PA: I-476 Exit #31 changes

[rickmastfan67]

https://www.paturnpike.com/press/2016/20161202152213.htm
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=pa.i476
http://tm.teresco.org/hb/?r=pa.pa063

Ok, recently, new ramps opened there for PA-63 that are EZ-Pass only which are completely separate from the current '31' point on I-476.  These new ramps are a direct connection to PA-63, unlike the current trumpet interchange (which had no changes made to it).  Because of the changes, we now will have a problem with PA-63's file because of possibly needing to either recenter the current 'I-476' label, or add in a new one.  The changes needed to be made to I-476 are cut and dry thankfully.

I recommend the following changes be made and I'll do them if nobody thinks there's a problem here.

I-476 changes:
new -> 31A (point to be centered directly ontop of PA-63.
31 -> 31B (with 31 hidden)

PA-63 changes:
(option 1): Recenter the current 'I-476' point onto the new '31A' location.
(option 2): Relabel the current 'I-476' point to 'I-476(31B)' (while keeping 'I-476' as a hidden label for it), and add a new point at the center of the '31A' interchange and label it as 'I-476(31A)'.

I'm thinking Option 2 might be the best for PA-63, but want opinions.  You can see the new ramps in Google's Satellite imagery, so you get a good idea of what's happening here.

[yakra]

I prefer Option 1.

[rickmastfan67]

Any other comments before I do this (leaning towards option 1 for PA-63 now).

[Ib3kii]

I also prefer option 1.

[rickmastfan67]

Fix for this has been submitted as Pull Request #1038 using 'Option 1' for PA-63.

[yakra]

http://tm.teresco.org/logs/unmatchedfps.log
pa.i476;20;31;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.49
pa.i476;31;44;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.84

http://tm.teresco.org/devel/datacheck.php
pa.i476;20;31A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.24
pa.i476;31B;44;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.84

[rickmastfan67]

I'll get a fix for that submitted later tonight.

[rickmastfan67]

http://tm.teresco.org/logs/unmatchedfps.log
pa.i476;20;31;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.49
pa.i476;31;44;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.84

http://tm.teresco.org/devel/datacheck.php
pa.i476;20;31A;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;10.24
pa.i476;31B;44;;VISIBLE_DISTANCE;13.84

#1045

[froggie]

Sorry for the late-coming, but a strong argument could be made that this is a single interchange.  What was changed for PA 63 is fine.  But instead of two separate points on the I-476 list, the "31" point should have simply been moved to the PA 63 overpass and left it at that.

[yakra]

It's wibbly-wobbly, to be sure. I decided I was fine with it being two points, for an "interchange and a half".
I did take froggie's approach recently, with the reconfiguration of KS I-70 224(KT).

[rickmastfan67]

Sorry for the late-coming, but a strong argument could be made that this is a single interchange.  What was changed for PA 63 is fine.  But instead of two separate points on the I-476 list, the "31" point should have simply been moved to the PA 63 overpass and left it at that.

Well, 31 was in use, which was one of the main reasons I had in my mind to keep the location as is since that interchange didn't move at all.  Plus, SB I-476 didn't get a new offramp like the NB side did.  So, you could say they are effectively two different interchanges.

With Yakra's example, that interchange was completely reconfigured and all the I-70 EB ramps were moved to a new location, justifying the relocation of the point wholesale to it's new location.  With the I-476 one, you can say it was an entirely new 'partial' interchange that was added for I-476, as none of the original ramps were removed.

[froggie]

Semantics.  I don't think it would have killed much to leave it as a single 31 point and move it to the overpass (0.2mi is effectively a rounding error for most people's lists).  Functionally, it's a single interchange, and we've had single points for much larger interchange footprints than this.

[yakra]

Ah, but it so often does just come down to semantics in this project though...
I might have done it with one point (or not?), but I'm fine with two.