Re synkdorbit's post:CHM/TM has always had a "One Point Per Interchange" guideline. (Though admittedly, what exactly
One Interchange *is* can be a bit wibbly-wobbly. Hence the differing opinions in this thread.) Exits
42A & 42B are frequently
(though not always) combined into a single Exit 42 point.
Exit 1 is also not the terminus for the Turnpike
I'll agree with this. However, I
will go on to say that "Exit 1 is also
part of the interchange that is the terminus for the Turnpike".
![Wink ;)](https://forum.travelmapping.net/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Tracking the mainline within the footprint of "one interchange" is a level of granularity that the project doesn't make an effort to support, and that level of detail just gets lost. And we live with it.
![Smiley :)](https://forum.travelmapping.net/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
I would argue you haven't fully clinched the entire Turnpike.
Right, I won't argue on this either; I certainly see the logic behind that viewpoint.
For an example I consider a bit similar,
have I clinched NY I-278? Well... no! I left & then re-entered westbound at Exit 5, missing the mainline in between the exit and entrance. Back before CHM came along & made these things much easier, I used to track my clinch percentages manually and took stuff like this into account. Now? I could put
NY I-278 NJ/NY 5 and
NY I-278 5 I-95 into my .list file. And the site will report a 100% clinch. If it bugs me, I guess I can go back to Staten Island some day and finish off that last little bit.
(Best not to think about what this means for my nationwide clinch of I-90...)So again, some details will just get lost and rounded off due to the level of granularity the project is aimed towards.
So yeah, One Point Per Interchange and yadda yadda. The long & short of it all is, I agree almost
but not quite verbatim with si404:
The FL example is very clearly 1 interchange, whereas the SC example is (less clearly) 1.
--
However, with the I-77 example, Tim himself put in the '1' point after I mentioned it to him. He agreed with me that since the ramps went to a completely different highway there, it could be considered a completely separate interchange. Can't seem to find the original post (or if I had emailed him about it) to link right now.
Interesting, and a little surprising, but not completely so. Was this in the very early years of the project? (I gather that that's a Yes if Tim was still maintaing the Interstates at this point, before turning them over to you.) Tim himself refined the approaches he took to many aspects of the project over the years, and what he did in the early days isn't always what he would have done later on. Heck, until my
cleanup in December, NY I-278
had separate points for exits 8 & 9.
Ramps going to completely different highways? Meh... I view it as a variant on the south end of
NH I-89 -- just one with a different ramp configuration.
See also: the east end of
CA24, which, full disclosure, I recommended Oscar fold into a single point.
I can argue about this stuff all day.
And frequently do.
![Cheesy :D](https://forum.travelmapping.net/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
Okay, I'm going to close a bunch of browser tabs now...