NH: should US 4 labels use NH 16 exit numbers on the concurrency?

[Jim]

NH 16 has exit numbers, which are used by nh.nh016.  US 4 is concurrent for a bit, but nh.us004 uses street names.  Should it use 1(16) or 1(NH16) style?  Low priority either way, just happened to notice it as I'm working on point name simplification code for my graph data.

[yakra]

This was one of the earlier routes I drafted, and I went by the "We don't use exit numbers on the US highways" rule. State routes weren't a glimmer in anyone's eye yet, and I really only expected to use I-50(666) style labels on interstate duplexes.

I think this one should get NH16(666) style labels. I'll add this post to my ToDo list, but probably procrastinate about it.

[froggie]

NH16(x) labels is the route I'd take.  Consistent with (most of) the rest of the system.

[Jim]

Thanks.  There were just a few so I made the changes.  Hope I didn't break anything.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/51655f23f52805e32b43469819fe0ecdba58f0c5

[yakra]

A couple add'l corrections:

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/9ebfff853f635f55e4056e54da7cbf8d54249544

[Jim]

Thanks.  It isn't concurrent with "HN16" through there?

[froggie]

I'm not sure what NHDOT considers the southern end of NH 16.  Otherwise, at a minimum the two routes are concurrent from the I-95 ramp merge north to where US 4 splits off westward towards Durham and Concord.  But I'm pretty sure both are concurrent to the same endpoint at BYPASS US 1.

[yakra]

But I'm pretty sure both are concurrent to the same endpoint at BYPASS US 1.

I was already pretty sure of that, but looked at the shape files just the same.
The Hi-Order Route listed in the SRI field shows the Spaulding Turnpike where applicable. NH16's mileposts pick up right where the Spaulding Turnpike's leave off.
The mileposts at the US4 split also match up.
MP 0 for the Spaulding is at the Portsmouth traffic circle.
So it looks like both endpoints are correct in the HB.

[Jim]

I wasn't questioning its routing, just pointing out my own typo of "HN16" instead of "NH16" when I relabeled US 4.

[yakra]

How about I also change the south end of US3 in NH to EveTpk(1) style labels?

[Bickendan]

NH16(x) labels is the route I'd take.  Consistent with (most of) the rest of the system.

Format I use as well. I personally don't like the x(NH16) format and only use that for concurrency shapepoints.

[yakra]

The style would be 42(16) were US4 an exit-numbered highway.
As a "non-exit-numbered [route] concurrent with a numbered, exit-numbered route", it gets NH16(42) style.
(Ay caramba -- looking over The Manual again, it looks as if I want Eve(42) for the south end of US3. The more I know...)
As far as I'm concerned, anything goes for hidden shaping points*.
I think Tim wanted to standardize to +x[numeral][whatever else]. These days... again, AFAIC anything goes, I guess? Although, I do still make my hidden labels conform to that format. I am interested in whatever Jim has to say from a Data Processing perspective.

[yakra]

I've put in a pull request changing the south end of US3 to Eve(42) style labels, and adding the Circumferential Highway to usasf:
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/655