MD: Request New Point for Monocacy NB on MD 355

[mikeandkristie]

Can you add a waypoint on MD 355 for the main entrance for Monocacy National Battlefield?  It's roughly in the middle of a big stretch between points in Frederick and Urbana.  The turn for the visitor center is at 39.377497, -77.397531.  Thanks.

Mike

[Duke87]

Logical enough place for a point. Adding.

Using "NewTecWy" as the point name, in deference to the named street directly opposite the visitor center entrance.

[Eth]

Forgive me piggybacking on this, but it seems relevant since it deals with the next point to the south:

It appears that the non-MD355 portion of Urbana Pike in Urbana has been truncated at the north end such that it no longer meets the route, so the UrbPk_S waypoint (shouldn't that have been UrbPk_N, anyway?) is no longer at an intersection. Perhaps downgrade it to a hidden point (if in use) and add a point at LewWalSt instead?

[mikeandkristie]

Forgive me piggybacking on this, but it seems relevant since it deals with the next point to the south:

It appears that the non-MD355 portion of Urbana Pike in Urbana has been truncated at the north end such that it no longer meets the route, so the UrbPk_S waypoint (shouldn't that have been UrbPk_N, anyway?) is no longer at an intersection. Perhaps downgrade it to a hidden point (if in use) and add a point at LewWalSt instead?

No worries.  :-)

[mikeandkristie]

Logical enough place for a point. Adding.

Using "NewTecWy" as the point name, in deference to the named street directly opposite the visitor center entrance.

Thank you.

[Duke87]

Forgive me piggybacking on this, but it seems relevant since it deals with the next point to the south:

It appears that the non-MD355 portion of Urbana Pike in Urbana has been truncated at the north end such that it no longer meets the route, so the UrbPk_S waypoint (shouldn't that have been UrbPk_N, anyway?) is no longer at an intersection. Perhaps downgrade it to a hidden point (if in use) and add a point at LewWalSt instead?

Good observation.

UrbPk_S and UrbPk_N *are* backwards (I did notice that) but since both are in use, cannot simply be swapped without breaking people's list files.

However, if is now only one intersection with Urbana Pike, that makes this eminently solvable thusly:
- Rename UrbPk_S to LewWalSt (keeping former name as hidden label), reposition accordingly
- Rename UrbPk_N to UrbPk (keeping former name as hidden label)... also needed a little repositioning, interestngly

This will go live in my next pull.

I'm also adjusting the northern terminus slightly northward to the Frederick City Line (renamed "FreLim") since the HLR lists this, not I-70 (although the two are very close) as being where the end is.

[dave1693]

I'm also adjusting the northern terminus slightly northward to the Frederick City Line (renamed "FreLim") since the HLR lists this, not I-70 (although the two are very close) as being where the end is.

Adding a tiny segment, or moving the current I-70 waypoint? Which should have been marked closed, as the corresponding interchange on I-70 was. But there may possibly be some folks who've never been on that teensy little stretch of 355 north of I-70 that's still state maintained. (355 is still signed through Frederick, as is 144, but we closed that can of worms some time back and I don't feel like reopening it.)

[Duke87]

I just moved the waypoint. The north end of MD 355 is within the footprint of the former interchange (yes, this was that small an adjustment).

[oscar]

Looking over the pull request in the Waypoint Editor, it looks like there's a duplicate label error, between the I-70 point and FreLim's I-70 alternate label.

I suggest removing the alternate label, and also changing the I-70 point to *I-70 (I don't think that would fix the duplicate label error, though). Removing the I-70 closed intersection point would eliminate the duplicate label error, but might mess things up for other users even if I-70 remained as an alt label for FreLim.

I have a pending pull request to change in my list file MD 355's I-70 endpoint to FreLim, so I would prefer the FreLim label remain.

[Jim]

The change didn't leave the old I-70 point, it replaced it (and included I-70 as an alt label).  So there's no duplicate, but there is the issue of whether a *I-70 point should be provided.

[oscar]

My bad -- when I put the draft route file into the Waypoint Editor, I didn't notice the old I-70 point had been tagged for removal.

As for whether there should be a *I-70 point (or something like it) in the MD 355 file, it helps that the corresponding *54 point in the I-70 route file remains unused. So not only would I not add a point to the MD 355 file, I'd be tempted to remove *54 from the I-70 file, which is for an interchange closed for many years. That would let us rename the fake but in-use 54A exit number (I was there earlier today, it's signed as exit 54) to 54 +54A. I can take care of that change, if there's no objection.

As a general rule, when should we remove points for closed exits/intersections that are unused? I've occasionally removed them if they've been unused for a long time, and they aren't mentioned in the Updates table to indicate where a route was realigned.

[Duke87]

I support the removal of *54 in this case because it allows for "54A" to be relabeled according to the actual proper exit number.

If there were no current exit 54, I'd be saying "eh, leave it, it's not hurting anyone by being there".

[oscar]

Pull request submitted to remove unused I-70 waypoint *54, and relabel point for the relocated exit 54, 54A -> 54 +54A.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/2678/commits/d6c442a6d8e2435f20d6dc8e575ce60bed436c13