NJ 444: Garden State Parkway?

[Roadsguy]

Is the Garden State Parkway secretly designated NJ 444? Secret or not real at all, Google's gone overboard again with "correctness."

http://goo.gl/maps/35Z7K

(Is there a secret designation tag in OSM? Like how PA 283 is really PA 300?)

(For the record, this is solved. )

[Alps]

The answer to your first question is easily researched. There's no reason for a secret designation tag on a map, because maps are for following, and no one's following a secret number.

[Roadsguy]

Yeah, I forgot.

But I thought I saw a "penndot_ref" tag somewhere in OSM, for a secret designation. (Maybe SR 6001 for the outer lanes of the Boulevard in Philly?) But it's certainly a fake tag for reference, since "penndot" can only refer to one state.

[NE2]

unsigned_ref is used sometimes. But isn't there already a NJDOT_SRI or something?

[Interstatefan78]

unsigned_ref is used sometimes. But isn't there already a NJDOT_SRI or something?

NJDOT does have the SLD for the GSP itself the link is http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/sldiag/00000444__-.pdf

[dgolub]

Is the Garden State Parkway secretly designated NJ 444? Secret or not real at all, Google's gone overboard again with "correctness."

Yes, that's the secret designation for it.  There's a couple of others as well.  NJ 445 is the Palisades Parkway, and NJ 700 is the portion of the New Jersey Turnpike south of where I-95 splits off.

[Roadsguy]

Makes sense.

Semi-on-topic: I hear the Merritt Parkway was once CT 999.

[cpzilliacus]

Makes sense.

Semi-on-topic: I hear the Merritt Parkway was once CT 999.

Same theme - Virginia's Colonial Parkway (National Park Service maintenance) is "secret" SR 90003.

The Dulles Airport Access Road (always maintained by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority) (not to be confused with the adjacent Va. 267, the Dulles Toll Road) is "secret" SR 90004.

The Virginia portion of the George Washington Memorial Parkway (also National Park Service maintenance) is "secret" SR 90005.

[Roadsguy]

Cool, five-digit ones!

Any particular reason the SRI has five extra zeroes before the 444?

[NE2]

I'd tell you but you're a sheep.

[Alps]

I'd tell you but you're a sheep.

Play nice.

Cool, five-digit ones!

Any particular reason the SRI has five extra zeroes before the 444?

Format: 00000444__-.pdf
First 2 digits: County code. 00 for statewide routes - all state highways and 500 series CRs. Otherwise, 01 to 21 alphabetically by county.
Next 3 digits: Town code. 000 for state or county routes. Otherwise, in general there seems to be a numerical increase by town alphabetically. Keep in mind many towns have changed names, so there are rulebreakers.
Next 3 digits: Route number. Obviously.
First underscore: Letter designation. A=Alt, S=Spur, B=Business, T=Truck.
Second underscore: Normally blank. Sometimes two directions of a route are on two completely different roads, and this becomes a Z. It used to be a directional letter (N,S,E,W), but you had confusion with 508S being Spur and 508_S being South (typical example).
Dash: Always a dash.

[roadman65]

Hey in Florida we have a secret SR 91 designation for the FL Turnpike from Golden Glades to its northern terminus and SR 821 along the Homestead Extension, though both routes are signed as one whole mainline turnpike with one exiting number scheme.

It is mentioned on some maps, spite it is not signed.  Even some google and yahoo directions list it in the travel plans and not at all mention the FL Turnpike.  At least with the GSP it is kept secret so no confusion is created as Steve says.

[bugo]

What is it about secret highways named 444?

[empirestate]

The answer to your first question is easily researched. There's no reason for a secret designation tag on a map, because maps are for following, and no one's following a secret number.

What about maps of the internal designations of highways?

[cpzilliacus]

In my perfect world, "secret" route numbers on freeway- and arterial-class roads (except for those that are clearly redundant, like I-595 in Maryland) would be posted. 

I think un-numbered highways (including the GSP, the N.J. 700 part of the Turnpike, Florida's Turnpike, the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and several others) are a source of confusion to at least part of the driving population, and as such, the practice should be proscribed by the MUTCD.

[deathtopumpkins]

I think un-numbered highways (including the GSP, the N.J. 700 part of the Turnpike, Florida's Turnpike, the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and several others) are a source of confusion to at least part of the driving population, and as such, the practice should be proscribed by the MUTCD.

What about all the NY parkways? They're already ingrained in everyone's minds as names with no number, and are posted with the name in a shield, which is just as easy to identify as a number in a shield. Would you consider acronyms acceptable, i.e. "TSP" in a shield for the Taconic?

And what about short connecting routes? Do you think it should then still be acceptable to sign them as "TO [other highway]" or should they be required to have numbers too?

[cpzilliacus]

I think un-numbered highways (including the GSP, the N.J. 700 part of the Turnpike, Florida's Turnpike, the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and several others) are a source of confusion to at least part of the driving population, and as such, the practice should be proscribed by the MUTCD.

What about all the NY parkways? They're already ingrained in everyone's minds as names with no number, and are posted with the name in a shield, which is just as easy to identify as a number in a shield. Would you consider acronyms acceptable, i.e. "TSP" in a shield for the Taconic?

The New York State Parkways are fine just the way they are.

That "TSP" shield is plenty good enough, even though it has a "secret" route number (according to Steve Anderson). Added advantage to the shields on the parkways - they help to distinguish the parkways from general-purpose NYSDOT highways.

I don't feel that way about the Garden State Parkway. 

The GSP shield is not clear enough, even though it is frequently used in the same way that a route number shield would be used.

