OH: I-76 60 label at south end of Ohio Turnpike Interchange

[vdeane]

So, we lose mileage on both routes, and an official multiplex on the connector road between the two?  Hmmmm, not a fan of this change to be honest.

I think it was mentioned on the AARoads Forum that the way it is now is actually how the routes are officially defined by Ohio.

[rickmastfan67]

So, we lose mileage on both routes, and an official multiplex on the connector road between the two?  Hmmmm, not a fan of this change to be honest.

I think it was mentioned on the AARoads Forum that the way it is now is actually how the routes are officially defined by Ohio.

There does seem to be a 219.2 MM I-80 under the overpasses where you say the swap happens.  HOWEVER, there is a I-76 218.8 MM between the Ohio Turnpike Exit 218 & the overpass, which seems to indicate that I-76 does indeed go to the interchange.

So, IMO, since this is a Turnpike interchange (since when have we ever centered these types on interchanges), 2 separate trumpet interchanges, & all 'overhead' signage indicate the swaps are at the ramps, and not the overpasses (sans that one I-80 MM which most people wouldn't notice), I think we should revert the change.

[mapcat]

So, we lose mileage on both routes, and an official multiplex on the connector road between the two?  Hmmmm, not a fan of this change to be honest.

A loss of what, about 2 miles? Not much different from what happens when I eliminate some of the excessive shaping points on various routes as I encounter them.

(since when have we ever centered these types on interchanges)

Even if the answer is "never", that doesn't mean we shouldn't reevaluate this policy.

I'll hold off on redoing any of the other turnpike interchanges to give others some time to share their opinions. I'm in no hurry.

[michih]

For I76/I80 I'm in favor for one wp per i/c as it is now: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.109914&lon=-80.837831
For I77/I80 I prefer two wps as-is, I77: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.273904&lon=-81.636400 / I80: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.271033&lon=-81.622581
I don't like additional turnpike routes to connect I77/I80 wps.

[yakra]

Double trumpets, connecting roads, two waypoints.

Some of these changes are going too far to try to get graph connections, and more poorly representing the roads in the process.
Consider especially the "official multiplex on the connector road between the two", which already had graph connections.

[rickmastfan67]

Double trumpets, connecting roads, two waypoints.

Some of these changes are going too far to try to get graph connections, and more poorly representing the roads in the process.
Consider especially the "official multiplex on the connector road between the two", which already had graph connections.

Totally agree with you on this Yakra.  Double trumpets = two waypoints.  Especially since they already had graph connections before the change.

Also, take a look @ MM 218.6.  WB I-80 on one side, EB I-76 on the other because that's where the ramp from the trumpet connects that's carrying I-76 onto the OH Turnpike.  So, we should go back to the way it was IMO.

[mapcat]

Thanks for the input. I'll make a decision when I embark on the overhaul of all the routes in the state sometime this summer.

[rickmastfan67]

Sorry, but even now, I'm still on the "Double trumpets, connecting roads, two waypoints" side for the I-76/I-80 interchange.  Even with the OH-8 interchange (Exit 180).  The I-76/I-80 interchange already had the graph connections via the connector road since both Interstates used it to change on/off the Turnpike.

I mean, sure, we want graph connections as much as possible.  But with trumpets on toll highways, it's not always possible.

If we want to go with graph connections between highways like this, we should have a vote to change the manual to allow it, because I don't think the manual approves of something like this (but I could be wrong).

[Duke87]

Yeah I just noticed this and I have to agree - I favor the mapping along the double trumpet. The way it now is, the concurrency that physically exists between the two routes is totally ignored, and the routes are shown jumping at a point where they don't actually connect.

I'm not really sure why in this case you'd not map along the double trumpet - you're not missing a graph connection by doing so, and it's not "needlessly complicated" - it's topologically accurate.

[mapcat]

All right, you're getting your double trumpet back. And 60 +> 218. Changes made to my local copy.

[mapcat]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4203

[Markkos1992]

Of course, the I-76 Sharp Angle errors are back.  Though I am sure that was expected.