Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: oscar on August 09, 2018, 11:02:10 pm

Title: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 09, 2018, 11:02:10 pm
A few things I noticed:

-- South end of US 93 should be AZ/NV (as it was before the updates, and which remains the correct label), not NV/AZ. This broke my list file, including parts of the route outside the Las Vegas area (though I'll have to later fix my list file anyway to account for the Boulder City changes).

-- The Updates table has a bad link to the new US 93 Business (Boulder City), but it looks like the new business route isn't in the HB at all.

-- Looking at the pull request, the route file was named nv.us093busbc.wpt. The Updates table has the suffix as "bou" rather than "bc". "bou" is the correct suffix.

-- The stranded part of US 95, between I-11 and the US 93 business route, is included in the extended NV 172. OSM, and some discussion on the AARoads forum, indicate it's new route NV 173 (unclear whether it's signed), rather than part of NV 172.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: Jim on August 09, 2018, 11:17:12 pm
I fixed the first three items in Oscar's list and I'm rerunning tonight's site update.  It will take a while since I the changes also generated some incorrect graph data that I'd like to have fixed up.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 09, 2018, 11:39:41 pm
A few things I noticed:

-- South end of US 93 should be AZ/NV (as it was before the updates, and which remains the correct label), not NV/AZ. This broke my list file, including parts of the route outside the Las Vegas area (though I'll have to later fix my list file anyway to account for the Boulder City changes).

Also, no longer synced with AZ US-93's file on both NV I-11 & US-93's file.

-- I still think that 'exit #15' needs to be split into two separate interchanges for I-11/US-93/US-95 as I mentioned here: http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2206.msg8016#msg8016
Even more important due to US-93 having a new Business route in the mix that takes over the old US-93 route.  That and anybody that was just going to the Railroad Pass Casino from LV since '15A' is a full movement interchange and can't access it by using '15B' on I-11.

-- I-11 Fut (Hoover Dam, NV) needs to be decommissioned due to the I-11 file taking over that area. http://travelmapping.net/hb/?u=null&r=nv.i011futhoo

-- The 'Exit 2' on both I-11's & US-93's file should be copied from the above I-11 Fut file, as that's a more accurate position.

-- NV US93TrkLau (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?u=null&r=nv.us093trklau): I'm betting this 'route' now officially ends @ I-11 instead of the new 'Business' route.  If it does go to the Business route still, then the interchange @ I-11 needs to be added at least to fix the broken multiplex with US-95.

-- On NV US-95's file,  the 'SilRd' point needs to be added back, as it's needed to keep the multiplex with the above US-93 Truck.  Also:
I-11_S -> I-11(14)
15 -> I-11(15)
And the base exit numbers along I-11/I-515 in the LV should be using the Interstate labeling style from '56' to '76'.  Sure, they 'may' be US-95's mileage, but that doesn't matter.  The Interstate must be mentioned.  See SC US-176 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?u=null&r=sc.us176) & I-585 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?u=null&r=sc.i585) as an example.  The 3 numbered exits are using US-176's mileage, but we have I-585 mentioned there instead.

-- On US-93's file, '2', '14', '15' all need to have the I-11(*) labeling style, as Interstate labeling is needed here as it's the main route.
Also, all the '*(US95)' labels should be either I-11(*) or I-515(*) labels.  Interstate labels should take priority here IMO.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: Jim on August 09, 2018, 11:54:58 pm
The second site update for tonight is about done with my first couple of fixes.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: Jim on August 09, 2018, 11:57:22 pm
Now I also need to figure out what I should have in my .list file today if I last drove US 93 through there in 2003..
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 10, 2018, 12:31:42 am
Looking over the updated update:

-- Tying into James' comments above, both ends of the US 93 business route are out of synch with I-11, US 93, and (west end) US 95. James' fixes should address these, but NV 172 might also need a point tweak to keep it in synch with the business route while also synching it with I-11 and US 93.

-- Also, the endpoints of the business route should be US93_S and US93_N, in keeping with our labeling conventions for business routes. This, even though the parent US route is also an Interstate.

-- On the business route and NV 172, points NevWay and NVWay should be, respectively, NevWay_S and NevWay_N. Also, SR166 => LakRd (Lakeshore Rd. appears not to be a signed, numbered highway)?

-- Also in the NV 172 route file, shouldn't US93 be an alternate label for I-11_S? My list file's NV 172 entry had US93 as one of its endpoints, and my list file was broken by the elimination of that label.

As for Jim's latest post, the Updates item on US 93 should clarify that US 93 was relocated from what is now the business route to the new I-11 freeway. Once the business route is synched to both I-11 and US 93, that should nail down for both of us (I'm in Jim's situation too) how exactly we need to adjust our list files.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: Jim on August 10, 2018, 08:10:15 am
NickCPDX hasn't logged into the forum in 5 months.  I'll put a link to this thread in one of his pull requests in hopes he'll get a notification.  If anyone has an email address for him, it might be good to send a link that way as well.

Edit: I also sent a Twitter DM to Nick from the TravelMapping Twitter account.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: NickCPDX on August 10, 2018, 11:37:44 am
Hi folks – As you might have surmised, I've had some time constraints that have made it hard to do updates to my states more than a couple of times a year. I'm happy to cede my areas to anyone else who wants to manage them.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: mikeandkristie on August 13, 2018, 10:32:07 am
Are the changes around Boulder City stable or are there more updates coming?  Wondering when it is safe to go in and make updates to get our miles through Boulder City back from when we went to the Hoover Dam.

Mike
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 13, 2018, 10:39:39 am
Are the changes around Boulder City stable or are there more updates coming?

More are coming to fix some issues, trust me.  Nothing new has been pulled in from Oscar yet.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 13, 2018, 08:18:34 pm
Are the changes around Boulder City stable or are there more updates coming?

More are coming to fix some issues, trust me.  Nothing new has been pulled in from Oscar yet.

Safe to use the waypoints in place, which in the I-11 and US 93 files will be 2 and 15 for the new section, and for the new US 93 Business (Boulder City) will be I-11_N and I-11_S. Some of those waypoint labels will change, but those old labels and any others in use will still work.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: Highway63 on August 16, 2018, 02:56:38 am
FWIW, it looks like anyone who clinched I-515 (like me) has to re-send because it's been truncated to Exit 61. I need to resubmit I-515, US 93, and US 95.

Could that shaping point south of Exit 56 be turned into an active "closed" point for those of us who will not have traveled the new I-11?
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 16, 2018, 05:10:25 am
Could that shaping point south of Exit 56 be turned into an active "closed" point for those of us who will not have traveled the new I-11?

So did I-515 once end there? Satellite imagery doesn't seem to indicate a closed exit there, though I might be missing something. (I rechecked TM's update table but didn't see any relevant entry; CHM's updates table seems to be toast.) My offline draft update perhaps prematurely removed that shaping point.

OSM indicates that several exit numbers for I-11 south of exit 61 will need to change, too. But some discussion over at the AARoads forum indicates the new numbers have not yet been posted in the field, so I'm not rushing to make that set of changes.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: Highway63 on August 16, 2018, 02:00:00 pm
It's not a closed exit, but it's very near the point where the new freeway and (previously) existing four-lane separate. It's more obvious if you use OSM and the dashed lines for the new I-11 are marked. I-515 went to what had been labeled as Exit 56 and now that point doesn't exist on its file, as it starts at Exit 61.

It wouldn't be a point for I-515, but for US 93/95.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: mikeandkristie on August 16, 2018, 03:27:58 pm
I was looking at the updates so I can see what I need to change to get my old US 93 (now the business route) miles back.  I did noticed one thing.  NV NV172 has a point self-referencing itself as NV172_S.  It looks like that point name was copied over from the concurrent NV US93BusBou. 
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: SSOWorld on August 18, 2018, 10:39:07 am
Should the Exit #s on 93 paralleling I-11 be shown as "I-11(##)"? I know that the two are equal, but until 11 came on-board 93 didn't have Exit #s outside of Exit 2 which was the Hoover Dam Exit (NV 172) at the time.

