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: US National Parks Highways (in dev)  (Read 10191 times)

SD Mapman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 993
  • The best pace is a pace, and today is a good day.

  • Location: Running somewhere in Lawrence County
  • Last Login: June 08, 2019, 12:20:53 AM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #25 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).
Logged
The traveler sees what he sees, the tourist sees what he has come to see. - G.K. Chesterton

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4017
  • Check out http://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:14 AM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #26 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.
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/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, weather, sports)

SD Mapman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 993
  • The best pace is a pace, and today is a good day.

  • Location: Running somewhere in Lawrence County
  • Last Login: June 08, 2019, 12:20:53 AM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
The traveler sees what he sees, the tourist sees what he has come to see. - G.K. Chesterton

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6488
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:16:24 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #28 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.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2015, 03:04:09 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5212
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: July 18, 2019, 01:12:38 AM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #29 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.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2015, 08:24:50 PM by Duke87 »
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3475
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: May 21, 2019, 07:30:10 PM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #30 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 and here and in that one case 'SPUR' banners rather than date banners (here, 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.
Logged

mapcat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 80
  • Last Login: June 19, 2019, 05:35:22 PM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2015, 05:07:18 PM »

Please consider adding (unmarked? former?) KY 70 & KY 255 in Mammoth Cave NP.
Logged

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5212
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: July 18, 2019, 01:12:38 AM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #32 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.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6488
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:16:24 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #33 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. 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.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 08:53:44 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3475
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: May 21, 2019, 07:30:10 PM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #34 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, 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.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 09:57:41 AM by english si »
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10101
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 12:56:08 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #35 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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5212
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: July 18, 2019, 01:12:38 AM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #36 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.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3475
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: May 21, 2019, 07:30:10 PM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #37 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.
Logged

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5212
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Queens, NY
  • Last Login: July 18, 2019, 01:12:38 AM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #38 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.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6488
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:16:24 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #39 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.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2015, 10:06:34 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4017
  • Check out http://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:14 AM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #40 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...
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/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, weather, sports)

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1049
  • Location: Area Code 207
  • Last Login: Today at 10:40:50 AM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #41 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 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.
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

Jim

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4017
  • Check out http://travelmapping.net

  • Location: Amsterdam, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:14 AM
    • Travel and Other Pictures
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #42 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
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/user/terescoj
Twitter @JimTeresco (roads, travel, weather, sports)

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6488
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:16:24 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #43 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.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 12:56:26 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

oscar

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6488
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:16:24 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #44 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.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2015, 11:24:50 AM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2479
  • Last Login: Today at 01:43:11 PM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #45 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.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1049
  • Location: Area Code 207
  • Last Login: Today at 10:40:50 AM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #46 on: December 18, 2015, 11:01:42 AM »

I'd rather not open that can of worms.
:bigass:
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

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2479
  • Last Login: Today at 01:43:11 PM
Re: US National Parks Highways (in dev)
« Reply #47 on: December 18, 2015, 04:02:02 PM »

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.