NC I-42 Future

[si404]

This route is approved by AASHTO and is signed along at least the Clayton bypass. Any reasons why this hasn't been added?

Also, while we're on the topic of NC future interstates being signed:
http://wnct.com/2016/10/24/governor-mccrory-unveils-future-i-87-in-edenton/

[mapmikey]

Are future interstates added when the little green signs saying Future I-xx are sprinkled about or is it when actual red and blue interstate shields with FUTURE on them go up all along the route...?

[si404]

As far as I can tell, they are added when the road is designated officially as a future interstate with a approved number, though waiting for a sign in states that usually sign them. Certainly it's a system that has always leaned towards inclusion.

Looking at the other usaif routes in NC, I'm not sure many of them are even signed, and those that are often just have the green signs declaring every now and again that the road is future I-xx  rather than full route signage with future banners.

The last route added was I-495 future, which did so on the basis of the green sign, IIRC.

[Jim]

From my view, usaif is more trouble than it's worth given how hard it can be to figure out what's "official" and what's not.  As I'm sure I've said before, I wouldn't mind dropping it altogether since most if not all of the system overlaps with other active systems in our data anyway.

[bejacob]

From my view, usaif is more trouble than it's worth given how hard it can be to figure out what's "official" and what's not.  As I'm sure I've said before, I wouldn't mind dropping it altogether since most if not all of the system overlaps with other active systems in our data anyway.

Not a bad idea. Keep the routes as US highways (or state routes) until the  Interstate designation is made official. Count me in favor of removing usaif as a separate system.

Brian

[mapcat]

One more vote for scrapping usaif. Mileage along highways not included in other active systems can be added to usansf/usasf if not already.


Edit: changed usansf to usansf/usasf

[Jim]

usaif had a role in the CHM project before we expanded to US and state routes.

[dfilpus]

There some routes in usaif that do not have US or state route map files.

In NC, I-73/840 Future West Greensboro and I-795/840 Future East Greensboro are Interstate grade freeways signed only as Future
Interstates with the green Future Interstate signs and no reassurance shields. All other Future Interstates in NC and VA are along US highways.

By the way, NC has signed new stretches of full interstates with similar green signs instead of reassurance shields.

[bejacob]

There some routes in usaif that do not have US or state route map files.

In NC, I-73/840 Future West Greensboro and I-795/840 Future East Greensboro are Interstate grade freeways signed only as Future
Interstates with the green Future Interstate signs and no reassurance shields. All other Future Interstates in NC and VA are along US highways.

By the way, NC has signed new stretches of full interstates with similar green signs instead of reassurance shields.

What if the usaif system were reduced to just those routes that don't have another designation? Relegate the rest to existing routes in other systems.

Some like Future I-69 around Indianapolis follow existing Interstates (I-465). Most others are along US highways (e.g. I-22). How many fall into the category of no concurrency?

If a route truly has no other designation, keep it in usaif so it can be logged and clinched. The rest could be removed and the mileage can be clinched on whatever route they are concurrent with until the Interstate designation becomes official.

[si404]

Keeping the concurrent usaif routes make it easy to, when the section becomes interstate, the section can transfer easily via the AltRouteNames.

Especially useful if, like NC, the US route gets moved off the freeway and so isn't concurrent with the Interstate.

[michih]

If I got it right, there was no decision on adding I-42 Future route but there is consensus on removing the usaif system once all state routes will be in HB (as active systems?)

If this thread should remain open till usaif will be gone, the thread title should be renamed.

Or is it intended to add I-42 Future?

[Duke87]

I can confirm empirically that Future I-42 signs have been posted on the Goldsboro Bypass, if it matters.

That said, I also vote in favor of ditching usaif or at least treating it as deprecated (i.e. don't add new routes, remove or truncate existing ones as they become actual interstates or see the plans to make them one officially abandoned).

There is still one thing that needs correcting here, though: US70BypGol currently has two waypoints for the interchange at its eastern end (369 and 370), neither of which matches the coordinates of the US70BypGol_E waypoint or US70. To properly register the intersection of routes, US70BypGol should get those two waypoints combined into one (call it 369/370... or just 370) with the same coordinates as the corresponding US70 waypoint.

[mapmikey]

I have adjusted the US70BypGol eastern endpoint to match US 70's file.  Submitted.