AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Author Topic: California State Highways (in development)  (Read 9222 times)

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5548
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:02:37 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #25 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.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2015, 12:15:34 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

ntallyn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16
  • Last Login: March 30, 2016, 06:55:18 PM
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #26 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
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5548
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:02:37 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

ntallyn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16
  • Last Login: March 30, 2016, 06:55:18 PM
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #28 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.
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5548
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:02:37 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

ntallyn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 16
  • Last Login: March 30, 2016, 06:55:18 PM
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #30 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!
Logged

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5548
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:02:37 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #31 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.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5548
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:02:37 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #32 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.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5548
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:02:37 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #33 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.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 782
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: Today at 06:29:58 PM
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #34 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.
Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2340
  • Last Login: Today at 03:42:08 AM
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #35 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.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3312
  • Last Login: September 22, 2018, 12:37:09 AM
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #36 on: May 04, 2016, 05:24:11 PM »

Has USANSF seriously never had anything in 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.
Logged
Chris Sampang

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5548
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:02:37 PM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: California State Highways (in development)
« Reply #37 on: May 07, 2016, 10:06:37 PM »

Has USANSF seriously never had anything in 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.
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

 


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.