Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: Markkos1992 on March 08, 2021, 02:36:32 pm
-
I would think that since the exit numbers are for US 50 that the labels would be x(50) instead of just x. (So 7 would be 7(50))
-
Gonna go with a hard nope on that one.
While the exit numbers are, overall, based on US 50's mileage... since I-595 is entirely concurrent with US 50, and not independently signed, by default the mile markers and exit numbers along the section that is I-595 are also I-595's mileposts and exit numbers. :)
Besides, this would just be needless clutter that doesn't help anything.
-
I agree with Duke87's assessment as well.
-
Not to pile on, but this seems like a solution in search of a problem.
-
Gonna go with a hard nope on that one.
While the exit numbers are, overall, based on US 50's mileage... since I-595 is entirely concurrent with US 50, and not independently signed, by default the mile markers and exit numbers along the section that is I-595 are also I-595's mileposts and exit numbers. :)
Besides, this would just be needless clutter that doesn't help anything.
This is consistent with how I-585 in SC is being done...
-
Gonna go with a hard nope on that one.
While the exit numbers are, overall, based on US 50's mileage... since I-595 is entirely concurrent with US 50, and not independently signed, by default the mile markers and exit numbers along the section that is I-595 are also I-595's mileposts and exit numbers. :)
Besides, this would just be needless clutter that doesn't help anything.
This is consistent with how I-585 in SC is being done...
I guess I expected more of a debate on this one. I probably should have remembered I-585 based on the recent thread about it.
This does make me wonder if I should add the exit numbers to I-99FutMan though (even though it is fully based on Future I-99 and not US 15 at all).
-
This does make me wonder if I should add the exit numbers to I-99FutMan though (even though it is fully based on Future I-99 and not US 15 at all).
I would say yes to adding them to I-99FutMan's file.
As for US-15's file, we would have 3 ways that we could do it.
1) XX(99) labels
2) FI-99(XX) labels
3) No change till it's signed as I-99.
Only reason I suggested the 2nd option is because of the unique issue we had with I-74 in NC being posted along the Laurinburg Bypass. Then having NCDOT being forced to yank it by the FHWA along there, but the exit numbers remaining I-74's mileage and not reverting back to US-74 mileage.
-
This does make me wonder if I should add the exit numbers to I-99FutMan though (even though it is fully based on Future I-99 and not US 15 at all).
I would say yes to adding them to I-99FutMan's file.
As for US-15's file, we would have 3 ways that we could do it.
1) XX(99) labels
2) FI-99(XX) labels
3) No change till it's signed as I-99.
Only reason I suggested the 2nd option is because of the unique issue we had with I-74 in NC being posted along the Laurinburg Bypass. Then having NCDOT being forced to yank it by the FHWA along there, but the exit numbers remaining I-74's mileage and not reverting back to US-74 mileage.
I-99FutLoc has exit numbers with US 220 retaining street name labels, so that would seem to be the best option for I-99FutMan for consistency.
-
I moved the I-99 discussion back to the previous thread to continue it there (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2495.0).