One interchange or two?

[neroute2]

Hoping to get a few more opinions on these:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/32.56135/-116.57599 : 2 and 2D functionally overlap through the interchange(s). 2D west and east of here are maintained by different agencies, with the short overlap maintained federally as part of 2.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/32.5568/-116.0430 : 2D has a huge median to the east. The interchange (part) to the northwest allows westbound 2D traffic to U-turn to reach the interchange (part) to the southeast and 2.

[rickmastfan67]

1) I'd say 2 interchanges there for sure.

[michih]

Issue 1: yakra and I think that both ways are fine.

[yakra]

I'm leaning slightly more toward 2 based on the short overlap thru it. If I were drafting it I'd probably also let how the various final mapview/graph options look affect my decision.

[michih]

Issue 1: I'm leaning slightly more toward 1 based on lack of appropriate label names

Issue 2: We need 2 wps here.

[froggie]

That first one is clearly 2 points.  The second one is a mess.

[neroute2]

For the second one, if it's two points, where should the southeast one be placed? Does it belong in the median of 2D?

[michih]

For the second one, if it's two points, where should the southeast one be placed? Does it belong in the median of 2D?

No, since you can drive both ways from the western to the eastern wp. Leave as-is.

http://travelmapping.net/hb/index.php?r=mexbc.mex002d

[neroute2]

The northwestbound roadway is simply a ramp...

[michih]

Waypoint 18 and 19 should stay as-is.
There is another ramp west of waypoint 18 which might get another waypoint.
I don't know which situation you are talking about.

[neroute2]

I don't know which situation you think I am talking about.

That ramp to the west is either in my changes, or I left it out since you can't get anywhere except back on 2D.