US-95 also has the same issue.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 18, 2018, 11:21:29 am
Should the Exit #s on 93 paralleling I-11 be shown as "I-11(##)"? I know that the two are equal, but until 11 came on-board 93 didn't have Exit #s outside of Exit 2 which was the Hoover Dam Exit (NV 172) at the time.

US-95 also has the same issue.

rickmastfan67 made this point above. Of course, yakra has been urging me to switch California over to exit labels like ##(11). I'm inclined to go with I-11(xx) for now if, as I think, that's the format used elsewhere in Nevada, then later (if at all) do a statewide switchover to the exit number(route number) format.

I had thought I could do all the Boulder City cleanup while on the move. But I think it will all wait until I get to Inuvik NT next week and stay put (except for a day trip to Tuktoyaktuk on the new NT 10) for a few days.

Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: yakra on August 18, 2018, 01:48:13 pm
I-11(xx) would indeed be the proper label format for NV US93.
It's not a route with its own exit numbers.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: vdeane on August 18, 2018, 03:34:03 pm
Looking at the map, it looks like some of the points are off by I-11 exit 2... and I-11Fut still exists!  Just about every route has the interchange at a slightly different place (this also creates a broken concurrency).
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 18, 2018, 11:02:49 pm
Looking at the map, it looks like some of the points are off by I-11 exit 2... and I-11Fut still exists!  Just about every route has the interchange at a slightly different place (this also creates a broken concurrency).

http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2581.msg10431#msg10431
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 21, 2018, 04:35:33 pm
-- The stranded part of US 95, between I-11 and the US 93 business route, is included in the extended NV 172. OSM, and some discussion on the AARoads forum, indicate it's new route NV 173 (unclear whether it's signed), rather than part of NV 172.

Per recent discussion on the AARoads forum:

-- the stranded part of US 95 is officially NV 173, not NV 172

-- unclear whether NV 172 officially extends west of I-11 exit 2, despite what OSM says

-- in any case, as of last Sunday, no NV 172 signage west of I-11 exit 2, nor is there any NV 173 signage.

My inclination is to truncate NV 172 back to where it was originally (with a corrected endpoint at I-11(2)), and rename the NV172_S point on US93BusBou as Old US95. Also, to ignore NV 173 for now as unsigned. I expect to do a field check in October (en route to a college class reunion in the Bay Area), so all this can be revisited at that point or as other new information comes in.

Most of the NV 172 mileage I would truncate away is concurrent with US 93 Business, so it can be claimed that way.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 21, 2018, 10:31:28 pm
It's not a closed exit, but it's very near the point where the new freeway and (previously) existing four-lane separate. It's more obvious if you use OSM and the dashed lines for the new I-11 are marked. I-515 went to what had been labeled as Exit 56 and now that point doesn't exist on its file, as it starts at Exit 61.

It wouldn't be a point for I-515, but for US 93/95.

I think I follow. I've added *OldI-515End in my local copies of the I-11, US 93, and US 95 route files. I plan to pull them in later this week, once I'm confident I've tied up all the loose ends in the Boulder City area.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 21, 2018, 10:59:46 pm
I-11(xx) would indeed be the proper label format for NV US93.
It's not a route with its own exit numbers.

What about US 95? It has its own exit numbers north of I-15, but none to the south (except to the extent you consider the I-515 and some of the I-11 exit #s as "belonging" to US 95 since they're based on US 95's mileage from the CA border).
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: yakra on August 22, 2018, 05:27:37 pm
I think I follow. I've added *OldI-515End in my local copies of the I-11, US 93, and US 95 route files. I plan to pull them in later this week, once I'm confident I've tied up all the loose ends in the Boulder City area.

