AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)  (Read 2515 times)

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1021
  • Location: Area Code 207
  • Last Login: July 18, 2018, 10:17:49 PM
OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« on: September 03, 2015, 02:50:01 PM »

As we know, the Muskogee Turkpike and Creek Turkpike have been designated as OK351 and OK364.

My original thought was to remove them from the USA Select Freeways system as redundant.

But now, I'm leaning toward leaving them in USASF, and having them as both OK numbered routes and OK Turnpikes.
This sets the stage for breaking off the Oklahoma Turnpikes into their own discrete set, and including the whole lot of`em. Even the Chickasaw. Thoughts?
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3241
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: Today at 04:29:32 AM
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2015, 02:59:18 PM »

Breaking off the OK Turnpikes makes sense (with no reason why that cannot happen ASAP - you are splitting a system, rather than making a new one). Likewise KY and NY.

If they are signed with their names, then surely have them in usasf or usaokt. If they are signed with their numbers, then absolutely include them there. If signed with both, then there's no reason to not have them in both.
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5329
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:53:50 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2015, 03:15:30 PM »

Especially with the small number of unnumbered OK turnpikes, why not just fold them into usaok as named routes (as with the Ontario Freeways set), rather than adding new small, state-specific route sets?

The issue of whether we should be more flexible in adding named routes to numbered route sets will come up in states without turnpike or parkway systems. If we decide to add named routes in "regular" state route systems, that would hasten the demise of usasf, much like the parallel "grab bag" system of numbered state freeways will disappear as we add new state route sets.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2315
  • Last Login: July 19, 2018, 08:35:38 PM
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2015, 06:53:10 PM »

At the risk of opening a can of worms: California's named freeways that don't line up with their route numbers?
Golden State Freeway - I-5/CA 99
Ventura Freeway - CA 134/US 101
Hollywood Freeway - US 101/CA 170
Santa Ana Freeway - I-5/US 101
San Diego Freeway - I-5/I-405
and a few others

And worse: Arguably the entire Oregon highway/route system.

That said, I'm happy to leave things with OK, KY and NY...
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5329
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:53:50 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2015, 07:24:16 PM »

At the risk of opening a can of worms: California's named freeways that don't line up with their route numbers?
Golden State Freeway - I-5/CA 99
Ventura Freeway - CA 134/US 101
Hollywood Freeway - US 101/CA 170
Santa Ana Freeway - I-5/US 101
San Diego Freeway - I-5/I-405
and a few others

And worse: Arguably the entire Oregon highway/route system.

That is not uncommon in other states. Certainly Alaska and Hawaii are full of such examples. AK 1 splices together part or all of the Sterling Highway, Seward Highway, Glenn Highway, Richardson Highway, and the Tok Cut-Off, with other parts of the Seward and the Richardson assigned one or two other route numbers. The Kamehameha Highway on Oahu goes through nine route number changes, while HI 19 on the Big Island goes through ten name changes.

Fortunately, where there is a route number, for Travel Mapping we don't have to pay attention to the route name.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2315
  • Last Login: July 19, 2018, 08:35:38 PM
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2015, 08:18:18 PM »

At the risk of opening a can of worms: California's named freeways that don't line up with their route numbers?
Golden State Freeway - I-5/CA 99
Ventura Freeway - CA 134/US 101
Hollywood Freeway - US 101/CA 170
Santa Ana Freeway - I-5/US 101
San Diego Freeway - I-5/I-405
and a few others

And worse: Arguably the entire Oregon highway/route system.

That is not uncommon in other states. Certainly Alaska and Hawaii are full of such examples. AK 1 splices together part or all of the Sterling Highway, Seward Highway, Glenn Highway, Richardson Highway, and the Tok Cut-Off, with other parts of the Seward and the Richardson assigned one or two other route numbers. The Kamehameha Highway on Oahu goes through nine route number changes, while HI 19 on the Big Island goes through ten name changes.

Fortunately, where there is a route number, for Travel Mapping we don't have to pay attention to the route name.
While I wouldn't mind having separate routes for the divergent named highways, I'm just as happy with avoiding the potential headache of drafting and maintaining the files!
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3241
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: Today at 04:29:32 AM
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2015, 01:04:27 AM »

While I wouldn't mind having separate routes for the divergent named highways, I'm just as happy with avoiding the potential headache of drafting and maintaining the files!
Maintenance being the hardest bit as you have to hold two overlapping systems in sync.
Logged

rickmastfan67

  • The Invisible One
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2569
  • I want I-67 in PA!!!!

  • Age: 33
  • Location: Pittsburgh, Pa, USA
  • Last Login: July 19, 2018, 10:43:14 PM
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2015, 01:23:13 AM »

Let me bring up the mainline PA Turnpike.  We don't have a separate file for it since it's a numbered highway, even though it has a special shield.

