NV: Today's updates in Boulder City area

[SSOWorld]

Should the Exit #s on 93 paralleling I-11 be shown as "I-11(##)"? I know that the two are equal, but until 11 came on-board 93 didn't have Exit #s outside of Exit 2 which was the Hoover Dam Exit (NV 172) at the time.

US-95 also has the same issue.

[oscar]

Should the Exit #s on 93 paralleling I-11 be shown as "I-11(##)"? I know that the two are equal, but until 11 came on-board 93 didn't have Exit #s outside of Exit 2 which was the Hoover Dam Exit (NV 172) at the time.

US-95 also has the same issue.

rickmastfan67 made this point above. Of course, yakra has been urging me to switch California over to exit labels like ##(11). I'm inclined to go with I-11(xx) for now if, as I think, that's the format used elsewhere in Nevada, then later (if at all) do a statewide switchover to the exit number(route number) format.

I had thought I could do all the Boulder City cleanup while on the move. But I think it will all wait until I get to Inuvik NT next week and stay put (except for a day trip to Tuktoyaktuk on the new NT 10) for a few days.

[yakra]

I-11(xx) would indeed be the proper label format for NV US93.
It's not a route with its own exit numbers.

[vdeane]

Looking at the map, it looks like some of the points are off by I-11 exit 2... and I-11Fut still exists!  Just about every route has the interchange at a slightly different place (this also creates a broken concurrency).

[rickmastfan67]

Looking at the map, it looks like some of the points are off by I-11 exit 2... and I-11Fut still exists!  Just about every route has the interchange at a slightly different place (this also creates a broken concurrency).

http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2581.msg10431#msg10431

[oscar]

-- The stranded part of US 95, between I-11 and the US 93 business route, is included in the extended NV 172. OSM, and some discussion on the AARoads forum, indicate it's new route NV 173 (unclear whether it's signed), rather than part of NV 172.

Per recent discussion on the AARoads forum:

-- the stranded part of US 95 is officially NV 173, not NV 172

-- unclear whether NV 172 officially extends west of I-11 exit 2, despite what OSM says

-- in any case, as of last Sunday, no NV 172 signage west of I-11 exit 2, nor is there any NV 173 signage.

My inclination is to truncate NV 172 back to where it was originally (with a corrected endpoint at I-11(2)), and rename the NV172_S point on US93BusBou as Old US95. Also, to ignore NV 173 for now as unsigned. I expect to do a field check in October (en route to a college class reunion in the Bay Area), so all this can be revisited at that point or as other new information comes in.

Most of the NV 172 mileage I would truncate away is concurrent with US 93 Business, so it can be claimed that way.

[oscar]

It's not a closed exit, but it's very near the point where the new freeway and (previously) existing four-lane separate. It's more obvious if you use OSM and the dashed lines for the new I-11 are marked. I-515 went to what had been labeled as Exit 56 and now that point doesn't exist on its file, as it starts at Exit 61.

It wouldn't be a point for I-515, but for US 93/95.

I think I follow. I've added *OldI-515End in my local copies of the I-11, US 93, and US 95 route files. I plan to pull them in later this week, once I'm confident I've tied up all the loose ends in the Boulder City area.

[oscar]

I-11(xx) would indeed be the proper label format for NV US93.
It's not a route with its own exit numbers.

What about US 95? It has its own exit numbers north of I-15, but none to the south (except to the extent you consider the I-515 and some of the I-11 exit #s as "belonging" to US 95 since they're based on US 95's mileage from the CA border).

[yakra]

I think I follow. I've added *OldI-515End in my local copies of the I-11, US 93, and US 95 route files. I plan to pull them in later this week, once I'm confident I've tied up all the loose ends in the Boulder City area.

Took me some time to catch up, but I think I follow now too. Looking at Esri WorldImagery view finally put it all together for me.
Suggest using *OldUS93 as a label instead. Or some suffixed variant as appropriate -- note the existing OldHwy93 point.

[yakra]

What about US 95? It has its own exit numbers north of I-15,

This puts it in the "Interchanges on exit-numbered highwways" [sic] camp, governed by that section of the manual.
Case study: NH101

but none to the south (except to the extent you consider the I-515 and some of the I-11 exit #s as "belonging" to US 95 since they're based on US 95's mileage from the CA border).

Doesn't matter for purposes of my response above, but are there still US95-based numbers on I-11, or has this section been renumbered?
What are currently 56, 57, 59 & 61 in the HB are respectively labeled 17, 18, 20 & 22 by OSM.
(Apologies is this is discussed upthread; I admittedly did a quick skim.)

[oscar]

but none to the south (except to the extent you consider the I-515 and some of the I-11 exit #s as "belonging" to US 95 since they're based on US 95's mileage from the CA border).

Doesn't matter for purposes of my response above, but are there still US95-based numbers on I-11, or has this section been renumbered?
What are currently 56, 57, 59 & 61 in the HB are respectively labeled 17, 18, 20 & 22 by OSM.
(Apologies is this is discussed upthread; I admittedly did a quick skim.)

Per discussion on the AARoads board, the renumberings shown by OSM haven't happened yet.

[oscar]

I think I follow. I've added *OldI-515End in my local copies of the I-11, US 93, and US 95 route files. I plan to pull them in later this week, once I'm confident I've tied up all the loose ends in the Boulder City area.

Took me some time to catch up, but I think I follow now too. Looking at Esri WorldImagery view finally put it all together for me.
Suggest using *OldUS93 as a label instead. Or some suffixed variant as appropriate -- note the existing OldHwy93 point.

I'll go with *OldUS93/95, since 93 and 95 were concurrent at that point. That will further distinguish the point from OldHwy93 in the US 93 route file.

[yakra]

OldUS11
If the old highway had multiple numbered designations and you need to make up a label according to the previous instruction, use only the primary route number.
For example, if you need a label for the now-nameless highway formerly designated US 11/US 15, then the label should include only US 11: OldUS11.

Not sure if I completely agree with this one but there it is.

[oscar]

A batch of updates was pulled in yesterday, but I need to find and fix broken concurrencies, and also re-do and submit changes to the Updates table. Should have time to do this later today, when I'm more awake.

[michih]

@oscar:

Code: [Select]

Line 2117: 2018-08-23;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Hoover Dam);(NONE);Deleted route (folded into I-11)
Line 2118: 2018-08-19;(USA) Nevada;US 93 Business (Wendover);(NONE);Route Deleted
Line 2126: 2017-10-08;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Henderson);(NONE);Deleted route
(NONE) is not required and ends up in a link to nowhere. It should be read:

Code: [Select]

Line 2117: 2018-08-23;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Hoover Dam);;Deleted route (folded into I-11)
Line 2118: 2018-08-19;(USA) Nevada;US 93 Business (Wendover);;Route Deleted
Line 2126: 2017-10-08;(USA) Nevada;I-11 Future (Henderson);;Deleted route
These are all lines with the wrong entry in updates.csv.

"(NONE)" w/o link  is automatically inserted to the table by the front end software.