1. Lined up with PA 320 (Exit 330). I agree that the NMP was intentional, but the ramps IMO were centered enough to justify this.
An oddball case, but I'd say lining up to PA320 is OK enough if it gets us a graph connection.
2. Found out that the 34th St Exit WB is Exit 346B. I made the current 346B (in-use so left as alternate) label 346B_A and the 34thSt label 346B_B. There is already an Exit 346C.
Ouch. Isn't this just a graceless situation we're faced with. An ugly Cross-street style label, signed with an exit number, in the middle of a fully exit-numbered freeway. Double-half interchanges, just over threshold @ 0.56 mi apart. I can't justify eliminating one or consolidating them.
Quoth the
manual:
6 | 6A
Two separate interchanges numbered 6. Distinguish them by picking the next available letter suffix for the second interchange. Number the first interchange normally.
This doesn't fully get into what "the next available letter suffix" is in a case like this. Is it
346C? But that's needed for the next interchange over? Is it
346D? Could be... Sure, having the letter suffixes out-of-sequence is a bit ugly, but there are real-world examples already in the HB:
CT I-91 17 16 17A
KS I-135 10B 10A
...and probably more.
There's no precedent for appending _A _B _C _N _S _W _E etc. to exit numbers on Interstates,
that I know of.
(Anyone have any examples?) The thought of starting to add those now makes me bristle a bit.
However, I am wondering about the validity of potentially lining up PA 3 at Exit 345 (though not signed from I-76)
Oy. Difficult to tell what's going on here, and OSM is being very laggy ATM. I see the offramps clearly enough,. but I'd have to know more about what PA3 itself does here.
and I-95 at Exit 351. I could not truly justify moving forward with it myself.
Agreed. This is starting to look like connecting-road territory here. At the simple end of the spectrum, there's stuff like I-95 & NH101. And then, there's some of NJ's more... "creative", interchange solutions...