Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: Markkos1992 on December 14, 2019, 09:51:34 am
-
I did not bring up the other routes in the title affected to keep the forum title shorter. Note that we could argue that this should be changed to a one-point per interchange scenario.
As-is the following changes need to be made:
1. The I-85 121 point should be synced with I-73 (97A) and US 421 (I-73(97A)).
2. The I-85 122 point (already synced with US 421) needs to be synced with I-73 (95) and US 220 (I-73/85, but should be changed to I-73(95), I-85(122), or even just plain 78 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.009658,-79.8264618,3a,75y,178.21h,85.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIxzB4XPcoFLvyrVj3KbwBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) though going to US 220 exit numbers is probably not the best idea)
-
US 220 (I-73/85, but should be changed to I-73(95), I-85(122),
Definitely not I-85(122), as this is the only intersection with I-85.
The existing I-73/85 doesn't quite fit, as this isn't a highway jumps from one numbered multiplex to another (http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#bothroutes) sitution.
Keeping the existing I-73(##) nomenclature going makes sense; i.e. I-73(95).
or even just plain 78 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.009658,-79.8264618,3a,75y,178.21h,85.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIxzB4XPcoFLvyrVj3KbwBQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) though going to US 220 exit numbers is probably not the best idea)
I think the less painful or potentially confusing option is to keep the grandfathered-in "US Routes don't (have to) use exit numbers" approach.
Otherwise, changing would cause a big cascade of changes to other labels with a conversion to an Exit-numbered route. I-73(94) -> 94(73), etc. etc. etc. A potential headache; there's been lots of confusion about the styles. Be careful not to look down the abyss... (http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3245.msg15696#msg15696)
It's up to mapmikey of course as NC's maintainer which option to take.
But of course I've gotta toss my opinion into the ring. :)
-
The existing I-73/85 doesn't quite fit, as this isn't a highway jumps from one numbered multiplex to another (http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#bothroutes) sitution.
Two numbered highways may appear in a waypoint. You can use two designations if the cross road has 2+ numbered designations or if 2+ numbered highways are cross roads at the same point.
Put the primary highway first, followed by a slash, followed by the second highway. Drop the prefix of the second highway if it is more than one character long. A5/A6 becomes A5/A6. I-5/I-6 becomes I-5/6. I-25/US50 becomes I-25/50.
If both numbered designations are of the same type, it's probably useful to mention both. If the 2nd highway is a lesser type, the 2nd highway can be skipped or mentioned. I-80/I-90 should be I-80/90. I-80/US 6 can be I-80 or I-80/6, whichever is deemed more useful. US 422/PA 271 can be either US422 or US422/271.
"If both numbered designations are of the same type, it's probably useful to mention both."
-
Keeping the existing I-73(##) nomenclature going makes sense; i.e. I-73(95).
I agree with you on this. I am pretty sure my mind had seen the I-73(##) and US421(##) notation for so long this morning that my mind defaulted to mentioning I-85(122).
-
I'll emphasize the "probably", and then cite For non-exit-numbered routes concurrent with a numbered, exit-numbered route, use the concurrent highway designation with the exit numbers in parentheses. (http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#exitconc_num_on_unnum)
-
I went with the single designation of I-73(95). This is consistent with situations involving US 64 and US 74 elsewhere...
Fixes made and in the queue...