The California changeset’s problems are related to some points that have been made in other threads over the last several months. I wasn’t inclined to call anyone out on the forum over it. Now that it’s a scene, I’ll also try to explain the issue with some historical background that out-of-staters may not understand. None of this has any bearing on the changes in Nevada, for what it’s worth.
One road, multiple numbers
The State of California owns many miles of state highways (which we model as highway=* ways). The legislature has organized the State Highway System into a numbered series of state routes (which we model as route=road relations). These routes are enumerated in the Streets and Highways Code (yes, the same legal code that gave rise to the infamous service=driveway2). Section 401 describes Route 101:
Route 101 is from:
(a) Route 5 near Seventh Street in Los Angeles to Route 1, Funston approach, and, subject to Section 72.1, the approach to the Golden Gate Bridge in the Presidio of San Francisco via Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Salinas.
(b) A point in Marin County opposite San Francisco to the Oregon state line via Crescent City.
These routes used to be known as Legislative Routes because they completely differed from the Sign Routes posted by the Department of Highways (now Caltrans). The Sign Routes distinguished between State Routes and U.S. Routes. In 1965, the Legislative Route Numbers were updated to match the Sign Routes, without distinguishing between these two systems. (Interstates would come later.) At that time, Legislative Route 2 became Route 101 to match the U.S. Route 101 signs.
One road, multiple names
Since before the highway numbering system was introduced, various portions of these highways have been officially named by the legislature, Caltrans, local authorities, and private interests in an uncoordinated fashion. Back when Legislative Route 2 still existed, the legislature named it “El Camino Real”, since it follows a famous historical path from the Spanish colonial era. The name comes from Spanish, meaning “The Royal Road” or “The King’s Highway”, but English speakers only use the Spanish name without translation.
Much of the original Legislative Route 2 is still part of U.S. Route 101, but some parts have been bypassed, especially in the San Francisco Bay Area. The name “El Camino Real” stuck to much of the original highway, parts of which are now State Route 82. You can still see this name on street name signs.
Meanwhile, the new highways got different names. If the “Bayshore Freeway” were a surface street, the name would appear regularly at intersections and in addresses. But since it’s a freeway, the name is only rarely posted. Instead, it appears on maps and lives on mostly by word of mouth.
Over the years, the legislature has continued to apply memorial highway names, such as “James Lick Memorial Freeway” and “Colonel William R. ‘Bill’ Lucius Highway”. A memorial highway name gets two guide signs, one on either end of the designation. The designations often overlap, so that a given stretch of U.S. Route 101 might have as many as four different memorial highway names. No one ever uses a memorial highway name for anything. No one.
Regardless of all I’ve written above, most people just refer to the highway by the number of the route that it carries. Depending on the Caltrans district and other factors, signs may say “101 Freeway”, “Highway 101”, “U.S. 101”, or very occasionally “Route 101”. Colloquially, people say “the 101”, “Highway 101”, “U.S. 101”, or just “101”, depending on their dialect. So does Caltrans in their publications, very inconsistently.
As you’re probably aware, we have had a lot of debates over the years about whether the highways that carry numbered routes can be named after those route numbers. I think there’s some merit to pasting a route name on individual ways. But of all the possible number-derived names, “Route” is the least likely to be used on a U.S. Route.
One changeset, multiple errors
Changeset 183,896,352 tries to ensure that every way along U.S. Route 101 has a name=* and official_name=* tag by:
- Adding
official_name=Route 101 to each way. This name exists almost exclusively in the Streets and Highways Code.
- Adding
official_name=* based on names described in this article section on the English Wikipedia.
- Applying “El Camino Real” to sections of present-day U.S. Route 101 that did not exist back when that name was designated on Legislative Route 2.
- Making that
official_name=*name=*, regardless of the facts on the ground.
- Changing
old_name=* where one memorial highway name overlaps another.
- Changing
alt_name:en=El Camino Real name:en=The King’s Highway even though no one ever calls it that.
@Flap_Slimy_Outward notes that they got very confused trying to model the Wikipedia article in OSM. I don’t blame them. As an encyclopedia rather than a GIS dataset, Wikipedia sacrificed precision in the interest of readability. For one thing, they never note when a stretch of the highway has no name, practically speaking, because that would be so boring to read over and over again. Another problem is that the English Wikipedia’s roadgeek community has moved on to edit the AARoads Wiki instead, so many road articles are now being maintained by less knowledgeable editors who might not get these nuances right. I think we all take the shortcut of relying on an encyclopedia from time to time, but a change this dramatic would benefit from digging a little deeper for the tertiary source’s own sources.
The closest thing we have to an authoritative source for state highway names is Named Freeways, Highways, Structures, and Other Appurtenances in California, an annual listing published by Caltrans. Last year’s 2024 edition is the latest I can find. The introduction covers what I’ve explained and more. It pulls together multiple sources of names, from legislative acts to names that have survived from the pre-highway era. I highly recommend preferring this document over Wikipedia as a source for name=* and official_name=* on state highways.
(Ignore the “All rights reserved” on the cover page. That’s a great example of a government agency unaware that they have no right to any copyright.)
