AUT: B65 / B319

[Duke87]

B65 needs to be split into two routes. The segment that's also mapped as B319 is only signed as B319 and not as B65 (can confirm by field check).

[neroute2]

But it's signed on either end of B319? Sounds like an "unsigned but implied" overlap, despite the strangeness of B319 only existing there: https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/hwydata.php

[michih]

Exactly. It's an implied multiplex. I think that mapcat and me defined the same logic back then. From the top of my head: We keep it as one route if the routing is clear, the number is not changing on the concurrency, and if the overlap is not noticeably longer than the shortest remainder. I rawly followed that "unwritten rule".

B65 is an implied multiplex according to that. Closing.