And what about short connecting routes? Do you think it should then still be acceptable to sign them as "TO [other highway]" or should they be required to have numbers too?

Most have route numbers already, don't they?  Maryland's I-270 Spur ("secret" I-270Y) is less than two miles long, and is not posted with any route number. 

On the other hand, Maryland's I-370 is only slightly longer, and is signposted like any other Interstate highway.

My feeling is that if it is long enough to have a route number, then it is probably long enough to be signed.

[Takumi]

^ I agree with your last point, although I'm not sure how VA 90003 (the Colonial Parkway) would fit in a 3-digit shield. (The other two 9000x routes are at least partially redundant: VA 90004 inside VA 267 and VA 90005 overlapping VA 400 within Alexandria city limits, so they at least can remain hidden.)

[cpzilliacus]

^ I agree with your last point, although I'm not sure how VA 90003 (the Colonial Parkway) would fit in a 3-digit shield. (The other two 9000x routes are at least partially redundant: VA 90004 inside VA 267 and VA 90005 overlapping VA 400 within Alexandria city limits, so they at least can remain hidden.)

Va. 90004 is a distinct road from Va. 267 (with a different purpose from 267), even though it is "inside" the Va. 267 lanes.

As far as fitting 90003 inside a Virginia secondary highway shield, I would assume that an oval-shaped shield would be needed to accommodate  all those digits (please see crude example below I just cooked-up with Photoshop).   

There were once a few of those oval-shaped shields on Va. 286 (Fairfax County Parkway) in the days when  it was 7100, though  not as "extreme" looking as this one.



Because the Colonial Parkway is owned and maintained by  the  National Park Service, maybe it should look like this (and yes, I know that NPS is no longer using Clarendon as its "official" font):



Baltimore-Washington Parkway:

[NJRoadfan]

Both the Turnpike and Parkway don't have reassurance markers posted at on-ramps. I-95 is sparingly signed on Exit 6-18E/W of the Turnpike mainline. US-9 in the areas that it is multiplexed with the GSP is poorly signed as well. The only roadway that has decent signing is the Newark-Bay Extension. Every on-ramp is clearly signed as being part of I-78.

We'll see if the NJ Turnpike Authority's new found respect for the MUTCD includes posting reassurance markers! They did post some reassurance markers for "Temporary" US-9 over the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, which included GSP markers, so there is some hope!

[roadman65]

Both the Turnpike and Parkway don't have reassurance markers posted at on-ramps. I-95 is sparingly signed on Exit 6-18E/W of the Turnpike mainline. US-9 in the areas that it is multiplexed with the GSP is poorly signed as well. The only roadway that has decent signing is the Newark-Bay Extension. Every on-ramp is clearly signed as being part of I-78.

We'll see if the NJ Turnpike Authority's new found respect for the MUTCD includes posting reassurance markers! They did post some reassurance markers for "Temporary" US-9 over the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, which included GSP markers, so there is some hope!

Not every ramp.  The Grand Street/Montgomery Street/Columbus Drive on ramp does not have any I-78 shields.  The Liberty State Park entrance has them beyond the tolls, but I do not think it is mentioned on the park road approaching the Exit 14B Interchange. 

[cpzilliacus]

Both the Turnpike and Parkway don't have reassurance markers posted at on-ramps. I-95 is sparingly signed on Exit 6-18E/W of the Turnpike mainline. US-9 in the areas that it is multiplexed with the GSP is poorly signed as well. The only roadway that has decent signing is the Newark-Bay Extension. Every on-ramp is clearly signed as being part of I-78.

We'll see if the NJ Turnpike Authority's new found respect for the MUTCD includes posting reassurance markers! They did post some reassurance markers for "Temporary" US-9 over the Great Egg Harbor Bridge, which included GSP markers, so there is some hope!

I really wish the NJTP would adopt some new (for them) standards regarding reassurance markers and mileage signs.

[Roadgeek999]

Hey in Florida we have a secret SR 91 designation for the FL Turnpike from Golden Glades to its northern terminus and SR 821 along the Homestead Extension, though both routes are signed as one whole mainline turnpike with one exiting number scheme.

It is mentioned on some maps, spite it is not signed.  Even some google and yahoo directions list it in the travel plans and not at all mention the FL Turnpike.  At least with the GSP it is kept secret so no confusion is created as Steve says.

The designations for Florida's Turnpike are actually posted on its website, so they aren't so secret.  http://www.floridasturnpike.com/about_system.cfm

[roadman65]

Hey in Florida we have a secret SR 91 designation for the FL Turnpike from Golden Glades to its northern terminus and SR 821 along the Homestead Extension, though both routes are signed as one whole mainline turnpike with one exiting number scheme.

It is mentioned on some maps, spite it is not signed.  Even some google and yahoo directions list it in the travel plans and not at all mention the FL Turnpike.  At least with the GSP it is kept secret so no confusion is created as Steve says.

The designations for Florida's Turnpike are actually posted on its website, so they aren't so secret.  http://www.floridasturnpike.com/about_system.cfm

Out in the field, though, is another story. 

[Brandon]

In my perfect world, "secret" route numbers on freeway- and arterial-class roads (except for those that are clearly redundant, like I-595 in Maryland) would be posted. 

I think un-numbered highways (including the GSP, the N.J. 700 part of the Turnpike, Florida's Turnpike, the federal part of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and several others) are a source of confusion to at least part of the driving population, and as such, the practice should be proscribed by the MUTCD.

Names are hardly a source of confusion for the general public when they are used for the road.  The problem lies with the idiotic mapping services that can't figure them out.