Travel Mapping

Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: radison on July 20, 2020, 02:13:22 pm

Title: OK: Updates to US-69/75 corridor
Post by: radison on July 20, 2020, 02:13:22 pm

The US-69/75 segments from the TX State line to the Pittsburg/McIntosh county line recently had signage updates to them which included exit numbers.

A list of exit numbers for the freeway portions may be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_69_in_Oklahoma#Major_Intersections

Wasn't sure if this would justify renaming all of those segments in the file or not, just wanted to bring it up.  Could understand an argument either way, since its not purely a controlled-access highway.

Also OK-9A segment (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?units=miles&r=ok.ok009aeuf) should be Eufaula rather than Eufala.

Title: Re: OK: Updates to US-69/75 corridor
Post by: oscar on July 20, 2020, 04:26:37 pm

I noticed the new exit numbers last month, though one might've been uncertain since that interchange was under construction.

Relabeling for new exit numbers is pretty optional. I try to update them in my jurisdictions. Others vary.

Title: Re: OK: Updates to US-69/75 corridor
Post by: yakra on July 31, 2020, 11:40:32 am

OK9A: Eufala -> Eufaula
Added a new interchange to US69/75.

When originally drafting US routes for CHM the rule was,
US routes don't get "their own" exit numbers (I-295(7) style was used though) for labels; just use crossroad names.

This rule was dropped in the early TM days; exit numbers are now allowed, though there's no requirement to switch over existing routes.
That said, with all the existing labels "grandfathered in", I'm not in a hurry to change them and will mark this issue closed, though I may get back to the in the future and make the change anyway.

Title: Re: OK: Updates to US-69/75 corridor
Post by: yakra on August 18, 2021, 12:28:46 am

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/8c59f2031f05d30039d217e1dff835745e7c29f7