Ah! Here’s that SVG file if we want it: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_80\_(CA_historic).svg
I guess the direct file URL would be: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/US_80_(CA_historic).svg
is_in=* is deprecated, but is_in:state=* on a route relation is a separate tagging scheme that indicates the relation’s scope, distinguishing it from similarly numbered routes. This information usually matches a spatial query but not always. Also, it often appears on the shield as part of the route’s identity, particularly in the case of a Historic U.S. Route.
The network=* and modifier=* tags are correct in my opinion. “Historic” is typically a banner like “Alt” or “Business”. The signs tend to be more embellished, but from a data consumer standpoint this is a good analogy.
The California legislature and/or Caltrans is also responsible for designating U.S. Routes and Interstate highways with the approval of AASHTO, not to mention historic California state routes. This consideration would be more pertinent to operator=* perhaps, but not network=*.
Please keep the ref=* as is. A data consumer should not have to read a Wikipedia article to figure out that the number to display on the shield is 80.
If anything, old_ref=US 80 should go. This is a present-day route, not the former alignment of a defunct route.
Let’s use related_law=* as well to make this more discoverable.
3 Likes
Thanks for the clarifications!
Looking more carefully at the note, we might leave that as is too. The thing that caught my eye was the phrase “whether or not they were actually US 80.” But after surveying the Historic US Route 80 signs, I think that’s the right way to say this because one or two signs are placed alongside pavement that was not originally part of US 80.
I’m thinking specifically of:
… which are adjacent to pavement that was realigned after I-8 was built.
1 Like
If we’re close to settling on the tags, let’s look a the relation membership too.
The relevant paragraphs from ACR 123 (2006) are (with emphasis added):
WHEREAS, Although today largely supplanted by Interstate 8,
traversable segments of former U.S. Highway Route 80 remain, some as
secondary state highways and others relinquished to cities and
counties as local roads; and
WHEREAS, It is appropriate to designate any remaining segments of
former U.S. Highway Route 80 as Historic U.S. Highway Route 80; now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate
thereof concurring, That the Legislature hereby recognizes the
remaining segments of former U.S. Highway Route 80 for their
historical significance and importance in the development of
California, and designates those segments as Historic U.S. Highway
Route 80; and be it further
Resolved, That the Department of Transportation is requested, upon
application by a local agency or private entity, to identify any
remaining traversable segments of former U.S. Highway Route 80; and
be it further
The ACR makes a distinction between I-8, which supplanted US Route 80, and the “remaining segments” of US Route 80 that are the sections of roads and highways that predate I-8.
If that’s the right way to read the ACR, it means that none of the parts of I-8 should be included in the relation. So, none of the highway lanes, even where they might follow the historic alignment of US Route 80 because they were reconstructed and are no longer “remaining segments” of US Route 80. And none of the ramps, bridges, or interchanges that were constructed with I-8.
2 Likes
The “remaining traversable segments” of US Route 80 could include a number of road segments that are not currently in Relation: 80 (9712655) | OpenStreetMap .
Things like Way: West Evan Hewes Highway (617091696) | OpenStreetMap out to the ruins of Miller’s Garage, which was certainly part of US Route 80 and is still traversable (although I’m not sure that this segment qualifies as a frontage road for I-8).
Or Way: Center of the World Drive (617043999) | OpenStreetMap , which is also part of the pre-interstate US Route 80.
Even Mountain Springs Road could be part of the relation since it was part of US Route 80. But I’m not sure whether it falls under Caltrans’ purview for signage since it’s now a BLM route.
On the other hand, the western end of Mountain Springs Road which was also part of US Route 80, is now on private property, gated, and signed no trespassing. I think that would no longer be “traversable” as intended by ACR 123. So, it shouldn’t be in the relation.
Likewise, the bits and pieces of the old US Route 80 paving alongside I-8 are no longer traversable, so they shouldn’t be in the relation either.
I think @Flap_Slimy_Outward and I had a disagreement about whether Way: 411596416 | OpenStreetMap could be a member of Relation: 80 (9712655) | OpenStreetMap . That’s a legitimate edge case. The pavement was certainly once part of US Route 80, but is it still a “remaining traversable segment”? There’s nothing physically stopping you from driving on it, but it looks like abandoned pavement, so it could go either way.
