[1][2] Dating to the reign of emperor Augustus,[3] the bridge was on a route of the Via Aemilia, the ancient Roman road running between Ariminum (modern Rimini) and Placentia (Piacenza).

[6][7] The stones of the bridges, prized for their excellent quality, were quarried over subsequent centuries,[6][8] contributing also to restorations of Rimini's Ponte di Tiberio.

[3][8] It was built on the Via Aemilia,[12] an ancient Roman road between Ariminum (modern Rimini) and Placentia (Piacenza) that dates to Marcus Aemilius Lepidus in 187 BC.

[4] The section of the Via Aemilia between Savignano sul Rubicone and Santa Giustina, now known as the Via Emilia Vecchia,[12] replaced an earlier routing of the road through Santarcangelo di Romagna.

[1] In the 14th century, Galeotto I Malatesta, Lord of Rimini, replaced the Augustan bridge in an effort to reduce the importance of Santarcangelo, which had become a vicariate under the Avignon popes.

Exposing the upstream part of the spur, the excavation uncovered regularly-shaped stones from the Roman bridge, and a medieval pier a few centimetres below the original trench.

[8][12] The bridge's total length was likely approximately 90 metres (300 feet), longer than Rimini's Ponte di Tiberio,[5] as also suggested by the number of recovered stones.

[8] An 1825 sketch by local engineer Maurizio Brighenti indicated the area where the foundations of the bridge's piers would emerge from the riverbed during dry seasons.

[2][11] With the exception of Luigi Tonini [it], most Riminese local historians favoured the Uso's claim over that of Savignano di Romagna's Fiumicino and the Pisciatello,[6][11] a tributary of the Fiumincino that flows nearer Cesena.

[6] Writing about San Vito in 1681, Martinelli, who restored the Ponte di Tiberio, marvelled that such a grand bridge had been built for "a small stream to be crossed with jumps".

[18] He opined:[2] If I did not know of the unsettled controversy about determining which was the famous ancient Rubicon, I would almost dare say it was this one, where the stones were removed, because it is believable, that in the place where foreign arms were to be avoided, there was, as was customary for the ancient Roman Generosity, a grand structure, in which the Decree was inscribed in large characters, for it is certain, that a grand limit had to be assigned, that made a firm point to the passage of enemy arms, whether this was the Bridge, which curved over the same Rubicon, or another grand structure on the banks of the same.In Alberoni's 1735 grant for more stones to be removed from the quarry, the bridge at San Vito is called "the ancient ruins of the Bridge of the Rubicon River vulgarly called the Uso that are uselessly underwater".

[5][6] Despite the official support for the Fiumincino, which was renamed the Rubicon, local historians continued to debate the site of the ancient river,[6] believing that the decision was arbitrary and politically motivated.

[19] In the post-war years, Augusto Campana [it], a local historian who wrote on the Via Emilia, expressed interest in San Vito's claim.

[6] In March–April 2013, an article by Rimondini in Ariminum, the local history and culture publication of Rimini's Rotary Club, revisited San Vito's claim.

San Vito's claim was consequently featured in several reports in the national and international press,[15] including Avvenire,[5][15] Il Resto del Carlino, La Voce,[15] and several Japanese newspapers.