including since part of it is not concurrent with any of the implied US highway routings.
And likewise the NE entrance road.
As a general matter, for the historic routes in NM and CA, changes will be needed down the road to some of their route files to catch up to edits for related routes, once the in-dev state route systems there are activated.
Absolutely, I tried, as much as possible, to leave such concurrencies as is (there's one or two that might need tweaks), fully aware that they, especially the CA state routes, might see changes.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: vdeane on November 22, 2015, 02:43:18 PM
IMO, the US routes in Yellowstone are de facto part of the system.  I'm not sure why they were allowed to be "officially" discontiguous anyways.  Discontiguous routes are illogical and should be banned.  If they didn't want US routes in Yellowstone, then they should have avoided the park completely.

I can see the case for including some routes that are mostly/wholly concurrent with others if it allows users to track the percentage completion for that route, but it doesn't make sense in every case.  I can see the case for the Thruway because it's split between I-90 and I-87.  I couldn't see a case for making separate Thruway pieces for I-190, I-287, and I-95 though, unless you created a separate Thruway system.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Duke87 on November 22, 2015, 07:50:39 PM
IMO, the US routes in Yellowstone are de facto part of the system.

I agree with this, and put forward an additional pragmatic argument in favor of keeping them: removing them would break people's list files, something which there is a well established desire to avoid doing.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: english si on November 23, 2015, 05:08:19 AM
removing them would break people's list files, something which there is a well established desire to avoid doing.
Would it? I can simply add hidden points for those in use, meaning no breakage of .list files.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Duke87 on November 23, 2015, 08:08:27 PM
removing them would break people's list files, something which there is a well established desire to avoid doing.
Would it? I can simply add hidden points for those in use, meaning no breakage of .list files.

Hidden points located at the park gate? And doing this won't cause any issues?

I remember when I-370 in Maryland was truncated everyone who had it in their list file got it broken because the old endpoint went poof. I'm operating under the assumption this is necessary when a route is truncated, if it isn't... well, that does make it easier to do such things.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on November 23, 2015, 10:04:05 PM
removing them would break people's list files, something which there is a well established desire to avoid doing.
Would it? I can simply add hidden points for those in use, meaning no breakage of .list files.

Hidden points located at the park gate? And doing this won't cause any issues?

I remember when I-370 in Maryland was truncated everyone who had it in their list file got it broken because the old endpoint went poof. I'm operating under the assumption this is necessary when a route is truncated, if it isn't... well, that does make it easier to do such things.

Some team members, myself included, routinely do what Si suggests for truncations. We'll still mention them in Updates to flag that some people's stats will change, or who want to adjust their list files, but until they do there will be no breakage.

The only possible issue is for people who have traveled only the portion of the route that got truncated away. It's possible they'll be shown as having traveled the route, but with zero mileage since both of the waypoints in their list files will be at the same coordinates.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Jim on November 23, 2015, 10:29:47 PM
The only possible issue is for people who have traveled only the portion of the route that got truncated away. It's possible they'll be shown as having traveled the route, but with zero mileage since both of the waypoints in their list files will be at the same coordinates.

I'm not sure what would actually happen here with the current site update code, but it's something I need to check.  Adding a GitHub issue to remind myself...
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: yakra on November 24, 2015, 03:08:05 AM
I remember when I-370 in Maryland was truncated everyone who had it in their list file got it broken because the old endpoint went poof. I'm operating under the assumption this is necessary when a route is truncated, if it isn't... well, that does make it easier to do such things.

Some team members, myself included, routinely do what Si suggests for truncations. We'll still mention them in Updates to flag that some people's stats will change, or who want to adjust their list files, but until they do there will be no breakage.

Back in the CHM days, ISTR Tim saying not to add the AltLabels of points removed in a truncation to the new terminus. Just have a truncation be a truncation, points are lost, .lists broken, and travelers will just have to see the error in their log file, look in the HB for the new line to re-enter into their .lists. And that's that.
(Though I did manage to sneak in at least one such update (http://cmap.m-plex.com/hb/hwymap.php?sys=all&rg=all&gr=p&r=ct.i691&showint=0&dl=1) before that was stated...)
MD I-370 likely fell victim to that policy.

I also do this (add AltLabels to the new terminus) for truncations, and am glad to see us at least unofficially moving away from Tim's old policy.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Jim on November 24, 2015, 09:41:14 PM
The only possible issue is for people who have traveled only the portion of the route that got truncated away. It's possible they'll be shown as having traveled the route, but with zero mileage since both of the waypoints in their list files will be at the same coordinates.