And I see we have another Relation: Old U.S. Route 80 (20086438) | OpenStreetMap which is apparently a duplicate of Relation: 80 (9712655) | OpenStreetMap ?
This stretch was first mapped as part of an effort to identify abandoned traces of U.S. 80. Neither the name=* back then nor the redundant route relation that’s there now corresponds to any official designation per se.
As for whether this stretch belongs to the main route relation in question, how likely is it that anyone would signpost it leading to or from the dead end? After all, that’s the practical effect of the legislation.
Well, none of the segments of US Route 80 in Imperial County have historic signs. Certainly the odds of this particular bit of pavement getting a historical sign are vanishingly small. But if the signage is the criteria for inclusion in the relation, we would have a very different relation than we have now.
Edit: Not that I’m opposed to using the signage as the criteria, or even abandoning the relation entirely now that the historic route signs have been mapped.
There should be a route relation that covers at least the signposted segments, if not also the other designated segments. The relation enables a rendered map such as OSM Americana to label Historic U.S. Routes, as one would typically find on a transportation map.
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Anyways, I have a wrench to throw into this discussion. ACR 123 directed Caltrans to develop standards for signposting segments of the route. The standards in the CA MUTCD include the following guidance:
Suggested placement should be staggered in each direction at approximately 10 mile intervals on conventional highways and 25 mile intervals on freeways for the S18(CA) and S25(CA) signs.
The provision for freeways suggests that maybe some portions of I-8 might be eligible for signs after all, but this is theoretical until someone actually applies and ponies up the money to erect those signs. Caltrans has made no provision to post these markers along something that’s neither a conventional highway nor a freeway, such as a former alignment that has been repurposed as a bike trail, or one that is left intact but abandoned.
1 Like
As I was saying, that leftover bit of pavement out by Winterhaven is really an edge case. It could justifiably be omitted from the route relation and tagged as disused:highway=primary. But even then, it should be eligible for an old_ref=US 80 tag.
It’s not in the route relation now, but the CA MUTCD standard would allow signage on the section of Way: Wildwood Glen Lane (244125505) | OpenStreetMap at least from the Sweetwater River Bridge to the locked gate. Beyond the gate it’s no longer a conventional highway, so that part would not be eligible for signage. Presumably that’s the right distinction for the route relation membership?
1 Like
And let’s give reconstructed road segments some consideration. The intersection of Way: Wildwood Glen Lane (617107454) | OpenStreetMap with CA 79 was rebuilt sometime after US Route 80 ceased to exist (possibly when the I-8/CA 79 interchange was built). So, that’s no longer one of the “remaining traversable segments” of US Route 80.
There’s a similar issue with the terminus of US Route 80 in downtown San Diego. US Route 80 used to follow Market Street to the intersection with Pacific Highway (then, US Route 101). However, the section of Market Street between Columbia Street and Pacific Highway was demolished and rebuilt as an intersection with the (new) Harbor Drive. That’s another place where the current roads are no longer “remaining traversable segments” of US Route 80.
To me, it looks like these intersections would be excluded from the Historic US Route 80 relation. Unless, of course, Caltrans puts signs up that say otherwise.
I need a 
emoji reaction. Did you know about maybe:*=*? We’re almost there…
1 Like
Maybe that was drawing too fine of a distinction. But as long as we can agree that Way: Lake Jennings Park Road (594955970) | OpenStreetMap is not part of Historic US Route 80 by virtue of connecting the rerouted segment of East Main Street with Way: Olde Highway 80 (642868933) | OpenStreetMap , then I think we’re on the same page.
1 Like
Yes, it is “traversible,” but it dead-ends at a cul-de-sac, making it unsuitable for the route relation. Also, it is a frontage road, since it parallels I-8.
Since it is connected to I-8 on both ends, that portion of Center of the World Drive could be part of the relation.*
No, most certainly not, since it doesn’t connect to I-8 at all.
Correct. If you really want to let others know that it was part of US 80, you can add old_ref=US 80 to it. Even better, you can map that exact portion as being part of US 80 in OpenHistoricalMap!
It dead-ends a few feet/meters to the west, meaning it should not be in the relation.
