Eric: I'm not disputing the facts behind your decision. What I'm disputing is that this is a significant enough realignment to warrant the inclusion of such points.
Grin grin -- how about my "It is possible for" fact? That's it's possible for a traveler to decide, "I once drove on something that is not now part of I-93 at all. There is a segment of what is currently I-93 that I have not traveled on."?
As I said in response to mapcat's post, Different travelers will have different thresholds for what to mark as declinched; different thresholds for what's a "significant enough realignment".
For those who do make that determination re: their travels, why take the option of an *OldI-93 away from them? Especially if the point, in some form or other, is already needed in the file?
Do you agree or disagree with my assessment that making *OldI-93 visible does no harm?
Or to that end, agree or disagree with my assessment that making it visible does some good?
Do you think that *OldI-93 should specifically NOT be visible? If so, on what grounds? If just "not significant enough realignment" grounds, then I would counter that that's up to the interpretation of the individual traveler, and we shouldn't make that decision
for them. There hasn't really been a project-wide effort to identify a solid threshold of what does(n't) count as a significant or newsworthy realignment.
Also, how about this
Opinion:"IMO, if a point already has to be at a given location, and it can serve a purpose for travelers, then it should be made visible."?
Do you agree with that statement?
Disagree, due to not considering it a true conditional?
Or think that "it can serve a purpose for travelers" is just not a valid premise that's fulfilled in this case?
to warrant the inclusion of such points.
Now, I think I know what you mean here, but I'm going to be a Big Jerkface & deliberately interpret the word "inclusion" in the way that's most favorable to my agenda, and belabor the fact that the point's already
included whatever happens, and that this debate is about whether to make it
visible or not.
(And at that, I'll go & edit that one usage of the word "included" above to read "visible" instead. 'Cuz, you know, consistency. )