Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Staying with San Jose, the next batch of route file updates will include CA 82. The part of that route within San Jose, between I-880 and US 101, was relinquished to the city in 2011. GMSV imagery from 2015 or later on I-280, US 101, and CA 87 shows signs for exits to CA 82 within San Jose, and on an exit ramp from NB I-880 showing CA 82 both west and east of I-880. So either Caltrans is being sloppy about updating its signs (not unheard of) or it's treating CA 82 like it still exists in San Jose. However, once you're on the former CA 82 between I-880 and US 101, there appears to be no CA 82 signage (even though state law requires that from the city), and in particular there is no such signage to guide drivers in either direction through the four turns required to stay on former CA 82 in San Jose.

I'm inclined to truncate CA 82 at I-880, later when I deal with some other relinquishments.
2
Other Discussion / Re: New Travels and Stats Discussion
« Last post by dave1693 on November 21, 2017, 01:35:12 am »
I just finished a trip to Connecticut in which i drove I-384 for the first time (and clinched it), and added pieces of some US and CT highways (clinching one of the latter) as well as another piece of NY 9A because bus travel is weird. I'm not back home yet (visiting family for Thanksgiving) but don't expect to be adding any more new mileage on the rest of this trip.
3
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Last post by yakra on November 20, 2017, 10:03:38 pm »
Posted in another thread, but relevant here:
Perhaps a more relevant question might be: are the "Winnipeg City Routes" (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) (canmbw) actually maintained by the province, or by the city? I don't know, but perhaps someone on the forum does, and the answer could be relevant here.
Maintained by the city I believe.
The Winnipeg Routes are a unique case, a one-off; they're the only such numbered/signed city system in Manitoba; it's highly unlikely that there will ever be another in the future. As such, there won't be any confusion with any other potential city systems, or a need to differentiate multiple such systems within Manitoba.
Some quotes from the canbmw thread:
Jim: "These seem to be an unusual case where they are well-signed and seem to take the place, within the Perimeter Highway, of what might normally be expected to be part of the provincial system."
mapcat: "I agree that they're a special case, and not analogous to USA county routes, or other smaller district systems we don't include."
I agree with this assessment. (Of course, having drafted the system. :) ) I'll note that not only are many of them extensions of canmb/canmbs routes from outside the Perimeter Highway, but many are themselves former Provincial highway alignments.
The canmbw thread blew up a bit too fast, and I've just left it alone for a while, but some day I'd like to revisit it, hash out a few of the topics therein as needed (maybe even with a topic split), and move canmbw toward activation again. But it's a low priority right now.
I still haven't gotten back around to that.
I have a good number of different sub-projects I'm working on, with the result that any given one (or all) of them will move along slowly.
My main priority right now is an ongoing Arkansas Cleanup. Once that's more out of the way (or I want to take a break from it) I'll put more attention on canmbw or usanyp, whichever I think would face a quicker path to activation.
4
Quote
I also removed from CA 130 to Mt. Hamilton the relinquished segment within San Jose city limits. The relinquished route has no continuation or other route signage, on the route itself or on connecting Interstates. This leaves CA 130 disconnected from the rest of the state highway system.
Nice! That means I've clinched it!  ;D
5
I have found that CA authorities - state and local - don't maintain business routes whatsoever.  Even Interstate business routes.

Let's just say that maintenance is "uneven". But I've not spotted many candidates for deletion from the HB, since there usually is at least a little remnant signage to justify keeping them in the HB. Business routes often fade away as local authorities who maintain most BRs in California lose interest, but it takes awhile.

New BRs seem to be rare, though. For example, the relatively new CA 65 bypass of Lincoln has no business route on the bypassed road, and apparently Lincoln officials didn't ask for one. I've argued on the aaroads forum that they have been largely replaced by passenger-operated smartphones, and logo signage, to help drivers find downtown and other traveler services on their own.
6
I have found that CA authorities - state and local - don't maintain business routes whatsoever.  Even Interstate business routes.
7
I'm continuing my cleanup of usaca routes, including synching them up with the increasing number of finalized routes. I'm down to about 30 routes left, most of them short but including some urban routes with relinquishment issues. I hope to take care of the rest by year's end, to get usaca ready for peer review (in addition to the comments received so far).

In my latest (pending) pull request, I've deleted the completely unsigned CA 25 business route in Hollister. The partially-overlapping CA 156 business route remains, since it appears to be only poorly signed (in a state like California, you can't be too picky about route signage quality).

I also removed from CA 130 to Mt. Hamilton the relinquished segment within San Jose city limits. The relinquished route has no continuation or other route signage, on the route itself or on connecting Interstates. This leaves CA 130 disconnected from the rest of the state highway system.
8
In-progress Highway Systems & Work / Re: canmbw: Winnipeg City Routes
« Last post by 7/8 on November 20, 2017, 07:03:45 pm »
How come these are no longer in preview status? Was it decided that these are too much like country roads? I would like to add my travels in the system and it seems like it shame that I can't when they appear ready-to-go.
9
Other Discussion / Re: New Travels and Stats Discussion
« Last post by 7/8 on November 20, 2017, 07:01:14 pm »
I went on a trip from Thursday morning and got back late Sunday night. My brother and I drove up to Winnipeg through the U.P. He's moving to Manitoba for work, and I wanted to tag along for the trip :). Google says it was around 1300 miles / 2100 km one way (I flew home since my brother needs to keep his car).

I added three new states (WI, MN, and ND) and 26 new counties (24 US and 2 Canadian). I clinched M-123, the WI and MN portions of US 2, and MB 75. I also drove I-475 (MI), M-68, M-28, WI 13, and I-29 for the first time.
10
Other Discussion / Re: county collecting (from AARoads)
« Last post by bejacob on November 20, 2017, 04:12:52 pm »
Quote from: hbelkins
Here's your assignment, should you choose to accept it.

Plot the shortest, best and most direct route to pick up all the counties in white that lie north of I-20, beginning in the north and ending in Jackson.

While I enjoy being able to combine TM and county collecting, I spend more than enough time planning my own travels. This is the first time I've seen a county collector ask someone else to do his/her homework.  ;D Plot your own damn route.  ;)

As a suggestion for anyone looking for a route optimization tool, try the CoPilot app. After inputting stops along the way, there is an option to "optimize stops." It isn't free, but IMHO it's one of the better route planning/gps mapping apps.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10