Took me some time to catch up, but I think I follow now too. :) Looking at Esri WorldImagery view finally put it all together for me.
Suggest using *OldUS93 as a label instead. Or some suffixed variant as appropriate -- note the existing OldHwy93 point.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: yakra on August 22, 2018, 05:47:47 pm
What about US 95? It has its own exit numbers north of I-15,
This puts it in the "Interchanges on exit-numbered highwways" [sic] camp, governed by that section of the manual (http://cmap.m-plex.com/tools/manual_wayptlabels.php).
Case study: NH101 (http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=nh.nh101)

but none to the south (except to the extent you consider the I-515 and some of the I-11 exit #s as "belonging" to US 95 since they're based on US 95's mileage from the CA border).
Doesn't matter for purposes of my response above, but are there still US95-based numbers on I-11, or has this section been renumbered?
What are currently 56, 57, 59 & 61 in the HB are respectively labeled 17, 18, 20 & 22 by OSM.
(Apologies is this is discussed upthread; I admittedly did a quick skim.)
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 22, 2018, 11:40:04 pm
but none to the south (except to the extent you consider the I-515 and some of the I-11 exit #s as "belonging" to US 95 since they're based on US 95's mileage from the CA border).
Doesn't matter for purposes of my response above, but are there still US95-based numbers on I-11, or has this section been renumbered?
What are currently 56, 57, 59 & 61 in the HB are respectively labeled 17, 18, 20 & 22 by OSM.
(Apologies is this is discussed upthread; I admittedly did a quick skim.)

Per discussion on the AARoads board, the renumberings shown by OSM haven't happened yet.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 23, 2018, 09:56:17 am
I think I follow. I've added *OldI-515End in my local copies of the I-11, US 93, and US 95 route files. I plan to pull them in later this week, once I'm confident I've tied up all the loose ends in the Boulder City area.

Took me some time to catch up, but I think I follow now too. :) Looking at Esri WorldImagery view finally put it all together for me.
Suggest using *OldUS93 as a label instead. Or some suffixed variant as appropriate -- note the existing OldHwy93 point.

I'll go with *OldUS93/95, since 93 and 95 were concurrent at that point. That will further distinguish the point from OldHwy93 in the US 93 route file.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: yakra on August 23, 2018, 11:14:44 am
Quote
OldUS11

If the old highway had multiple numbered designations and you need to make up a label according to the previous instruction, use only the primary route number.
For example, if you need a label for the now-nameless highway formerly designated US 11/US 15, then the label should include only US 11: OldUS11.
Not sure if I completely agree with this one but there it is.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 24, 2018, 03:34:01 am
A batch of updates was pulled in yesterday, but I need to find and fix broken concurrencies, and also re-do and submit changes to the Updates table. Should have time to do this later today, when I'm more awake.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: michih on August 24, 2018, 02:25:25 pm
@oscar:
Code: [Select]
Line 2117: 2018-08-23;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Hoover Dam);(NONE);Deleted route (folded into I-11)
Line 2118: 2018-08-19;(USA) Nevada;US 93 Business (Wendover);(NONE);Route Deleted
Line 2126: 2017-10-08;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Henderson);(NONE);Deleted route

(NONE) is not required and ends up in a link to nowhere. It should be read:

Code: [Select]
Line 2117: 2018-08-23;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Hoover Dam);;Deleted route (folded into I-11)
Line 2118: 2018-08-19;(USA) Nevada;US 93 Business (Wendover);;Route Deleted
Line 2126: 2017-10-08;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Henderson);;Deleted route

These are all lines with the wrong entry in updates.csv.

"(NONE)" w/o link  is automatically inserted to the table by the front end software.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 24, 2018, 02:41:25 pm
@oscar:
Code: [Select]
Line 2117: 2018-08-23;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Hoover Dam);(NONE);Deleted route (folded into I-11)
Line 2118: 2018-08-19;(USA) Nevada;US 93 Business (Wendover);(NONE);Route Deleted
Line 2126: 2017-10-08;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Henderson);(NONE);Deleted route

(NONE) is not required and ends up in a link to nowhere. It should be read:

Code: [Select]
Line 2117: 2018-08-23;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Hoover Dam);;Deleted route (folded into I-11)
Line 2118: 2018-08-19;(USA) Nevada;US 93 Business (Wendover);;Route Deleted
Line 2126: 2017-10-08;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Henderson);;Deleted route

These are all lines with the wrong entry in updates.csv.

