Author Topic: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)  (Read 1833 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 06:19:02 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2017, 10:16:29 am »
What I don't know are the criteria for including a Historic route? I assume it must be signed. What else? Must the route be decommissioned or have a segment relocated?
Just signed. The other stuff adds a layer of complexity as to whether a route is included or not that a driver won't easily know about. Ideally, one would only see signs on decomissioned/bypassed sections, but alas that isn't the case.

The idea of a Historic route having a concurrency with the same numbered route that still exists seems like an oxymoron (how can it be a historic route if it is still a current route? I can understand for the segments that deviate from the current route).
I agree, but it seems that some people want to sign existing routes as historic routes and so have done so. My favourite example for this nonsense is the US6 Historic Route in Provincetown, MA - where it's clearly a bypass (MA6A going through the town) and is current US6.

One route I know is signed but not included is Historic US395 in Riverside, CA.
Added, though it seems to peter out at the north end.

At least with most other systems, there usually some sort of official list maintained by the state DOT.
The issue is that these routes are created or maintained by the state. In some cases they are, in others it's cities and counties (and, obviously, some are just businesses or campaigns).

US 99W signs somewhere along I-5BL(Orland -- a poorly-signed BL that was really borderline for staying in the HB).
I only found one sign on GMSV, in Willows, but added. There's also two in Williams, which is annoying as same first three-letters, so I'm going with Willows and Williams for the abbreviations
The Chico 99E segment followed in part the decommissioned CA99 Business route through Chico, but continued south on Midway where the business route turned east on Park Ave.
The late 2016 GMSV shows CA99 signs northbound on Main, but not His-99E signs either way on the old Bus-99 route, and I can't see it on Midway - this is a recent route, added in the last 10 months. I need more info to add it, though you can add it.
Is there a more systematic way of identifying CA's generally well-signed historic US routes, other than randomly through reports on this forum?
it seems to mostly be cities/counties signing these routes, so there's nothing really unified.

Just because some group erected "Historic Route" signs, what makes a route worth including?
How can a driver tell whether it's a state, county, city, lobby group/non-profit, or business that erected a sign? No one seems to have a problem if a state DOT is the one putting up signs (especially if has its beaurocracy Vogonishly catalogue the routes), what's the problem with signs put up by other entities if drivers can't tell the difference?

Is the some sort of "official designation" by state DOTs for historic routes?
I don't believe so. IA seems to be heading down that path, though - hence the US20 presentation to get the route designated, with Iowa DOT getting cities and counties signing the route.

If not, who determined which routes are included?
the contributors - I've gone with if it's signed, it's included.

How will we know if the route list is complete? Is there some "master" list?
We won't - to some extent. But think of it more of a grab-bag, rather than a coherent and complete system, and why does it matter? The point is to map these routes (and also doing the job of documenting them), where we've discovered them, and to map our travels on them.

For gbna, SABRE, is the master list that the DfT directs people too, and most of the changes I've made in the last year or two, I've also made on the 'official' list of SABRE, therefore the master list is basically TM contributor findings (from posts on road geek forums, signage on streetview/photos, etc) - ie the same as this system.

For a lot of European systems, I've found no official list for and used wikipedia or wegenwiki, along with mapping data, to make the routes.
Will early US "auto routes" like the Lincoln Highway (which covered parts of US30, US50, and others) be included especially in places where is deviates from the existing alignment? (I know a great deal of signage exists in the Midwest on parts of this route).
While I personally have no objections to signed Lincoln Highway segments being included in this system, the feedbank I've recieved so far that it doesn't belong in this system.

What about routes that had different alignments over time?
If there signed. cf US66's different routings.

I just wonder whether enough consideration was given to the above questions. The system is already in "preview," so there is probably little chance of going back now.
I've certainly considered all those questions. The move to preview has a lot to do with making the routes more accessible and getting other people to engage and consider questions like these - the system was devel status for two years and there was mostly silence on this.

Offline bejacob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 01:37:12 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #46 on: September 20, 2017, 12:54:36 pm »
I appreciate the thoughtful comments.

I'm still slightly concerned about "just signed" as the sole criteria.

I discovered a few years back that a US62Bus sign placed on the Ohio side of the Ohio River was a mistake and that a US62Bus did not actually exist in this area despite signage to the contrary. That may not be relevant if there is no "official" list of Historic route, but recalling this old discussion, I thought it worth mentioning.

Then there is situation in Paso Robles with US101. It's in the HB as US101BusPas, but signed in the field as "Historic US101" Does that mean this route needs to be included in both the usausb and usaush systems?

The bottom line for me is this. It's your (the TM contributors) sandbox. I just play in it. The thoughts and opinions of those developing and maintaining these systems are what really count.
If these routes are in the HB and I've driven them, they go on my list. (I didn't get to 100,000 miles by leaving things out  ;)).

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
  • Last Login:Today at 02:33:49 am
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #47 on: October 12, 2017, 12:58:41 am »
Si, don't know if this will actually provide any new info for you, but nonetheless:

Offline Barefoot Driver

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:October 20, 2017, 02:43:14 pm
  • always barefoot, wear least possible
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #48 on: October 18, 2017, 03:18:48 am »
please note that there is a segment of historic us-6 in polk county, ia.
the link is
i can remember when this road went onto sw 8th in altoona (from hubbell, instead of staying with that to i-80 as it does now) and continued onto what is now f48 (and that county road sports some of the g. a. r. highway signage) but am unsure as to where it joined up with 6 beyond that.
i also recall when hickman rd east of merle hay was part of 6. i knew this because the street had no curbs, just shoulders.
finally, has there been any effort to find old alignments of other highways? i know that us-65 (the “jefferson highway”) used to follow ne 14th and turn onto grand, go to w 7th, cross the viaduct, follow 7th to indianola av, and rejoin se 14th from there. the reason for that was that the railroad bridge on se 14th had not been constructed yet. (i have no idea what us-69 did then, since that highway also followed e 14th and still does.)
happy travels all!
drive barefoot—it’s safer and more comfortable!
(i am always barefoot.)
whenever possible also, find a new highway to clinch!

Offline Jeff Morrison

  • TM Collaborator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 86
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 08:07:31 pm
Re: usaush (United States Historic US Routes)
« Reply #49 on: Yesterday at 07:38:34 pm »
I've synced up points so that these routes intersect properly with other routes. I've not fixed NMPs.

This means that various I-, US and state route files have been changed slightly. I've pinged the relevant people via Github (apart from Jeff M, who isn't on there). Please check you are OK with the changes I'm proposing.

Jeff M: IA, IL,

I need to apologize for not being on this earlier. I don't check this forum every day, nor do I check every thread. That said, I have a HUGE problem with this. Manipulating active system files for a prototype defeats the entire purpose of having one person in charge of a state.

There is a world of difference between making suggestions and going in and changing stuff. That complicates my end for having a complete set of up-to-date local files, and for when I'm working on something else - the Baraboo bypass affected half a dozen files.

The change to IA 21 was unnecessary because there was already a waypoint name there, the name of the current route (CRF29). Does a historic route name supersede an existing designation? For a street without a current designation, is the naming convention "OldUSXX" or "USXXHist" or what?

I fear that adding all these historic routes is missing the forest for the trees - or missing the forest to catalog every dead stump. The segment of US 6 in Des Moines pointed out above hasn't been part of mainline 6 since 1934 and hasn't been signed as anything since the early 1960s.

I know it's two months after the fact, but I am very not OK with this. If we're going to make historic routes a thing, we need to set parameters, probably limit it to very significant highways and alignments, and have the routes maintained by that state's administrator.