AL: US 431 - Relocation to the Anniston Bypass & I-20

[rickmastfan67]

Sorry, I hit the 'remove' button by accident on that thread instead of hitting the unlock button.  Just so you know Froggie, we don't need to lock threads now (unless spam).  Just move them into the 'Old Topics' section once marked as 'solved'.

I've attached a screenshot of the thread since it was still in my cache.

And here's the link that Markkos1992 posted: http://www.al.com/news/anniston-gadsden/index.ssf/2015/12/opening_of_anniston_eastern_by.html

[yakra]

Noticed this when looking into the changes to suggest different wording for the updates text:
Looks like the old alignment ties into the new at Lindale Drive. How about having a waypoint there for those who've just traveled the old alignment?

US78: There's still a US431_S waypoint in need of a new label. (OldUS431?)

[Jim]

Noticed this when looking into the changes to suggest different wording for the updates text:
Looks like the old alignment ties into the new at Lindale Drive. How about having a waypoint there for those who've just traveled the old alignment?

US78: There's still a US431_S waypoint in need of a new label. (OldUS431?)

If you want better update text, it should be safe to make the change and commit it.  The conflict problems mainly arise when multiple entries would be added to the top of the file (actually line 2).

[froggie]

Looks like the old alignment ties into the new at Lindale Drive. How about having a waypoint there for those who've just traveled the old alignment?

I thought about that but opted not to since the distances are fairly small.  If the group consensus is different, I can add one in.

[yakra]

If you want better update text, it should be safe to make the change and commit it.  The conflict problems mainly arise when multiple entries would be added to the top of the file (actually line 2).

Right, thanks. I guess I've been sticking mainly to Tim's old formatting style (mad libs) (E.G.  [Region] [Route]: Removed from [old route], and relocated onto [new route], between [bounding intersection #1] and [bounding intersection #2]. ), except for when IMO it's not really necessary to be as formal. (Sometimes I'll, say, leave off the "pivot waypoints" when a route is removed from a business route and relocated onto a bypass.)

This is, of course, a whole other topic in itself.

I put "Operation New Update Text" on hold in order to suggest the change to a pivot waypoint.

I thought about that but opted not to since the distances are fairly small.  If the group consensus is different, I can add one in.

I can't speak for everyone, but I like it.
A similar situation: When I updated ND US85 & ND US85BusWat a while back, Oscar suggested I add some "OldUS85" points, on "greater than the usual amount of stranded pavement" grounds. I added them at actual intersections, even if dead-end roads (E.G., ND US85BusWat OldUS85). The shortest segment so created was 0.28 mi (ND US85BusWat OldUS85 US85_N), as compared with the 0.30 mi I get for Lindale Drive / Old US431 to/from AL21.