"(NONE)" w/o link  is automatically inserted to the table by the front end software.

This seems to be a change of practice -- IIRC, used to be we were expected to enter (NONE) to fill in the blank field. So I did that for the recent Nevada updates items, including the deleted route in Wendover -- but not its counterpart in Utah -- which was previously added by Duke87.

I'll go back later to fix those entries, but the links to nowhere seem harmless so no rush.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: SSOWorld on August 24, 2018, 07:46:48 pm
Just as harmless as the Bridge to Nowhere. ;)
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 24, 2018, 09:59:49 pm
I honestly don't ever recall having to manually add the "(NONE)" text, as it was automatic when there was nothing detected between the ;'s in that part of the line. :-\
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: yakra on August 25, 2018, 01:03:17 am
I honestly don't ever recall having to manually add the "(NONE)" text, as it was automatic when there was nothing detected between the ;'s in that part of the line. :-\
My memory as well. Just the semicolons, with nothing in between.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: Jim on August 25, 2018, 09:16:45 am
"(NONE)" has slipped into that field for entries from time to time but it's never supposed to have been there.  Little harm done, as others have pointed out, since it only results in a bad link.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: Jim on August 26, 2018, 08:53:30 am
So I think I might have my list updated correctly to reflect roads I'd have traveled on a 1985 ride from Las Vegas over the Hoover Dam and into Arizona, and a 2003 ride that took me up US 95 into Las Vegas then later down along the Nevada shore of Lake Mead and over the Hoover Dam.

I lost the small chunk of now former US 95 that's north of I-11.  Assuming that is not signed as anything now.

I figure I have the whole US 93 business route through Boulder City and that small chunk of Hoover Dam Road we have as Nevada 172 from the 1985 ride.

Of course this also gets me wondering if the 1985 ride give me some of what's now Nevada 582 if some or all parts of I-515 weren't there yet..  I'm fairly confident I have all of current I-515 and the chunk recently renumbered to I-11 from 2003's ride, based on a look at my 2003 RMcN.

http://travelmapping.net/user/region.php?units=miles&u=terescoj&rg=NV
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: yakra on August 26, 2018, 11:55:14 am
I suggest using HistoricAerials to check on the extent of I-515 in 1985.

I wanted to post a link, but:
1. Now it appears that the "tweet" button that one had to use to manually copy the URL is gone. Man, they don't make this easy.
2. Right now, HistoricAerials is consistently doing that thing that happens sometimes where, when I try to zoom out, by either mouse or keyboard, it zooms me right the heck back in. Does anybody else have this happen?
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 26, 2018, 11:35:21 pm
I lost the small chunk of now former US 95 that's north of I-11.  Assuming that is not signed as anything now.

So did I. It's now NV 173, but apparently not yet signed. That could change.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: yakra on August 27, 2018, 09:47:44 pm
NV US95BusLsV +NV596 should be unhidden as JonBlvd
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on August 28, 2018, 12:58:00 am
NV US95BusLsV +NV596 should be unhidden as JonBlvd

Or eliminated, since nobody's using that point. It was probably included only because of the intersection with a numbered state route, which no longer exists. Certainly not for shaping, since the route is a straight line.
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: yakra on August 28, 2018, 01:31:10 am
JonBlvd is visible in a concurrent route.
Still useful to access the shortened route farther south, IMO
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: rickmastfan67 on September 02, 2018, 06:33:10 am
Oscar, was just looking @ the "nv.us093trklau (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=null&r=nv.us093trklau)" file and notice some more issues with it & it's multiplex with US-95.

