User Discussions > Other Discussion
Suggestion: create Oklahoma Turnpikes system (usaokt)
yakra:
Norman Spur Turnpike and Stillwater Connection are made-up names that IIRC came from a hobbyist site back in the day.
https://www.pikepass.com/about/FAQs.aspx
Looks like, more properly, HEBaiTpkSprNor / H.E. Bailey Turnpike Spur (Norman) and CimTpkSprSti / Cimarron Turnpike Spur (Stillwater) are better names.
Any objections or comments before I make the change? (I'll use AltLabels of course, so no .lists will be broken.)
Markkos1992:
I am in agreement with these changes.
Duke87:
Somewhat in line with usanyp and usakyp, Oklahoma Turnpikes represent a coherent system that contains enough distinct routes to be worth calling out categorically.
This would be a relatively low lift as most of what would need to be included is already mapped one way or another. Easy list to be found here, though it doesn't call out the two spurs independently, nor does it call out the fact that three of those turnpikes each exist in two separate sections.
Looks like we would have:
- 5 routes that are 1:1 with existing mapped routes (all can just be moved from usasf)
- 10 routes that are part of existing mapped routes (4 as parts of I-44, 2 as parts of US 412, 2 as parts of OK 351, 2 as parts of OK 364)
- 1 route that would need to be newly mapped (Chickasaw Turnpike)
I'm willing to go ahead and do this, though yakra has right of first refusal since OK is currently his.
Jim:
I generally like things that reduce the size of/need for our grab bag systems, which this would do, but I really don't have a strong preference one way or the other on this idea.
yakra:
--- Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2021, 07:14:22 pm ---Somewhat in line with usanyp and usakyp, Oklahoma Turnpikes represent a coherent system that contains enough distinct routes to be worth calling out categorically.
--- End quote ---
Such was the argument when usakyp was created.
--- Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2021, 07:14:22 pm ---- 1 route that would need to be newly mapped (Chickasaw Turnpike)
--- End quote ---
I liked that it would allow ChiTpk to be included, even if such is (a bit circularly) only justified as part of usaokt.
--- Quote from: Jim on March 14, 2021, 08:21:11 pm ---I generally like things that reduce the size of/need for our grab bag systems, which this would do, but I really don't have a strong preference one way or the other on this idea.
--- End quote ---
I interpret this as meaning usaokt would be a non-grab-bag system reducing the size of usasf.
I'm in favor -- just never felt strongly enough in favor to ever go ahead and do it.
--- Quote from: Duke87 on March 14, 2021, 07:14:22 pm ---- 10 routes that are part of existing mapped routes (4 as parts of I-44, 2 as parts of US 412, 2 as parts of OK 351, 2 as parts of OK 364)
--- End quote ---
Having parent routes in the HB would relieve (somewhat) the awkwardness of having HEBaiTpkSprNor and CimTpkSprSti (topic merged; see above) in the HB without plain HEBaiTpk and CimTpk (more clearly in line with the manual) to justify them.
This highlights 2 manual items in need of clarification:
• Abbreviating Route names in CSVs the same way waypoint labels are abbreviated, which has been SOP since CHM.
• Labels that match a .list entry name or name_no_abbrev that otherwise run afoul of truncation rules.
Elsewhere, I started taking a look at using exit numbers on US 64 & 412, and kept `em no-build after going down a rabbit-hole.
This leads to a couple more gray areas:
• With other toll freeways in the HB, we can sidestep the multiple exit sequences + intersections issue, with less pressure to name a waypoint after an intersecting US route only.
• We'll still have to resolve the Exit numbers from NAMED concurrent route issue though.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version