FL: US1 & FL Turnpike

[ntallyn]

Shouldn't there be only one point at the Florida Turnpike (Extension) on US1? Currently, there's points labeled FL821 and FL821(1).

Similarly, there's 2 points on the turnpike (1 and US1).

FL FLTpk US1 and FL US1 FL821 appear to match.
FL FLTpk 1 and FL US1 FL821(1) are on opposite ends of the exit ramp from the turnpike to US1 North.

Nick

[rickmastfan67]

It's because of the '#'ed interchange there that we have the separate points.

We had something similar with the Southern end of I-77 @ I-26 in SC.  There is an exit #1 (for US-21/176/321) hidden in there that we have a separate point for too.  Based on that, that's why we have the #1 here.

However, I should fix those labels on US-1 to mention the FL Turnpike instead of the 'hidden' number for that part.

[ntallyn]

It's because of the '#'ed interchange there that we have the separate points.

We had something similar with the Southern end of I-77 @ I-26 in SC.  There is an exit #1 (for US-21/176/321) hidden in there that we have a separate point for too.  Based on that, that's why we have the #1 here.

I get the I-77 one -- Exit 1 and I-26 go to different roads. But the Florida Turnpike is simply US 1 North vs. US 1 South.

[rickmastfan67]

Anyways, while looking at the 'labels-in-use' for both of these routes, I did notice that '1' in the FL Tpke's file wasn't in use.  However, the 'FL821(1)' point, as well as 'FL821' are BOTH in use.  Thus, somebody is using the points because they needed them.  I personally don't want to delete (or merge) an active point that a user needs that has been there for a long time.

Anybody else have any comments on this?

[yakra]

Anybody else have any comments on this?

One point per interchange. Both here and in SC I-77, I'd use a single point, exit numbering notwithstanding. I'd merge them into a single waypoint, keeping both active labels.

As for "because they needed them" -- sometimes people don't look too closely and pick the close-but-still-wrong point.

[synkdorbit]

Anybody else have any comments on this?

Hi there... Long time lurker, avid mapper and roadgeek here. My strong opinion is to keep both waypoints exactly as they are. They are not the same thing.

My first reason for status quo is that Exit 1 is only reachable from the southbound lanes of Florida's Turnpike. Exit 1 is also not the terminus for the Turnpike but is still an exit in its own right (that alone should be reason enough for keeping as is). The road segment between US1 South and Exit 1 (i.e., FL FlTpk US1 1 in a .list file) is not part of Exit 1 (they'd most likely be marked as Exits 1A and 1B if they were considered to be the same exit).

My second reason is this: the southbound segment beyond Exit 1 (FL FlTpk US1 1) is the portion carried by the overpass over US1 and is the continuation of the southbound Turnpike through traffic to its terminus at US1 southbound (a route used by many travelers heading south to the Keys, for example). If you were trying to clinch Florida's Turnpike from north to south and you exited early at Exit 1 to US1 North (i.e., you put FL FlTpk 309 1 in your .list file), I would argue you haven't fully clinched the entire Turnpike. To fully "count" going southbound you would have to drive across the overpass to where it merges with US1 South just before the intersection with Palm Drive/SW 344th St. Conversely, going north would be a little easier as you would just use the entrance onramp from US1 north on the opposite side just north of Palm Drive, where the Turnpike begins.

[rickmastfan67]

Anybody else have any comments on this?

One point per interchange. Both here and in SC I-77, I'd use a single point, exit numbering notwithstanding. I'd merge them into a single waypoint, keeping both active labels.rong point.[/url]

However, with the I-77 example, Tim himself put in the '1' point after I mentioned it to him.  He agreed with me that since the ramps went to a completely different highway there, it could be considered a completely separate interchange.  Can't seem to find the original post (or if I had emailed him about it) to link right now.

[si404]

The FL example is very clearly 1 interchange, whereas the SC example is (less clearly) 2.

[yakra]

Re synkdorbit's post:
CHM/TM has always had a "One Point Per Interchange" guideline. (Though admittedly, what exactly One Interchange *is* can be a bit wibbly-wobbly. Hence the differing opinions in this thread.) Exits 42A & 42B are frequently (though not always) combined into a single Exit 42 point.

