Highway Data Discussion > Solved Highway data updates
PA: US 15 (Future I-99) Exit Numbers
Markkos1992:
While I did potentially find a point error for WilRd_S(road name seems to be Boone Run Rd), I did notice that the Future I-99 exit numbers on US 15 are not in TM yet though they are fully there.
Should we just go-ahead and change the points to the new exit numbers? I did not think to write them down when I drove this on the way to Salamanca Saturday.
EDIT: I edited this for more detail for the minor point error.
rickmastfan67:
We don't even have the Future Exit #'s for I-99 along US-220 yet, and those have been posted for several years.
If we're going to do this, we somehow need to recognize that they are indeed I-99's #'s by maybe making the labels in the 'FI-99(#)' style like on the segment of US-74 in NC. But then again, that case only arised because NCDOT was forced to pull the I-74 shields down, and we had already incorporated the new I-74 exit numbers into US-74's file.
yakra:
"FI-99(#)" style is a bad idea IMO. It just means another definite set of label renamings, and the associated AltLabel cruft, farther down the road.
I'd just as soon keep the "no exit numbers on US Routes" convention in place until there's a proper Interstate here, for simplicity's sake.
Edit: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2027
mapcat:
--- Quote from: yakra on June 18, 2018, 08:37:49 pm ---I just as soon keep the "no exit numbers on US Routes" convention in place until there's a proper Interstate here, for simplicity's sake.
--- End quote ---
There's still a "no exit numbers on US Routes" convention?
yakra:
--- Quote from: mapcat on June 18, 2018, 09:20:49 pm ---There's still a "no exit numbers on US Routes" convention?
--- End quote ---
Optional. Allowed but not required, as are exit numbers; updating not mandatory.
IIRC There are also a few routes out there with overlapping numeric ranges where moving to numbered labels could be problematic.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version