NC: I-785

[rickmastfan67]

Looks like it's been officially posted on the small segment between I-40/I-85 & US-70 w/ no mention of I-840 yet on the BGS (only mentions for it still is at the US-70 ramps).

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg2199702#msg2199702

I do recall seeing some pictures showing this somewhere, but can't find them right now.

[rickmastfan67]

Bump with a pic:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/06/interstate-785-now-signed-on-greensboro_8.html

If we can't decide to add the new I-73 segment on the other side of Greensboro, can we at least get I-785 added on the other side?

[mapmikey]

I will look at these in detail when I return from my business trip to Durham NC late tomorrow.

[mapmikey]

I-785 file created and submitted

[dfilpus]

The waypoints are in the format I-840(exit) instead of exit(840), which has been the standard for concurrent interstates in the past. Is the standard changed?

[Jim]

The waypoints are in the format I-840(exit) instead of exit(840), which has been the standard for concurrent interstates in the past. Is the standard changed?

I've seen concurrency labels both ways.  We should try to be consistent, though.

[michih]

I think concurrent routes should be labeled exit(route).
route(exit) is used if routes intersect more than once.

[Jim]

I think concurrent routes should be labeled exit(route).
route(exit) is used if routes intersect more than once.

That is the guideline we inherited from CHM, but it's been loosely followed, at best.

[michih]

I think concurrent routes should be labeled exit(route).
route(exit) is used if routes intersect more than once.

That is the guideline we inherited from CHM, but it's been loosely followed, at best.

Haven't known that the CHM guideline is only a recommendation. I've spent this morning to change Axx_Location labels to Axx(exit number)...

[si404]

That is the guideline we inherited from CHM, but it's been loosely followed, at best.

That's news to me - Tim certainly asked me to change it when I changed routes to that method.

[mapmikey]

corrected the file and submitted

[Jim]

Not sure whose been following the convention and when, but I found many cases when working on the latest graph waypoint name simplifications that did things like I-80(55) for concurrencies where I would have expected 55(80).  I'll leave it up to everyone else to decide what we should be doing.