Nah, that was me changing ways from name=Old Highway 80 to ref=Old US 80 (since “Highway 80” is, IMO, a duplicate of the way’s ref=* key).
Can you show us evidence that either the Legislature or Caltrans considers connectivity in the process to designate or signpost Historic U.S. Route 80? All I see is an official policy limiting eligibility to conventional highways and freeways. Note that “highway” in an official context means any public roadway, as in highway=* minus the pathways.
Or are you disputing that this route relation should be based on either official designation or route markers on the ground? If you prefer a route that’s practical to follow linearly, I think we need to be talking about a third-party site rather than either OSM or OHM.
Whatever the criteria for the Historic Route relation ends up being, please don’t remove idiosyncratic names like “Old Highway 80” in favor of structured data. There isn’t a one-to-one relationship between streets by this name and routes by that number, so we’re incurring dataloss that’s difficult to recover. I think we’ve already discussed this with you on a few occasions.
2 Likes
This is exactly what I’m trying to say. Let’s pretend that Caltrans designates Historic US 80 in San Diego County, from the border with Imperial County at I-8 to the city of San Diego itself. In this hypothetical scenario (where the route would need to stretch a long way), it would be unlikely that Caltrans would designate a random frontage road with a cul-de-sac that was originally part of US 80 as part of this historic route. I mean, Historic Route 66 doesn’t follow random dirt roads just because they happened to be part of the original US 66.
We don’t have to speculate. We have the actual text of what the Legislature designated and ordered Caltrans to set into motion. They formulated it as a preservation project rather than a transportation project, focusing on the physical infrastructure rather than the itinerary. The recitals make clear that they aren’t talking about I-8 per se:
WHEREAS, Although today largely supplanted by Interstate 8, traversable segments of former U.S. Highway Route 80 remain, some as secondary state highways and others relinquished to cities and counties as local roads
Earlier, I remarked that Caltrans left open the possibility of a freeway segment. That would clearly only apply to a segment that was already a freeway at the time U.S. 80 was decommissioned. Maybe it could follow a segment of I-8 that predates the Interstate designation, but a dead-end frontage road has as much claim to that status.
Of course, this is not how any legislature would designate an ordinary U.S. Route now or back in the day. They’d aim for a more coherent route based on connectivity rather than historical criteria.
We both agree that Historic Route 80 doesn’t follow any dirt roads. The Caltrans policy excludes dirt roads from consideration.
Yeah, please don’t do that. There are parts of Olde Highway 80 that were never part of US Route 80, so the name and ref really are not interchangeable.
Let’s take a closer look at Los Terrinitos (or Los Terrenitos, depending on whose spelling you prefer).
The Los Terrinitos Bridge predates US Route 80 and Los Terrinitos Road was the original alignment for US Route 80. Then, as part of some planned upgrades to US Route 80, the Sweetwater River Bridge was built in 1951 and US Route 80 was realigned to follow Wildwood Glen Lane.
When I-8 went in and replaced US Route 80, Japatul Valley Road (now CA 79) was realigned to become the interchange with I-8 and the intersections of Los Terrinitos Road and Wildwood Glen Lane were rebuilt to the new Japatul Valley Road alignment. [Edit] The new alignment cut off a bit of Wildwood Glen Lane and a section of the old paving was abandoned.
At the same time, the eastern end of Wildwood Glen Lane was cut off and abandoned. That happened because I-8 had a new cut into the hillside where Wildwood Glen Lane used to run so that the I-8 paving could sit at a lower elevation than the previous road.
I think we’re in agreement that the abandoned bits of pavement for Wildwood Glen Lane should stay out of the Historic US Route 80 relation and that those segments can have old_ref=US 80 tags.
But the current Los Terrinitos Road and Wildwood Glen Lane over their respective bridges are still in use and maintained, and they have excellent claims to be part of the history of US Route 80.
Should those roads be included in the Historic US Route 80 relation?
I think so, because they are exactly the type of remaining traversable segments of US Route 80 that the California Legislature designated in ACR 123 (2006).
2 Likes
@Flap_Slimy_Outward I went back and restored the name tags that you deleted from various roads in Changset: 181648767 | OpenStreetMap and Changeset: 177238697 | OpenStreetMap . If there are other cases where you have deleted name tags, please let us know so that we can work with you to restore that data.