Author Topic: IN: I-69 Section 5  (Read 3380 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Today at 06:11:34 am
Re: IN: I-69 Section 5
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2018, 12:50:33 am »

Offline froggie

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 801
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 07:53:11 pm
Re: IN: I-69 Section 5
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2018, 09:24:02 am »
Simplicity vs. accuracy.  In this case, I'd vote for simplicity and leave the end at Exit 134.  Yakra has a good point about odd endings that are temporary.

The "CooLn" point, IMO, should be hidden and used as a shaping point.

Offline oscar

  • TM Collaborator
  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1524
  • Last Login:Today at 03:03:34 pm
    • Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: IN: I-69 Section 5
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2018, 12:14:01 pm »
Simplicity vs. accuracy.  In this case, I'd vote for simplicity and leave the end at Exit 134.  Yakra has a good point about odd endings that are temporary.

I agree. For among other reasons, that's my takeaway from the Arnprior drama, where we used interchanges as the ON 417 endpoint even with evidence like route markers indicating the route continued past the last interchange.

The Arnprior story played out mainly on the CHM forum, but its third phase was recounted here. While we were jabbering away about whether to place the endpoint at exit 180, I found that MTO went out and built a new exit 184. Later, mapcat spotted new exit 187. In both cases, we moved the west endpoint to the westernmost interchange.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1627
  • Last Login:Today at 10:09:32 am
Re: IN: I-69 Section 5
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2018, 08:05:07 pm »
I'd be in favor of extending I-69 a bit only if there weren't another route there on which users could claim mileage. Since IN 37 isn't going away, I prefer the simplicity of keeping the end at the exit.
Clinched:

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4234
  • Last Login:February 13, 2024, 07:19:36 pm
  • I like C++
Re: IN: I-69 Section 5
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2018, 02:54:29 am »
Whatever I may have said over on the CHM forum re: Arnprior notwithstanding, I'm also in the simplicity > accuracy camp, especially considering the moving target here.

CooLn specifically, is in use and thus has value as a usable point; it should stay as-is, visible & marked closed.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 03:04:41 am by yakra »
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca