WA: WA-240 Business Loop in Richland

[the_spui_ninja]

So there's an interestingly signed business loop of WA 240 in Richland. Starting from the "West" end (more of a north end but 240 is signed E-W), it follows Jadwin Ave all the way to George Washington Way to WA 240 at I-182 Exit 5. Going the other direction, however, signage follows GW Way north to McMurray St. then over to Jadwin and up to 240. Both sides are signed about equally well.

[compdude787]

Oh yeah, I need to add that. Adding to my to do list for when I get back from my roadtrip in a week and a half....

[the_spui_ninja]

I would suggest putting points at the Jadwin/GW intersection and the Jadwin/McMurray intersection and essentially handle it like we handle one-way couplets (since that's what the route's doing even if the roads aren't necessarily one-way).

[compdude787]

Pull request created: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3003

[michih]

If I-182/240 is the right wp label name, the data error should be marked FP.

[the_spui_ninja]

If I-182/240 is the right wp label name, the data error should be marked FP.

Shouldn't it be WA240_E? Is that the right way to label endpoints for bannered routes?

[compdude787]

If I-182/240 is the right wp label name, the data error should be marked FP.

Shouldn't it be WA240_E? Is that the right way to label endpoints for bannered routes?

Meh, I think that the way it is is fine. I've created a pull request with the false positive entry added: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3541

[Markkos1992]

If I-182/240 is the right wp label name, the data error should be marked FP.

Shouldn't it be WA240_E? Is that the right way to label endpoints for bannered routes?

Meh, I think that the way it is is fine. I've created a pull request with the false positive entry added: https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3541

From the manual: (http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php#parentplussuffixes)

For auxiliary routes connecting to the parent route at both ends, mention only the parent route (even if it is concurrent with other routes) and add direction suffixes.

[compdude787]

Didn't know that there was a rule for this. I personally disagree with it because it goes against the Putting two highways in a waypoint label which states that you can put multiple routes under a waypoint label. We ought to have our rules be consistent in all cases and not have exceptions like what we currently seem to have for bannered routes. Since it connects to both routes, I really don't see why it's a bad thing to put both routes in the waypoint label. The waypoint labeling rules page is too long. How is anyone supposed to remember all those rules? KISS.

[mapcat]

This rule is there for KISS, actually. A user who knows that she's clinched the WA 240 Business loop should be able to add WA WA240BusRic WA240_W WA240_E in her .list without checking anything.

[compdude787]

Okay, I understand what you're saying, and have submitted a pull request to update the labels.