I think US/State Highways should be signed through national parks.

[kphoger]

I, for one, don't see why a highway that isn't actually a US Route needs to be signed as a US Route.

If the NPS needs to pick a route for US-20 through Yellowstone and sign it within the park, then let them sign it with National Park route shields.  There's nothing stopping them from designing them and using them.

Chapter 2D — Guide Signs — Conventional Roads
Section 2D.11 — Design of Route Signs

Standard:

01 — The design of standard route signs shall conform to the designs provided in the "Standard Highway Signs" publication (see Section 1A.05). The design of other route signs shall be established by the authority having jurisdiction and shall be in general conformance with the designs provided in the "Standard Highway Signs" publication.

17 — The design of the National Forest Route (M1-7) sign (see Figure 2D-4) shall be as detailed in the "Standard Highway Signs" publication (see Section 1A.05). Route signs for other park and forest roads shall be designed with an appropriate level of distinctiveness and adequate legibility, but in general compliance with the design principles for route signs and of a size compatible with other route signs used in common assemblies.

It would pretty simple to just modify the M1-7 sign, perhaps like this:

[Roadgeekteen]

I, for one, don't see why a highway that isn't actually a US Route needs to be signed as a US Route.

If the NPS needs to sign US-20 within Yellowstone, then let them sign it with National Park route shields.  There's nothing stopping them from designing them and using them.

Chapter 2D — Guide Signs — Conventional Roads
Section 2D.11 — Design of Route Signs

Standard:

01 — The design of standard route signs shall conform to the designs provided in the "Standard Highway Signs" publication (see Section 1A.05). The design of other route signs shall be established by the authority having jurisdiction and shall be in general conformance with the designs provided in the "Standard Highway Signs" publication.

17 — The design of the National Forest Route (M1-7) sign (see Figure 2D-4) shall be as detailed in the "Standard Highway Signs" publication (see Section 1A.05). Route signs for other park and forest roads shall be designed with an appropriate level of distinctiveness and adequate legibility, but in general compliance with the design principles for route signs and of a size compatible with other route signs used in common assemblies.

It would pretty simple to just modify the M1-7 sign, perhaps like this:

US Highways were federally designed, National Parks are federal lands, and other roads exist through national parks (I-90 in TR National park) no different than signing a locally maintained road a state highway number.

[mgk920]

does any numbered highway enter the boundaries of Cuyahoga Valley N.P. in Ohio?

Um, yeah. I-80 and I-271 for example.

IIRC, the park's borders were drawn so that those roads are outside of it.

Mike

[jlam]

does any numbered highway enter the boundaries of Cuyahoga Valley N.P. in Ohio?

Um, yeah. I-80 and I-271 for example.

IIRC, the park's borders were drawn so that those roads are outside of it.

Mike

Yup, looks like that's the case. But I-40 goes right through Petrified Forest NP

[kphoger]

US Highways were federally designed

I don't think that's true.

US highways are federal lands

I don't think that's true.

other roads exist through national parks

Right, but I'm talking about a route that doesn't exist within the national park.

no different than signing a locally maintained road a state highway number.

I wasn't talking about maintenance at all.  I was talking about route deisgnations.

[Roadgeekteen]

I am aware that US 20 officially has a gap through Yellowstone. My point is that it shouldn't. I meant to say that national parks are federal land.

[kphoger]

I am aware that US 20 officially has a gap through Yellowstone. My point is that it shouldn't have a gap. I meant to say that national parks are federal land.

[Max Rockatansky]

I am aware that US 20 officially has a gap through Yellowstone. My point is that it shouldn't have a gap. I meant to say that national parks are federal land.

[kphoger]

I am aware that US 20 officially has a gap through Yellowstone. My point is that it shouldn't have a gap like that. I meant to say that national parks are federal land but I didn't.

[Max Rockatansky]

I am aware that US 20 officially has a gap through Yellowstone. My point is that it shouldn't have a gap like that. I meant to say that national parks are federal land but I didn't.

[Roadgeekteen]

I am aware that US 20 officially has a gap through Yellowstone. My point is that it shouldn't have a gap like that. I meant to say that national parks are federal land but I didn't.

[kphoger]

I am aware that US 20 officially has a little bit of an official gap through Yellowstone National Park. My main point is that it shouldn't have a big old honking gap like that. I meant to say that national parks are federal land but I didn't say that because I'm lazy.

Can you report a user? Not one of their posts, just deciding that you don't like them anymore, and just deciding to report them?

[GaryV]

does any numbered highway enter the boundaries of Cuyahoga Valley N.P. in Ohio?

Um, yeah. I-80 and I-271 for example.

IIRC, the park's borders were drawn so that those roads are outside of it.

