National Historic Trail auto tour routes

[quincylvania]

There are 21 National Historic Trails as of 2024. Unlike other members of the National Trails System, the historic trails tend to be signed as auto tour routes on modern roads rather than hiking trails. These routes are very Americana and the shields would make a great addition to the style.

Updated 7/7/24: We've been informed that most or all of these shields are federally protected as "Official Insignia" and may require explicit permission for use. I've updated the below list to track this.

Done	Trail	Relation	Protected?	PR
✳️	Ala Kahakai (no apparent auto tour)
	Butterfield Overland (designated in 2023, not clear if auto tour route yet exists)
	California	17787081	Fed reg
✳️	Captain John Smith Chesapeake (no apparent auto tour)
✳️	Chilkoot (no apparent auto tour)
	El Camino Real de los Tejas	14899370	Fed reg
	El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro		Fed reg
✳️	Iditarod (no apparent auto tour)
	Juan Bautista de Anza		Fed reg
	Lewis and Clark	2517279	Fed reg
	Mormon Pioneer	✅ 17793090	Fed reg	#1163
	Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo)		?
	Old Spanish		Fed reg
✅	Oregon	✅ 17706726	Fed reg	#1115
✅	Overmountain Victory	✅ 10967459	Fed reg	#1117
	Pony Express	✅ 17748501	Fed reg	#1163
	Santa Fe		Fed reg
✅	Selma to Montgomery	✅ 13302056	Fed reg	#1116
	Star-Spangled Banner		Fed reg
	Trail of Tears	14335243	Fed reg
	Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route	15649521	Fed reg

[ZeLonewolf]

This is great! The Washington-Rochambeau route is of particular interest to me because it goes through my area. I've already mapped the section from the Connecticut border to the end in Newport. There are signs all along the route!

Here's the route relation so far: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/15649521 I assigned it a network value of US:W3R based on the organization that manages the route.

[claysmalley]

I assigned it a network value of US:W3R based on the organization that manages the route.

The Selma to Montgomery NHT is currently mapped with network=US:NHT. Would it be better to continue using this network value, and distinguish routes by name, as is done with several other touristy route networks? Do these routes have similar shields on the ground?

[ZeLonewolf]

The Washington-Rochambeau route doesn't even have a consistent sign along its route. This one is used in RI: But this one also seems to be in use in other states:

[ZeLonewolf]

I assigned it a network value of US:W3R based on the organization that manages the route.

The Selma to Montgomery NHT is currently mapped with network=US:NHT. Would it be better to continue using this network value, and distinguish routes by name, as is done with several other touristy route networks?

I agree this is a more correct tagging scheme given that these trails are all part of a network. I don't know what to do about the competing shield situation though.

[quincylvania]

I think using route=road + network=US:NHT is okay as long as people know these refer to the auto routes and not the designated historic trails themselves (which may or may not exist as modern trails). Not all 21 trails have auto routes.

As for the shields, all the trails have standard triangle-ish markers that seem to be the modern preference for signage. I think the competing signs are older, either predating the NHT designation or the introduction of the standard signage.

[1ec5]

There’s also an “Auto Tour Route” sign as of the MUTCD 11th edition:

[1ec5]

Like the Washington–Rochambeau, the Lewis and Clark Trail is signposted and marked on maps using a distinct shield:

[1ec5]

[quincylvania]

I've been mapping some of these, and I'm wondering if it's an issue to have super routes with subrelations for each state or section, with names like name=Oregon National Historic Trail Auto Tour Route (KS). All components of the same route presumably have the same shield, and no ref value, so we'd want to simply use overrideByName like so:

overrideByName: {
      "Oregon National Historic Trail Auto Tour Route": {
        spriteBlank: "shield_us_nht_oregon",
      },

Can we do this without having a separate entry for each name (i.e. ignore the trailing parens)? Or ingest the super route name? I don't really want to need to have ten subrelations with identical names, nor squish together all the component routes.

[ZeLonewolf]

I think that the "(State)" piece should not be in the name tag because it's not part of the name. That can go in description and also solves the technical issue.

Edit: is_in:state might also be an option here.

[quincylvania]

I think that the "(State)" piece should not be in the name tag because it's not part of the name.

Okay I see that seems to be the convention, thanks.

[1ec5]

is_in:state might also be an option here.

Yes, this is the structured option, with description as a convenience to mappers.

I don't really want to need to have ten subrelations with identical names, nor squish together all the component routes.

Note that OpenMapTiles only considers the tags on the relations that directly contain a given way, not any of their route superrelations or superroute superrelations.

iD normally constructs a label that includes disambiguators, which would presumably address your concern about identically named relations. However, it has some room for improvement, like openstreetmap/iD#8707 openstreetmap/iD#9588 or appending is_in:* where appropriate.

[quincylvania]

I've updated the original post to link to federal restrictions on the trail insignia, if found.

[ZeLonewolf]

Well, these signs just started showing up in RI!