KY: I-69/WK & Pennyrile (Fut I-169) Parkway interchange

[rickmastfan67]

With the way the interchange has been reconfigured, I-69 technically doesn't go thru the old cloverleaf anymore, and those parts are still officially the Parkways as far as I understand.

When using the WPTEditor to check the distance between the ramps & the cloverleaf, they are .55 miles (more than what's recommended for 'split' interchanges) from where I would recommend centering each ramp (106A & 106B):

Code: [Select]

106A http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.212601&lon=-87.451226
106(original) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.212451&lon=-87.441312
106B http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.220043&lon=-87.443318

As for a place to relocate the '106' point to, I'd just move it to 106A's placement due to that section having become part of I-69 first.

As for the parkways there, I'd extend both of them to the new '106A & 106B' points.  WK would be '38A' (StreetView) & the current 38 (@ the cloverleaf) would become 38B, Pennyrile would be '34C' (StreetView).

[yakra]

Still a single interchange.
Consider the canonical example of MD I-97 @ 7.

See also:
NE NE2Lin @ US75_N
TX TX183 @ TX114

[mapcat]

I'm not inclined to split this interchange despite the < 0.5 mile distance. Perhaps it should be recentered, but it's not clear to me how splitting it would benefit any users.

[compdude787]

Yeah, I'd still consider it one interchange as well, so we should keep it as one point per the "one point per interchange" rule.

[the_spui_ninja]

At first I thought it seemed like multiple interchanges, but the current signage (here) makes me think that this could be put on the backburner until I-169 is signed and that signage is put up.