usala: Louisiana State Highways

[mapcat]

Great, thanks for catching that. It will be in my next submission.

[cl94]

I'm looking through and a few things:

LA1:
- The unnamed bridge west of Larose doesn't have a point. Maybe call this AdamBlvd for the cross street?
- Is SkiSt necessary as a waypoint? This is just a minor side street. This could probably be demoted to shaping point status or moved.
- US190_E and LA987-1 are within the confines of the same interchange. Under "one point per interchange", these could be combined ("US190/987-1", maybe?).
- Might be good to add a point at Plauche Rd (PlaRd) in Morganza to go along with the point on LA 3050. Similarly, LA 3050 should probably have a point at Callegan Rd (CalRd) to match LA 1/10.
       

[froggie]

- Is SkiSt necessary as a waypoint? This is just a minor side street. This could probably be demoted to shaping point status or moved.

Regarding this one, past policy was for a preference to use actual waypoints instead of shaping points if the opportunity allowed.  If SkiSt was intended as a shaping point, it should probably be left as is.

[yakra]

- US190_E and LA987-1 are within the confines of the same interchange. Under "one point per interchange", these could be combined ("US190/987-1", maybe?).

Yes

[oscar]

- US190_E and LA987-1 are within the confines of the same interchange. Under "one point per interchange", these could be combined ("US190/987-1", maybe?).

Yes

Isn't there an exception where two TM-mapped routes intersect another such route at different points within an interchange? Maine's I-395 in Bangor, which has separate waypoints at its west end for US2 and I-95, comes to mind.

[cl94]

- US190_E and LA987-1 are within the confines of the same interchange. Under "one point per interchange", these could be combined ("US190/987-1", maybe?).

Yes

Isn't there an exception where two TM-mapped routes intersect another such route at different points within an interchange? Maine's I-395 in Bangor, which has separate waypoints at its west end for US2 and I-95, comes to mind.

I-95/395 and US 2 is a little different. The 95/395 interchange is clearly separate from the at-grade intersection between I-395 and US 2. US 190 and LA 987-1 are a weird case where LA 987-1 ends at the ramp to/from US 190 WB. LA 1 SB doesn't even intersect LA 987-1 directly. One point per interchange generally applies for cases like the LA example.

[mapcat]

It's messy but I'm not convinced that LA 987-1 is part of an interchange. There's no direct connection from LA 897-1 to US 190, so I feel like a user should get some mileage on LA 1 for travelling from one to the other. Plus if I used one point for the interchange, it would probably end up within the footprint of the ramps, which would extend LA 987-1 to twice its actual length.

[osu-lsu]

It's messy but I'm not convinced that LA 987-1 is part of an interchange. There's no direct connection from LA 897-1 to US 190, so I feel like a user should get some mileage on LA 1 for travelling from one to the other. Plus if I used one point for the interchange, it would probably end up within the footprint of the ramps, which would extend LA 987-1 to twice its actual length.

Google Street view paid a visit to West Baton Rouge Parish back in April of this year. One can see that 987-1 is not part of the interchange. It goes under the Huey Long bridge to connect 986 with part of LA 1 interchange with US 190.

[yakra]

The route as  whole is definitely not part of the interchange. The question is, at its west end, should LA1 have one point or two? I'll admit I only looked at it in the context of LA1 earlier.

A solution would be to combine the points on LA1 at the coords of the current LA987-1 point. It may make LA1 a bit ugly, but retains the proper length of LA987-1.
Hell, parclo, crossroads, amirite?

[cl94]

LA 18: It's a little weird having points labeled LA 541_W/A/B/E in that sequence. In a lot of places with multiple intersections between 2 routes, the waypoints are labeled A/B/C/D or with the town name as a suffix. Not an issue, more of a comment.
 

[mapcat]

LA 18: It's a little weird having points labeled LA 541_W/A/B/E in that sequence. In a lot of places with multiple intersections between 2 routes, the waypoints are labeled A/B/C/D or with the town name as a suffix. Not an issue, more of a comment.
 

Yeah, that was because W & E were so far apart, at the ends of 541, and the A/B pair were adjacent on a concurrent segment. I did the same thing with 541. Both A & B are in Westwego so using a town name won't work there. I don't mind changing them to A/B/C/D if anyone thinks it will be confusing.

[yakra]

A B C D makes more sense IMO

[froggie]

I never liked the alphabetical designations...that was something Tim very much pushed.  I'd prefer _W, _"TownA" _"TownB", and _E, with 3-letter abbreviations for the two intermediate towns.  IIRC that's how things initially were before Tim pushed the _A, _B, _C etc etc...

[Markkos1992]

Personally, I am with yakra.  I have even decided to eliminate the lack of using a letter when the route has a concurrency with another one and reintersects that route later. 

(For instance, see US 11 with PA 641 (PA641_W, PA641_A, PA641_E) and PA 34 (PA34/74, PA34_N, PA34_C).

[mapcat]

I never liked the alphabetical designations...that was something Tim very much pushed.  I'd prefer _W, _"TownA" _"TownB", and _E, with 3-letter abbreviations for the two intermediate towns.  IIRC that's how things initially were before Tim pushed the _A, _B, _C etc etc...

As I mentioned earlier, that won't work since the intermediate points are both in Westwego.