Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: rickmastfan67 on March 17, 2025, 11:54:14 pm
-
Missing -> 82 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7qBsgkkPTqXfcHmK6)A (formerly 81 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n3XLw6UziejxjasBA))
< ones below would also have to be adjusted/added in US-270's file >
NEW -> 134 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/oBeKa3oczXZ7qRZTA) (Frisco Rd)
NEW -> 146 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/5EA7fUFgp64JsZ5z9) (Portland Ave)
147A -> 147 ? (since 147C is 'closed')
'shaping point' -> 151A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/kYmgKJznLtDt2eit9) ??? There's a shaping point here, but it should be a visible point.
154 -> should this be centered on the overpass here?
-
Missing -> 82 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7qBsgkkPTqXfcHmK6)A (formerly 81 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n3XLw6UziejxjasBA))
Leaving this alone, as it doesn't meet the 0.5 mi Double-Half Interchange threshold. The existing point 82 is already fairly well-centered within the footprint, and further tweaking it may bring the route out of tolerance to the NE.
NEW -> 134 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/oBeKa3oczXZ7qRZTA) (Frisco Rd)
NEW -> 146 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/5EA7fUFgp64JsZ5z9) (Portland Ave)
Added.
147A -> 147 ? (since 147C is 'closed')
Nah. Still complies with the manual (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#dropa) in my view.
Even if it's unlikely with how exits are constructed & spaced, and with 146 in the picture, it still "burns" a waypoint label.
'shaping point' -> 151A (https://maps.app.goo.gl/kYmgKJznLtDt2eit9) ??? There's a shaping point here, but it should be a visible point.
Huh. +x151A and everything; dates to CHM. Wonder it it was added in in anticipation of a future point when the concrete was still drying and the connection had yet to be made.
Either way, unhidden.
154 -> should this be centered on the overpass here?
Eh, sure. Moved, since this one got a mention.
However, this may just be a more extreme example of Point Drift in the area. Many nearby points a tiny bit off-center, and I haven't bothered fixing them; diminishing returns.
Committed locally. To be pushed with several other OK forum items.
-
Missing -> 82 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/7qBsgkkPTqXfcHmK6)A (formerly 81 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/n3XLw6UziejxjasBA))
Leaving this alone, as it doesn't meet the 0.5 mi Double-Half Interchange threshold. The existing point 82 is already fairly well-centered within the footprint, and further tweaking it may bring the route out of tolerance to the NE.
I would say this qualifies for a separate point due to the fact that it was posted as Exit 81, and completely separate from the 'original' Exit 82 up till at least May '24 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2kKBUNHeeDU8LjCp6) (yes, only LAST YEAR!!) This change to being signed as a part of Exit 82 happened less than a year ago.
Had I made this post back in November before that Dec '24 GSV showed up with the updated exit number, I bet you'd have 0 issue adding it in.
-
Not necessarily.
Separate numbers notwithstanding, the 2 halves still function as one interchange; WB off/on, EB off/on.
Exits 4 & 5 in one interchange. For a single interchange with ramps given different exit numbers, use the lower number.
Canonical example IMO is NY I-278 8 (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=ny.i278&lat=40.612258&lon=-74.15381&zoom=17)
There's another location in NYS that comes to mind (I'll keep the location quiet until I'm ready to address the topic*) another contributor PMed me about, with 2 separately numbered points roughly the same distance apart, connecting to separate halves of a couplet. I forget what exactly was in the PM, but it led me to consider collapsing the 2 halves into a single point in the middle, which would gain us teh graph connectionz.
*Eagle-eyed forum regulars who are familiar with NY may be able to find it, but anyway.
-
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8266/commits/51d496c58672e6615a07a5b86f07434ac727d7b8
-
Not necessarily.
Separate numbers notwithstanding, the 2 halves still function as one interchange; WB off/on, EB off/on.
Exits 4 & 5 in one interchange. For a single interchange with ramps given different exit numbers, use the lower number.
Canonical example IMO is NY I-278 8 (https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=ny.i278&lat=40.612258&lon=-74.15381&zoom=17)
I would honestly say this is completely different.
There 'USED' to be an Exit 82 going EB on I-40 up till sometime between Jan '16 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/EtD7VX3WBqkh5ZWd7) & Jul '18 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/RUTbGJYDto42DNxRA) before the new 81 got renumbered to 82 a couple of months ago.
'Exit 81' didn't open till sometime between July '13 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/SisbFQC9L8xqQe938) & Jan '16 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/cW5CejSK6fTsAgbBA). However, I will give you that the missing WB on-ramp for Exit 82 was @ Exit 81 already prior to the Exit 81 EB off-ramp opening
However, 'BOTH' exits were open @ the same time in Jan '16, which IMO makes them be considered as SEPARATE interchanges in my book.