I've never liked that part of Tim's waypoint labeling. Always preferred a more a descriptive waypoint for multiple route crossings,
I tend to mix-n-match the two conventions, based on what works best in a given context. In Texas, there's a lot of FM42_A, FM42_B, FM42_C... In New England, I use town suffixes more, ME9_Sca, ME9_SPo, ME9_Cal, ME9_Bai. Then there's the hybrid AbcN type as Si mentioned: US1 has ME161_CarA, ME161_CarB, ME161_CarC, ME161_FtKS, and ME161_FtKN.
I think later on, Tim was moving toward deprecating city suffixes (?)
(or at the very least, the 4-letter city+direction kind) in favor of just the _A _B _C type. Now
THAT is what gave
me heartburn. It got as far as making (Jeff, was it?) relabel a
bunch of county roads in (WI, was it?) to a much less intuitive system. Yecch.
like TN56Coa (for Coalmont) or TN56Alt (for Altamont).
Though I've gotta be anal here and point out that TN56Coa would be correct in the case of multiple segments of TN56 in the browser, one of which is the "TN56Coa" ("list file name") Coalmont segment. If there are multiple segments intersecting a route being plotted, we can use the highway name, in this case TN56Coa. Otherwise, if there's just one TN56, intersecting our route in multiple places, one of which is Coalmont, then the citty suffix tacked on to the TN56 label would use an underscore, I.E. TN56_Coa, TN56_Alt.
(I can definitely see room for confusion here, and have seen a lot of such confusion in labeling in the HB over the years. Including in my own early work. US1AltWHAT? *Walks away whistling casually*)Clear as mud?