Mike

Well, their online map shows the roads inside park boundaries: https://www.nps.gov/cuva/planyourvisit/trail-maps.htm

[pderocco]

US Highways were federally designed

I don't think that's true.

US highways are federal lands

I don't think that's true.

US highways have nothing to do with the Federal Government. They're ordinary state highways that AASHTO (previously AASHO), a consortium of the states, assigns numbers to, so that they cohere across state boundaries. The roads are maintained by the states, the signs are put up by the states, etc.

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks, and I doubt there's any AASHTO prohibitions on doing such, since there are already interstates and non-US state routes signed through parks here and there. Since US route signs often have the state name on them, such routes inside parks could have the park name, or just NPS, on them.

But I still think it would be cool if they were brown.

[Max Rockatansky]

US Highways were federally designed

I don't think that's true.

US highways are federal lands

I don't think that's true.

US highways have nothing to do with the Federal Government. They're ordinary state highways that AASHTO (previously AASHO), a consortium of the states, assigns numbers to, so that they cohere across state boundaries. The roads are maintained by the states, the signs are put up by the states, etc.

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks, and I doubt there's any AASHTO prohibitions on doing such, since there are already interstates and non-US state routes signed through parks here and there. Since US route signs often have the state name on them, such routes inside parks could have the park name, or just NPS, on them.

But I still think it would be cool if they were brown.

It isn't unpresented for US Route extension applications to include NPS maintained roadways.  That 1937 proposal I linked up thread for US Route 6 to the Bay Area included the Tioga Road in Yosemite National Park. 

[kphoger]

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks

That still leaves the problem of US-20 through Yellowstone, as there are two possible "obvious" routes.

US route signs often have the state name on them

Not in more than sixty years.

[Roadgeekteen]

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks

That still leaves the problem of US-20 through Yellowstone, as there are two possible "obvious" routes.

Yes, and the longer route is the one on maps. Needless to say someone should just pick a route, same for US 191 and US 89.

[Molandfreak]

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks

That still leaves the problem of US-20 through Yellowstone, as there are two possible "obvious" routes.

Nothing stopping them from signing a US-20A (US-14 or US-16 would also be good options).

[Max Rockatansky]

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks

That still leaves the problem of US-20 through Yellowstone, as there are two possible "obvious" routes.

Yes, and the longer route is the one on maps. Needless to say someone should just pick a route, same for US 191 and US 89.

What will really get you is that US 191 is signed in part of the park (along the Gallatin River).

[pderocco]

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks

That still leaves the problem of US-20 through Yellowstone, as there are two possible "obvious" routes.

Yes, and the longer route is the one on maps. Needless to say someone should just pick a route, same for US 191 and US 89.

What will really get you is that US 191 is signed in part of the park (along the Gallatin River).

And that's probably maintained by Montana, for obvious reasons.

[Max Rockatansky]

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks

That still leaves the problem of US-20 through Yellowstone, as there are two possible "obvious" routes.

Yes, and the longer route is the one on maps. Needless to say someone should just pick a route, same for US 191 and US 89.

What will really get you is that US 191 is signed in part of the park (along the Gallatin River).

And that's probably maintained by Montana, for obvious reasons.

It is, even the small section in Wyoming.

[Molandfreak]

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks

That still leaves the problem of US-20 through Yellowstone, as there are two possible "obvious" routes.

Yes, and the longer route is the one on maps. Needless to say someone should just pick a route, same for US 191 and US 89.

And again, US-189 would be decent to use as a crutch if all the roads in the park should be signed with something.

[pderocco]

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks

That still leaves the problem of US-20 through Yellowstone, as there are two possible "obvious" routes.

Nothing stopping them from signing a US-20A (US-14 or US-16 would also be good options).

There are so many damn US routes in that area that you could give all the major roads coherent numbers. US-212 could come in through Tower Junction and end at Mammoth. US-14 could go through Canyon Village and end at Tower Junction. US-16 could go up to Canyon Village and then across Norris Canyon to end at US-89. And US-20 could go through the park where Google is already hallucinating it.

[pderocco]

I doubt any federal legislation would be needed in order for the NPS to accept US route signage on what are obvious continuations of US routes outside the parks

That still leaves the problem of US-20 through Yellowstone, as there are two possible "obvious" routes.

Yes, and the longer route is the one on maps. Needless to say someone should just pick a route, same for US 191 and US 89.

And again, US-189 would be decent to use as a crutch if all the roads in the park should be signed with something.

I think it would make more sense for US-189 to continue past Jackson, and take over WY-22 and ID-33 over to US-20. But that's outside Yellowstone and Grand Teton.