I-676 in Philadelphia

[si404]

I'm against removing unsigned Interstates.

Sorry, my post should have had "from usai".

[US 89]

Or just move all of the unsigned ones throughout into usaui.  Users who only care about signed interstates just worry about usai and those who want signed and unsigned would aim to clinch both usai and usaui.

I'd be okay with this. I am in full opposition to removing unsigned interstates, having clinched three of them myself and been on a fourth. (I'm also in opposition to removing unsigned anything, but that's an argument for another day.)

[Duke87]

I'm also going to register my opposition to removing any unsigned interstates. They are sufficiently significant for inclusion regardless of signage.

Moving them to a separate system... I could get behind. This could also potentially serve as a good template for how to handle other unsigned routes.

[mapcat]

I've clinched almost all of the unsigned interstates and am fine with them being removed. I'm not in favor of a new usaui system for them. Just delete them. Consistency.

[vdeane]

Having separate listings for unsigned interstates could allow for both routings of I-676 to be included... one in the signed system, one in the unsigned.

Adding other unsigned systems could open a rabbit hole... for example, NY's reference routes include service roads, some interchanges (like I-787 exit 6), and wyes.

[bejacob]

The question that immediately comes to mind for me is "what makes unsigned Interstates different from other unsigned routes?" If I'm not mistaken, in every other system, routes are removed when users report they are unsigned.

I don't really have strong opinion on this either way, though I lean slightly in favor of removing them because that's how all other systems are treated.

I do think that adding stand alone "unsigned" systems (even Interstates) is a bad idea.

[neroute2]

It's worth considering that FHWA's data may be wrong, due to the person who entered it being confused. AASHTO does not appear to have the FHWA definition from 1972, but everything from AASHTO and PA shows one continuous route:

Conversely I-676 would be relocated along the present I-76 via the "Vine Street Expressway" across the Ben Franklin Bridge and junctioned at the present interchange in New Jersey.

On the other hand, the March 2001 Route Log and Finder List has 2.15 miles for I-676 in PA, while the March 1992 length is 2.59. So did something change in the 90s? Anyone want to ask FHWA? Not that this would necessarily change how we map it; see the cases of I-80 CA, I-495 NY, I-695 MD, and I-895 MD.

[Markkos1992]

Since I know that there will not be changes to I-676, do we want to split the discussion on unsigned interstates into another thread?  Then I can easily mark this topic as solved and move on.

[Markkos1992]

Please continue the discussion on including unsigned interstates in this thread:   https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=4091.0

I will mark this topic as solved and move on as I stated in my last post. 

[SSOWorld]

I'm against removing unsigned Interstates. That is not what I was suggesting with my comments. MOST of them are entirely concurrent with something else, but others (such as I-478, which technically has one intermediate interchange AND shows up on most maps) are independent and long enough to qualify for usasf.

If you want to split the unsigned Interstates into a separate system, fine. But I'm strongly opposed to removing anything from the system solely on the basis of being "unsigned" if several other sources say they exist.

comment on new thread