Topics merged.
I would prefer that we NOT include routes that are close but don't intersect.
If there's an intersection, then maybe those should be lined up and concurrencies should be broken with a shaping point instead.
The TX example could have off-by-.00000001 shaping point(s) either side to break the concurrency, with the TX130 intersection the same co-ords as the other two roads.
I'm on board with this line of thinking now.
It can be done now, the way the site's already set up.
I've backed off from the "include points off by 0.000001°" proposal michih & I suggested earlier, now that I can conceive of a situation where it'd be a Bad Thing:
Consider US87 & US287 in Amarillo TX as a reason against my proposal.
To dive deeper into this...
Suppose that between
TXLp279 and
I-40BL/60 there were a point at 3rd Avenue. The two routes don't directly intersect here
(It's a bit of a different animal from the main/frontage/sliproad in the TX130/US183 example above); instead they're indirectly connected by very short connecting road.
Reality is a bit murkier, though...The only points on this section are where other routes in the HB connect.
In a One-Point-Per-Interchange sense, TXLp395
(same for TXLp279) needs to connect to US87, and to US287. Thus US87 and US287 must connect. I can live with this, I suppose. As we Yankees say, you can get theyah from heyah. I can just break the multiplexes with shaping points.
So yeah, while there are no such points
currently in these files, I can see wanting to separate points by 0.000001°, and not list another route as intersecting.
However, I don't start replacing NMPs by shaping points right now because I still hope to get a software solution 
No longer seeing a software solution on-site as feasible, I've started lining up NMPs and adding shaping points. >:-D
If the two edges,
PointA <-> PointB and
PointA <-> +x5haper <-> PointB differ visibly from one another in Mapview or the HDX, I can see that as being distracting/ugly; I prefer the clean look of overlaying one polyline over the other with as little deviation as possible.
CUZ I'M A HUGE NERD, I wrote a program that, given a list of WPT segments, will find the coordinates between existing adjacent points that, at the usual 6 decimal places' precision, deviate the least possible amount from the line directly connecting those points on a Mercator map, and then add a new shaping point to the file.
The Intersecting Routes feature works, Mapview overlays look as they do with the current "off-by-0.000001°" method, and the only difference the average site user should see is that concurrencies aren't inappropriately detected and added to their stats.
You can see the resulting shaping points here (for now).Thoughts? Comments?