I'm not sure what would actually happen here with the current site update code, but it's something I need to check.  Adding a GitHub issue to remind myself...

Anyone who's interested in this can see and contribute to the conversation (that so far I have had only with myself) about it here:

https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/issues/5 (https://github.com/TravelMapping/DataProcessing/issues/5)
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on December 03, 2015, 01:39:18 PM
I'm sure some people know about this already, but AASHTO's US Route database addresses which US routes are broken up by national parks or end at national park entrances:

http://route.transportation.org/Pages/U.S.RouteNumberDatabase(Dec2009).aspx

The database confirms the official non-existence of several US routes in Yellowstone NP. It also has US 34 officially continuing through Rocky Mountain NP in Colorado, and US 36 continuing into the park to meet US 34. Those are not what I had originally thought. So we're good there.

US 180 officially ends at the south entrance to Grand Canyon NP, rather than continuing into the park as TM and CHM have it. But that doesn't mean that AZ 64 (which is concurrent with part of US 180) doesn't officially continue through the South Rim part of the park, which is how Mapnik and perhaps Arizona DOT see it. If so, we don't need to create a usanp route for the South Rim part of Grand Canyon NP, just truncate US 180 and make a conforming change to AZ 64.

EDIT: Looks like there's a ~29 mile gap in AZ 64 between the south and east entrances to Grand Canyon NP:

http://www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/planning/2013shslog.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (scroll down to p. 183).

A few pages later, the log for AZ 67 indicates that the state-maintained route ends at the Grand Canyon NP North Rim entrance, but AZ 67 signage continues within the park (maybe AZ 64 signage also continues within the park?).

I'll punt this over for followup w/r/t US 180, AZ 64, and AZ 67, but that could result in South Entrance Rd. and East Rim Dr. within Grand Canyon NP both being removed from US 180/AZ 64, and becoming candidates for addition to usanp.

Are there other situations where, per AASHTO, national parks break up or truncate US routes, and might call for adjustments to existing route files or additions to usanp? The same question comes up also for state routes outside AASHTO's purview, besides the ones I just mentioned in Arizona. In California, some state routes are definitely officially broken up by or truncated at national park boundaries, while others definitely are not, but I'm still nailing down which are which. NM 7 definitely extends into Carlsbad Caverns NP, dead-ending several miles inside the park boundary.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: oscar on December 17, 2015, 10:46:34 PM
I've just submitted a pull request to add seven routes in CA to USANP. Most of those routes include mileage within national parks taken out of the in-dev USACA route set.

The draft file for El Portal Rd. in Yosemite NP (extension of CA 140) includes a loop route in Yosemite Valley, consisting of two one-way roads on opposite sides of the valley (Southside Dr. and Northside Dr.) that split from the end of El Portal Rd. I included them in the El Portal route file for convenience, but they could be broken out as a separate route.

Bickendan, when he originally drafted the El Portal route file as part of CA 140, treated Southside and Northside as parts of a single one-way loop route. In a discussion of this in a collaborators-only section of the old CHM forum, Tim disagreed with that approach, preferring to treat the Yosemite Valley loop like a couplet of one-way streets. But I like Bickendan's approach, and have followed it. Southside Dr, and Northside Dr. are not parallel, with Northside following a more winding path out of the valley. At one point, they are a half-mile apart. They also have the Madera River between them. Moreover, Wawona Rd. to the park's CA 41 exit (another major park road being added to USANP) connects only to Southside Dr.; to get to Northside Dr. from that junction, you'd need to take a longish detour east on Southside to one of three river crossings.

One of the other routes I would add, Kings Canyon Rd. in Kings Canyon NP at the end of CA 180, is a relatively short route, only about six miles long.

We might want to later add a few routes in other national parks, etc. in California. Minaret Summit Rd. into Devil's Postpile Nat'l Monument (about 7 miles long, from the end of CA 203 in Mammoth Lakes) is one possibility. Something in Joshua Tree NP (which I've never visited), perhaps, such as Park Blvd. and its non-NPS connecting roads to CA 62, and Pinto Basin Rd. and its non-NPS connector to I-10.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Bickendan on December 18, 2015, 04:32:30 AM
It didn't make any sense to treat that portion of 'CA 140' as a one-way couplet when I drafted it way back when. It does pose an interesting 'what if' regarding how couplets are treated down the road, but I'd rather not open that can of worms. Yet.
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: yakra on December 18, 2015, 11:01:42 AM
I'd rather not open that can of worms.
:bigass:
Title: Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
Post by: Bickendan on December 18, 2015, 04:02:02 PM
I'd rather not open that can of worms.
:bigass:
Now it's tempting :bigass: