Control Cities

[hotdogPi]

Disney World can be signed as an exit. It can't be a control city unless you're willing to make Universal Studios and Sea World control cities on other roads.

[wanderer2575]

Moving on...

What is your guys options on using bridges and tunnels as control "cities"?

I don't know if you're deliberately going out of your way to pounce on every point of minutia you can think of.   A one-size-fits-all guideline is never going to perfectly fit every situation; just deal with it and move on.  Roll your eyes if you want but as Captain Picard said, sometimes you just have to bow to the absurd.

To your question, all I'm wanting from a control is a reassurance that I'm heading in the correct direction.  It should be fairly well known; off the top of my head I don't know where Upper Mudpuddle is but I do know where Pittsburgh PA is.  Other than that, I don't really care if the control is a city, state, waterway, bridge, tunnel, landmark, or other point of interest.  At the risk of reigniting the pettiness above, I also don't care whether the route actually enters the control city (many, especially 3dis, don't).  I don't want official highway signs turning into advertisements, so my potential exception is that I'm leery of privately-owned commercial destinations being used as controls.

[Roadgeekteen]

Moving on...

What is your guys options on using bridges and tunnels as control "cities"?

I don't know if you're deliberately going out of your way to pounce on every point of minutia you can think of.   A one-size-fits-all guideline is never going to perfectly fit every situation; just deal with it and move on.  Roll your eyes if you want but as Captain Picard said, sometimes you just have to bow to the absurd.

To your question, all I'm wanting from a control is a reassurance that I'm heading in the correct direction.  It should be fairly well known; off the top of my head I don't know where Upper Mudpuddle is but I do know where Pittsburgh PA is.  Other than that, I don't really care if the control is a city, state, waterway, bridge, tunnel, landmark, or other point of interest.  At the risk of reigniting the pettiness above, I also don't care whether the route actually enters the control city (many, especially 3dis, don't).  I don't want official highway signs turning into advertisements, so my potential exception is that I'm leery of privately-owned commercial destinations being used as controls.

I would avoid commercial destinations in all but a select few scenarios.

[HighwayStar]

In choosing a control city, the following should be taken into account

• Population
• Transportation Significance
• Military Significance

A further requirement should be that the road actually serves the location in question.
Bridges and tunnels, while lacking in population, satisfy the 2nd and 3rd criteria well, and thus may serve as control cities.
As for commercial entities, I would say no unless they can meet at least one of the above criteria, which in most cases will not be the case.

[sprjus4]

A further requirement should be that the road actually serves the location in question.

Disagree. There are many instances where it would be logical to sign a control city on a route that doesn't officially serve that location, if it's a large population center and that route indirectly serves it. An example of this would be I-70 Baltimore.

[HighwayStar]

A further requirement should be that the road actually serves the location in question.

Disagree. There are many instances where it would be logical to sign a control city on a route that doesn't officially serve that location, if it's a large population center and that route indirectly serves it. An example of this would be I-70 Baltimore.

Indirect service confuses the purpose of a control city. Control cities are not there for designating all the various destinations a route might take you to, they are to mark the route itself, and therefore must be meaningfully on the route. I-70 ends without serving Baltimore, so an appropriate designation might be "Baltimore Beltway" which has transportation and military significance.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

A further requirement should be that the road actually serves the location in question.

Disagree. There are many instances where it would be logical to sign a control city on a route that doesn't officially serve that location, if it's a large population center and that route indirectly serves it. An example of this would be I-70 Baltimore.

Indirect service confuses the purpose of a control city. Control cities are not there for designating all the various destinations a route might take you to, they are to mark the route itself, and therefore must be meaningfully on the route. I-70 ends without serving Baltimore, so an appropriate designation might be "Baltimore Beltway" which has transportation and military significance.

In your list, "should actually serve the location" sounds like a fourth, much less significant qualifier. Baltimore meets the first three bullet points without that.

[Roadgeekteen]

A further requirement should be that the road actually serves the location in question.

Disagree. There are many instances where it would be logical to sign a control city on a route that doesn't officially serve that location, if it's a large population center and that route indirectly serves it. An example of this would be I-70 Baltimore.

Indirect service confuses the purpose of a control city. Control cities are not there for designating all the various destinations a route might take you to, they are to mark the route itself, and therefore must be meaningfully on the route. I-70 ends without serving Baltimore, so an appropriate designation might be "Baltimore Beltway" which has transportation and military significance.

God dammit not again

[thspfc]

If we just stop entertaining this joke of an argument then HighwayStar will be quiet.

[Roadgeekteen]

If we just stop entertaining this joke of an argument then HighwayStar will be quiet.

He started it up again.

[sprjus4]

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3979664,-77.4300175,3a,41.1y,108.43h,94.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s33tjqObfN1w2KexCEl7Lzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

[Roadgeekteen]

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3979664,-77.4300175,3a,41.1y,108.43h,94.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s33tjqObfN1w2KexCEl7Lzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

Capital Beltway for control city

[Flint1979]

A further requirement should be that the road actually serves the location in question.

Disagree. There are many instances where it would be logical to sign a control city on a route that doesn't officially serve that location, if it's a large population center and that route indirectly serves it. An example of this would be I-70 Baltimore.

Indirect service confuses the purpose of a control city. Control cities are not there for designating all the various destinations a route might take you to, they are to mark the route itself, and therefore must be meaningfully on the route. I-70 ends without serving Baltimore, so an appropriate designation might be "Baltimore Beltway" which has transportation and military significance.

I-70 does not end without serving Baltimore. It connects to the beltway around it which has several highways that take you into Baltimore, it also has an exit at Security Blvd. which connects to Baltimore. Just because I-70 doesn't go into the city doesn't mean it doesn't serve it. I-75 doesn't go into Tampa but it serves it, same with I-80 serving Chicago and Cleveland.

[sprjus4]

I-75 does not enter Miami city limits either...

[jmacswimmer]

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.3979664,-77.4300175,3a,41.1y,108.43h,94.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s33tjqObfN1w2KexCEl7Lzg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

Capital Beltway for control city

[US 89]

If we just stop entertaining this joke of an argument then HighwayStar will be quiet.

He started it up again.

That's the point. There's a reason "don't feed the troll" is a thing

[Roadgeekteen]

If we just stop entertaining this joke of an argument then HighwayStar will be quiet.

He started it up again.

That's the point. There's a reason "don't feed the troll" is a thing

He's asking for it when he brings it up again.

[kphoger]

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2455944,-76.6371112,3a,48.9y,333.96h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Sc2ZxMosPD7L5W5jfISKw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

That's a sign without a control city/destination, but with a "recreational and cultural interest area" tab added.

I-70 ends without serving Baltimore, so BURN THE SIGNS WITH FIRE AND BRING THE REVOLUTION!!!!!!

If we just stop entertaining this joke of an argument then HighwayStar will be quiet.

He started it up again.

That's the point. There's a reason "don't feed the troll" is a thing

He's asking for it when he brings it up again.

My kids ask me for candy all the time.  Doesn't mean I have to give it to them.

[Roadgeekteen]

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2455944,-76.6371112,3a,48.9y,333.96h,89.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6Sc2ZxMosPD7L5W5jfISKw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

That's a sign without a control city/destination, but with a "recreational and cultural interest area" tab added.

I-70 ends without serving Baltimore, so BURN THE SIGNS WITH FIRE AND BRING THE REVOLUTION!!!!!!

If we just stop entertaining this joke of an argument then HighwayStar will be quiet.

He started it up again.

That's the point. There's a reason "don't feed the troll" is a thing

He's asking for it when he brings it up again.

My kids ask me for candy all the time.  Doesn't mean I have to give it to them.

We shall stop engaging with him (although it's fun sometimes).

[hbelkins]

All this talk about I-70's eastern terminus. How about its western end? What is an appropriate control city to post west of Grand Junction? Cove Fort is basically the same as Washington, Wytheville, Breezewood, etc. -- a major highway intersection in a town with no other significance.

And how about I-40? It goes nowhere near Los Angeles, yet that's posted. And I'm pretty sure that I-40 ends well short of actually entering Wilmington.

[Roadgeekteen]

All this talk about I-70's eastern terminus. How about its western end? What is an appropriate control city to post west of Grand Junction? Cove Fort is basically the same as Washington, Wytheville, Breezewood, etc. -- a major highway intersection in a town with no other significance.

And how about I-40? It goes nowhere near Los Angeles, yet that's posted. And I'm pretty sure that I-40 ends well short of actually entering Wilmington.

I would sign Las Vegas on I-70 west of Grand Junction.

[jmacswimmer]

All this talk about I-70's eastern terminus. How about its western end? What is an appropriate control city to post west of Grand Junction? Cove Fort is basically the same as Washington, Wytheville, Breezewood, etc. -- a major highway intersection in a town with no other significance.

At least at Grand Junction itself, it looks like CDOT took the easy way out and went with "Utah" for the western control (interestingly enough, Utah is clearly a greenout, and going back several years in streetview reveals..."Green River"!)

And how about I-40? It goes nowhere near Los Angeles, yet that's posted. And I'm pretty sure that I-40 ends well short of actually entering Wilmington.

For the sake of being pedantic (), it appears I-40 stops about a mile short of the Wilmington city limits (Google indicates the city limits are around the US 74 intersection on US 117 heading south).


While we're discussing termini of major interstates...I-80 east uses New York throughout much of New Jersey, but ultimately reaches neither the city nor the state!!!

[HighwayStar]

A further requirement should be that the road actually serves the location in question.

Disagree. There are many instances where it would be logical to sign a control city on a route that doesn't officially serve that location, if it's a large population center and that route indirectly serves it. An example of this would be I-70 Baltimore.

Indirect service confuses the purpose of a control city. Control cities are not there for designating all the various destinations a route might take you to, they are to mark the route itself, and therefore must be meaningfully on the route. I-70 ends without serving Baltimore, so an appropriate designation might be "Baltimore Beltway" which has transportation and military significance.

I-70 does not end without serving Baltimore. It connects to the beltway around it which has several highways that take you into Baltimore, it also has an exit at Security Blvd. which connects to Baltimore. Just because I-70 doesn't go into the city doesn't mean it doesn't serve it. I-75 doesn't go into Tampa but it serves it, same with I-80 serving Chicago and Cleveland.

Connecting to a highway that can take you someplace is not enough for control city status. I-90 can take you to New York City, but since it does not serve it it is disqualified.
The examples you cite are not analogous, as those routes were completed as intended for the given level of service, which I-70 was not. (Also key is the fact that both of them pass by the cities in question, rather than dead ending to a parking lot on the edge of nothing.

[HighwayStar]

If we just stop entertaining this joke of an argument then HighwayStar will be quiet.

He started it up again.

That's the point. There's a reason "don't feed the troll" is a thing

I take exception to that. Per Wikipedia trolling is
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts flame wars or intentionally upsets people on the Internet. This is typically done by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community

None of my posts here are intended to upset, nor are they off topic, digressive, or intentionally inflammatory. I have a different view of what a control city should be, and some may disagree, but that is a long way from trolling.

[Roadgeekteen]

A further requirement should be that the road actually serves the location in question.

Disagree. There are many instances where it would be logical to sign a control city on a route that doesn't officially serve that location, if it's a large population center and that route indirectly serves it. An example of this would be I-70 Baltimore.

Indirect service confuses the purpose of a control city. Control cities are not there for designating all the various destinations a route might take you to, they are to mark the route itself, and therefore must be meaningfully on the route. I-70 ends without serving Baltimore, so an appropriate designation might be "Baltimore Beltway" which has transportation and military significance.

I-70 does not end without serving Baltimore. It connects to the beltway around it which has several highways that take you into Baltimore, it also has an exit at Security Blvd. which connects to Baltimore. Just because I-70 doesn't go into the city doesn't mean it doesn't serve it. I-75 doesn't go into Tampa but it serves it, same with I-80 serving Chicago and Cleveland.

Connecting to a highway that can take you someplace is not enough for control city status. I-90 can take you to New York City, but since it does not serve it it is disqualified.
The examples you cite are not analogous, as those routes were completed as intended for the given level of service, which I-70 was not. (Also key is the fact that both of them pass by the cities in question, rather than dead ending to a parking lot on the edge of nothing.

How it was intended to be completed does not have anything to do with modern utility. If I-70 was intended to end at the Park and Ride, would you be in favor of signing Baltimore?