The whole thing is rather a mess, and impractical to map properly.
The truth.
There's plenty worse, though. Buffalo; Watertown, NY...
The US 60 point I-40BL_W should be I-40BL/287.
No worries - and the label(s) used is a valid point.
I guess though that the slash-style label would get the nod here with two multiplexes going their separate ways.
Ask loud enough and I'll make the change.
it didn't appear there was a separate line for 287 from 60 northward. But if you have put those as hidden points along the same axis, then that would account for that.
No separate line north from the point on US60, right. This is because 287 is centered in the middle of the Buchanan/Taylor couplet -- the same location as the middle of the middle of the Fillmore/Pierce couplet.
US287 has hidden points to break false-positive concurrencies.
The hidden points are hard to see (well they are hidden!)
By design. 
I wanted to get the smallest visual difference attainable between the US87 & US287 traces.
You can check out TX's simple graph
here and see how it's done. Recommend using mouse wheel to zoom in & than a double-click to center. Zoom in a
bunch more, near the shaping points, and you can eventually see the traces start to deviate.
(click to embiggen)
There was at least one long discussion in the past with how to map it (no idea who did originally - Tim? - definitely not me). I remember that.
TX's US routes were originally a team effort. Back in the day, before WPTedit, we viewed that large-ish number of long-ish routes as a daunting task (whereas today, we'd probably not bat an eye). AndyTom was the ringleader, and several of us would pick routes to work on and then send them in to him. I've long forgotten who among us did US60, 87, or 287 then. Later on, 2012-sh, I took on maintenance of TX and embarked on a marathon cleanup session. Memory's a little fuzzy here, but it seems Amarillo came into play at the later stages of this. At/near the very end of the CHM days. (The only change here since the move to TM has been ditching intentional NMPs in favor of graph connections, and using these hidden points to break concurrencies instead.) Seems I mighta put a blurb (probably only readable by me?) about what I was doing in the TX cleanup thread on the old forum. I do remember making a spreadsheet about all the intersections to sort out what went where, deciding on what Si posted
above. Don't think I posted about
that, in terribly great detail though. It there was another thread about this back in the dark ages when the US routes first got going, that I no longer remember.
Well. Anyway...
PS: yakra - should Lp279 be extended to intersect with US60?
I'm pretty confident I got it right, having to rehash all this in me'ead when drafting the Tier-4 TX systems. I'll give it another look though, along with TXLp395.
279: Designation file lists end as US87, mentioning Fillmore specifically, which historic topos seem to suggest was the (single?) main drag at the time. Shapefiles have it ending at Fillmore. Leaving as-is.
395: Designation file lists end as US87. Shapefiles have the end at Fillmore. Leaving as-is.
