Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: rickmastfan67 on September 10, 2018, 10:16:55 pm
-
With the way the interchange has been reconfigured, I-69 technically doesn't go thru the old cloverleaf anymore, and those parts are still officially the Parkways as far as I understand.
When using the WPTEditor to check the distance between the ramps & the cloverleaf, they are .55 miles (more than what's recommended for 'split' interchanges) from where I would recommend centering each ramp (106A & 106B):
106A http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.212601&lon=-87.451226
106(original) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.212451&lon=-87.441312
106B http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.220043&lon=-87.443318
As for a place to relocate the '106' point to, I'd just move it to 106A's placement due to that section having become part of I-69 first.
As for the parkways there, I'd extend both of them to the new '106A & 106B' points. WK would be '38A' (StreetView (https://goo.gl/maps/pvz6qCzwfWt)) & the current 38 (@ the cloverleaf) would become 38B, Pennyrile would be '34C' (StreetView (https://goo.gl/maps/gUA4DQfinuN2)).
-
Still a single interchange.
Consider the canonical example of MD I-97 @ 7.
See also:
NE NE2Lin @ US75_N
TX TX183 @ TX114
-
I'm not inclined to split this interchange despite the < 0.5 mile distance. Perhaps it should be recentered, but it's not clear to me how splitting it would benefit any users.
-
Yeah, I'd still consider it one interchange as well, so we should keep it as one point per the "one point per interchange" rule.
-
At first I thought it seemed like multiple interchanges, but the current signage (here (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.2129188,-87.4415015,3a,23.9y,177.67h,96.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saye1MHs26f09Gd8VMBECiQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)) makes me think that this could be put on the backburner until I-169 is signed and that signage is put up.