Author Topic: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?  (Read 391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vdeane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Gender: Female
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:45:07 pm
    • New York State Roads
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2019, 09:48:49 pm »
Not to mention that Ontario likes to make it VERY clear when you're switching from 407 ETR to ON 407: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_407#/media/File:407_ETR_Ends_where_ON_407_begins.jpg

Not that I really see a huge need to split it, though not being familiar with Colorado, I'm not quite sure why CO 407 and E470 are separate when other roads like ON 407 and 407 ETR are together, aside from the mileage/exit number reset.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 09:51:08 pm by vdeane »
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 224
  • Last Login:April 20, 2019, 11:56:22 pm
Re: CO: E470 should be moved to usasf?
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2019, 11:46:21 pm »
Quote from: Duke87
switches to a completely different and unique shield.

This is the same logic that Tim kept going back to with Vermont and why the Vermont state routes were never finished under CHM.

Indeed, which was hugely annoying and a fiasco we don't need to repeat. But in that case it was about whether to include the circle routes at all, which is far more consequential a decision than deciding which system a route or group of routes goes in.

For what it's worth I don't think 407/407 ETR should be split. Seems like unnecessary effort that wouldn't really accomplish anything beyond forcing users who've driven both portions to put an extra line in their list file. But I do acknowledge that valid arguments in favor of doing so do exist.