US-93 Trk's file is missing the following points that are in US-95's file:
Code: [Select]
LorStaRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.312932&lon=-114.881909
SeaAirRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.432911&lon=-114.910555
NV164 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.465284&lon=-114.920125

Also noticed the following DC errors:
Code: [Select]
nv.us093trklau;x01;;;DUPLICATE_LABEL;
nv.us093trklau;x02;;;DUPLICATE_LABEL;

Maybe convert those on both US-95 & US-93 Trk's files to +x001 & +x002?  Would not only keep them labels synced between the routes, but fix the issue and the labels stay synced on the Truck route with NV-163.  This is personally why I like my system of "+X000(US95)" style labels to prevent any issues along multiplexes.  Sure, adds a few bytes, but keeps it 10x easier for multiplex fixes and avoiding duplicate shaping point labels.

===

Oh, and since we have the 'split' interchanges for I-11, shouldn't we also have the ramps from US-93 Business for Railroad Pass Casino Road too?  Wouldn't it count for like the old route of US-93 & US-95 in front of the casino too?
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on September 09, 2018, 04:16:53 pm
NV US95BusLsV +NV596 should be unhidden as JonBlvd

Changed in my local file.

Oscar, was just looking @ the "nv.us093trklau (http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&u=null&r=nv.us093trklau)" file and notice some more issues with it & it's multiplex with US-95.

US-93 Trk's file is missing the following points that are in US-95's file:
Code: [Select]
LorStaRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.312932&lon=-114.881909
SeaAirRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.432911&lon=-114.910555
NV164 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.465284&lon=-114.920125

Also noticed the following DC errors:
Code: [Select]
nv.us093trklau;x01;;;DUPLICATE_LABEL;
nv.us093trklau;x02;;;DUPLICATE_LABEL;

Maybe convert those on both US-95 & US-93 Trk's files to +x001 & +x002?  Would not only keep them labels synced between the routes, but fix the issue and the labels stay synced on the Truck route with NV-163.  This is personally why I like my system of "+X000(US95)" style labels to prevent any issues along multiplexes.  Sure, adds a few bytes, but keeps it 10x easier for multiplex fixes and avoiding duplicate shaping point labels.

===

Oh, and since we have the 'split' interchanges for I-11, shouldn't we also have the ramps from US-93 Business for Railroad Pass Casino Road too?  Wouldn't it count for like the old route of US-93 & US-95 in front of the casino too?

All these changes in my local files, except I left alone the shaping point labels on US 95. I also fixed in my local files an NMP between US 95 and NV 165.

====

I'm marking this topic as "solved". Further changes in the Boulder City area, such as for NV 172 and NV 173, can be addressed in new topics.

EDIT: Pull request submitted, but another one needed to fix first request's breaking concurrence with NV 163. My bad.

Second pull request: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2212
Title: Re: NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area
Post by: oscar on October 11, 2018, 02:23:53 am
-- The stranded part of US 95, between I-11 and the US 93 business route, is included in the extended NV 172. OSM, and some discussion on the AARoads forum, indicate it's new route NV 173 (unclear whether it's signed), rather than part of NV 172.

Per recent discussion on the AARoads forum:

-- the stranded part of US 95 is officially NV 173, not NV 172

-- unclear whether NV 172 officially extends west of I-11 exit 2, despite what OSM says

-- in any case, as of last Sunday, no NV 172 signage west of I-11 exit 2, nor is there any NV 173 signage.

My inclination is to truncate NV 172 back to where it was originally (with a corrected endpoint at I-11(2)), and rename the NV172_S point on US93BusBou as Old US95. Also, to ignore NV 173 for now as unsigned. I expect to do a field check in October (en route to a
college class reunion in the Bay Area), so all this can be revisited at that point or as other new information comes in.

I did the field check yesterday. NV 172's west end is clearly at I-11 exit 2, with no concurrence with US 93 Business. There are markers for Begin NV 172 eastbound, and End NV 172 westbound, at exit 2. So things stay where they are.

Ditto the exit numbering on the freeway south of I-215, since the anticipated re-signings haven't happened yet.

NV 173 remains unsigned.