Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: Jim on August 09, 2019, 08:37:14 pm

Title: NY: I-95/I-278 concurrency or not?
Post by: Jim on August 09, 2019, 08:37:14 pm

I was confused by a result when testing an algorithm visualization in HDX and I just want to verify that a non-concurrency is intentional.

At the I-278 segment visible here:

http://travelmapping.net/hb/?units=miles&r=ny.i278&lat=40.828469&lon=-73.837094&zoom=16

what looks like a concurrent segment on I-95 has an extra shaping point to break the concurrency.  Intentional?

Title: Re: NY: I-95/I-278 concurrency or not?
Post by: jpinyan on August 09, 2019, 09:32:11 pm

I-95 and I-278 are not concurrent here. Exit 54 is for access to 678 and 295; continuing on the main route will dump you onto 95 North where 278 ends. I-95 has anticipatory exits for 678 and 295 whose ramps merge with 278's exit 54, but the through routes are separate.

There is no direct access from 278 east to 95 south (or from 95 north to 278 west; that access is provided further west by the Bronx River Parkway or the Sheridan (which was actually downgraded from I-895 to NY 895)

Title: Re: NY: I-95/I-278 concurrency or not?
Post by: yakra on August 09, 2019, 10:41:53 pm

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/blob/master/hwy_data/NY/usai/ny.i095.wpt#L13
+x4u70 (leet-speak for "auto") denotes a shaping point placed with autoshape (https://github.com/yakra/tmtools/tree/master/autoshape), for breaking a concurrency.

Quote from: jpinyan on August 09, 2019, 09:32:11 pm

I-95 and I-278 are not concurrent here. ... the through routes are separate.

Similar cases:
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=ct.i091&lat=41.526644&lon=-72.768127&zoom=16
http://travelmapping.net/hb/?r=il.i355&lat=41.813283&lon=-88.038406&zoom=16
US6 & pals, Fall River, MA
Lots of examples in TX

Title: Re: NY: I-95/I-278 concurrency or not?
Post by: Jim on August 10, 2019, 08:35:24 am

Thanks, just making sure it was intentional.