2. Done.
3. Replaced with GruRd only.
4-7. Done.
8. Normally, I'd not include a CR in a slashed designation, but I think NJ's 500-series have a bit of a different flavor to them. With the other 559 point right next door... eh. Chose no-build.
9. Done.
10. New_Jersey_Road_Centerlines shapefiles have Dorset Ave. Keeping as-is.
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4441Saving the screwiest 1 for last. Nothing committed here yet.
Just plain
NJ140 won't work, because there
is a multiplex.
Re-checking the manual, I think it's unspecific enough, and the situation unspecific enough, to allow what I usually do in similar cases...
When one route just ends while a concurrent one keeps on going, I interpret the concurrency as having only one "multiplex split" to get a _Suffix. Everything from there to the end, I treat as "intermediate points".
Here's the canonical example from my backyard --
MainSt is what ME9 actually intersects here. And
MainSt is what ME111 intersects while it's concurrent with ME9. (Although. An argument could be made that while ME111 doesn't leave a concurrency here, ME9 does. Such an argument could be used to justify a
ME9_E label on ME111...)
Following this recipe,
CR540 would be the label on US40.
And on NJ140? To keep following the Maine example,
CR540 would get chosen again.
But why do I feel a little more OK about potentially including US40 in the label? Moreso than
ME9_E on ME111? I think the physical layout of the T junction may be swaying me here. What road ends, what road continues... Hm.
But wait, there's more!With the geometry of this junction, the way the ramps are laid out & the way the US40 thru movements are made, it's possible I could even be talked into going 1PPI here, and collapsing the point at CR540 into the point at NJTpk.
Thoughts?