Exit 1 is also not the terminus for the Turnpike

I'll agree with this. However, I will go on to say that "Exit 1 is also part of the interchange that is the terminus for the Turnpike".
Tracking the mainline within the footprint of "one interchange" is a level of granularity that the project doesn't make an effort to support, and that level of detail just gets lost. And we live with it.

I would argue you haven't fully clinched the entire Turnpike.

Right, I won't argue on this either; I certainly see the logic behind that viewpoint.
For an example I consider a bit similar, have I clinched NY I-278? Well... no! I left & then re-entered westbound at Exit 5, missing the mainline in between the exit and entrance. Back before CHM came along & made these things much easier, I used to track my clinch percentages manually and took stuff like this into account. Now? I could put NY I-278 NJ/NY 5 and NY I-278 5 I-95 into my .list file. And the site will report a 100% clinch. If it bugs me, I guess I can go back to Staten Island some day and finish off that last little bit. (Best not to think about what this means for my nationwide clinch of I-90...)
So again, some details will just get lost and rounded off due to the level of granularity the project is aimed towards.

So yeah, One Point Per Interchange and yadda yadda. The long & short of it all is, I agree almost but not quite verbatim with si404:

The FL example is very clearly 1 interchange, whereas the SC example is (less clearly) 1.

--

However, with the I-77 example, Tim himself put in the '1' point after I mentioned it to him.  He agreed with me that since the ramps went to a completely different highway there, it could be considered a completely separate interchange.  Can't seem to find the original post (or if I had emailed him about it) to link right now.

Interesting, and a little surprising, but not completely so. Was this in the very early years of the project? (I gather that that's a Yes if Tim was still maintaing the Interstates at this point, before turning them over to you.) Tim himself refined the approaches he took to many aspects of the project over the years, and what he did in the early days isn't always what he would have done later on. Heck, until my cleanup in December, NY I-278 had separate points for exits 8 & 9.
Ramps going to completely different highways? Meh... I view it as a variant on the south end of NH I-89 -- just one with a different ramp configuration.
See also: the east end of CA24, which, full disclosure, I recommended Oscar fold into a single point.

I can argue about this stuff all day.
And frequently do.
Okay, I'm going to close a bunch of browser tabs now...

[rickmastfan67]

However, with the I-77 example, Tim himself put in the '1' point after I mentioned it to him.  He agreed with me that since the ramps went to a completely different highway there, it could be considered a completely separate interchange.  Can't seem to find the original post (or if I had emailed him about it) to link right now.

Interesting, and a little surprising, but not completely so. Was this in the very early years of the project? (I gather that that's a Yes if Tim was still maintaing the Interstates at this point, before turning them over to you.) Tim himself refined the approaches he took to many aspects of the project over the years, and what he did in the early days isn't always what he would have done later on. Heck, until my cleanup in December, NY I-278 had separate points for exits 8 & 9.
Ramps going to completely different highways? Meh... I view it as a variant on the south end of NH I-89 -- just one with a different ramp configuration.
See also: the east end of CA24, which, full disclosure, I recommended Oscar fold into a single point.

I can argue about this stuff all day.
And frequently do.
Okay, I'm going to close a bunch of browser tabs now...

Yep.  He originally had '1' at the I-26 part of that interchange till I pointed out to him that Exit 1 went to a completely separate road and that the I-26 interchange was unnumbered.

Found the update entry for this on the old updates page.  It happened back in 2006.

February 11, 2006

    Corrected South Carolina I-77 Interchange 0 for I-26 and Interchange 1 for US 21/US 176/US 321.

[michih]

Is there any decision on this? Can the issue be closed?

[Markkos1992]

I think that both FLTpk and US 1 should definitely only have one point here,

[rickmastfan67]

Fine, I've merged the two together since '1' isn't currently in-use in the Turnpike's file.  Now '1' is @ US-1 itself with "+0 +US1".

I'll leave US-1 as-is here.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4581