Thus, I think we should do the same here.  If they have a posted #, they are only in the database w/ that number.

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3139
  • 17,000+ road sign pics and counting!

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:36:18 AM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2015, 07:03:09 AM »

A couple quick thoughts. 

I'm all in favor of getting things turnpikes and freeways and parkways into the project.  I'm less excited about breaking them into new systems, but I don't hate the idea.  I would want to avoid maintaining duplicate files where possible, so while it might make sense to put all of the OK turnpikes into their own system, including those on Interstate routes, I don't think it makes any sense, for example, to have a "Mass Pike" system, since it's exactly the same as I-90 in Massachusetts.  The New York Thruway is a little different.  All but a few miles are already in as they carry Interstate numbers but it does feel more like a "system" and it would be a convenient way to get the mainline to B1 piece in.

Maybe a question to ask is - do users of the system see value in seeing stats and maps on "OK Turnpikes" or "New York Thruway System" beyond seeing them as part of usai, usaus, usasf, or various state systems (where they carry state numbers)?
Logged
Photos I post are my own unless otherwise noted.
Signs: http://www.teresco.org/pics/signs/
Travel Mapping: http://travelmapping.net/user/?u=terescoj
Counties: http://www.mob-rule.com/cgi-bin/makeuser.cgi?user=terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, weather, sports)

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1021
  • Location: Area Code 207
  • Last Login: July 18, 2018, 10:17:49 PM
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2015, 12:29:57 PM »

Another thought: Even if turnpikes were broken out into their own system, there would still be the Gilcrease Expy, left behind on its own in USASF.
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

mapcat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 80
  • Last Login: July 07, 2018, 05:57:28 AM
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2015, 07:34:11 PM »

Maybe a question to ask is - do users of the system see value in seeing stats and maps on "OK Turnpikes" or "New York Thruway System" beyond seeing them as part of usai, usaus, usasf, or various state systems (where they carry state numbers)?

Personally, for the U.S., I pay attention to my progress on the interstates and the U.S. routes primarily, plus my overall progress in the country and by state. I appreciate the inclusion of other routes in that they allow me to accumulate more miles, but don't care at all how they're classified.
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5329
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:53:50 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2015, 08:13:19 PM »

I agree with mapcat, except that I'll sometimes also care about mileage on specific state/provincial/territorial route systems. It also really helps for our highway browser to show (now or later) all routes within a state or other jurisdiction, no matter what system they may belong to; that makes it less relevant how they're classified.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4944
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:43 AM
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2015, 09:10:33 PM »

Maybe a question to ask is - do users of the system see value in seeing stats and maps on "OK Turnpikes" or "New York Thruway System" beyond seeing them as part of usai, usaus, usasf, or various state systems (where they carry state numbers)?

I personally am fine with just leaving usasf as its own grab-baggy system under the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle. Turnpike/thruway/tollway systems generally can stand on their own as their signed numbers and any segments without a signed number can go in usasf.

I would, however, be in favor of creating a separate "New York Parkways" system specifically, for several reasons:
1) The number of parkways in New York far exceeds the number of turnpikes or what have you in any other state (except perhaps Florida toll roads, but most of those have signed numbers). It is easily a system in its own right.
2) There are many NY parkways which are not freeway-grade but are still major roads and signed as parkways. To avoid diluting the meaning of "Select Freeways", the creation of a separate system with no such qualifying restriction makes sense.
3) Many NY parkways are not in usasf and it would be useful to all for these to be added in, even if not as part of their own system. Indeed if we weren't busy trying to rebuild the site I'd be lobbying for this to be prioritized.


Also, a thought: the GSP extension in NY is already clinchable in the usasf system. If we create a "New York Parkways" system it would seemingly logically be shunted over to there... but it's NYSTA maintained, so it also would logically go in "New York State Thruways" if we created such a thing. This conundrum would be avoided by not creating the latter...








Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1021
  • Location: Area Code 207
  • Last Login: July 18, 2018, 10:17:49 PM
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #13 on: September 10, 2015, 10:19:19 PM »

I've decided to go ahead and add OK351 & OK364, and delete MusTpk & CreTpk from USASF.

MusTpk & CreTpk are retained as AltRouteNames for OK351 & OK364 respectively, so .list files containing lines for MusTpk or CreTpk will still work.
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7593
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Norman, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 07:03:44 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards
Re: OK351, OK364, and Oklahoma Turnpikes (CHM/TravelMapping)
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2015, 02:32:18 AM »

Another thought: Even if turnpikes were broken out into their own system, there would still be the Gilcrease Expy, left behind on its own in USASF.

Dunno how relevant this is, but the Gilcrease is potentially getting a tolled extension, so you could fudge slightly and put it in as a turnpike if and when that happens. Treating the OK turnpikes as a system makes sense, there are 10 of them and a good chunk of them meet up in Tulsa.
Logged

 


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