OR point labels

[yakra]

US20: US26 -> US26_W
US26: US20 -> US20_W
OR131: US101/OR6 -> US101/6

[Bickendan]

Of these, only one that really merits attention is the OR 131 one, with me noting I prefer the full label as currently stands. But, for consistency, I'll fix it to US101/6.
The US 20 and 26 ones -- since neither split again in Oregon, I'd argue the labels as they currently are are fine as is.

[yakra]

http://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/wayptlabels.php
Waypoint labels for multiplexes:

For the multiplex splits, add a suffix: an underscore followed by a direction letter. The direction letter should match the signed direction the concurrent route is splitting toward. US80_W in the US25 file means that US 80 heads west from US 25 at that point but is concurrent to the east.

[si404]

Of these, only one that really merits attention is the OR 131 one, with me noting I prefer the full label as currently stands. But, for consistency, I'll fix it to US101/6.

US101 (and no mention of OR6) is an acceptable label too. Dealing with the issue of making it look as if US101 and US6 are there.

[michih]

US20: US26 -> US26_W
US26: US20 -> US20_W

I agree and think that it's not a suggestion but the only way to go.

OR131: US101/OR6 -> US101/6

I'm not sure how this is threated in US but I'd prefer just US101 without OR6 since US route is a "higher" (tier) system.

[yakra]

US101 (and no mention of OR6) is an acceptable label too. Dealing with the issue of making it look as if US101 and US6 are there.

If US101 and US6 were there, that would be US6/101, so no confusion there as I see it.
But yes, plain US101 is also acceptable.

[si404]

If US101 and US6 were there, that would be US6/101, so no confusion there as I see it.

True. It's never sat right with me to have such labelling though - what if it was US1/6 with the 6 route being a state route?

Bickendan, like me, seems to prefer making any lettered prefix explicit, hence why I was reminding him of that option.

[Bickendan]

Indeed; I've always preferred as much accuracy as possible (within reason).
The current OR 6 tag is 'US101/131 +US101/OR131' -- in fact, looking at that on the map...
OR 6's file has the US 101 point at 3rd St with OR 131; OR 6 is a one-way couplet pair along 3rd St (eastbound) and 1st St (westbound). 1st St is Truck OR 131's point with US 101.
Now that I'm looking at this, technically, the OR 6 point should be at 2nd St (between the one way pairs), so:
US 101:
OR131 (3rd St)
OR6 (2nd St)
OR131Trk (1st St)

OR 6:
US101 +US101/131 +US101/OR131 (at 2nd St)

OR 131:
US101 +US101/OR6 (as is at 3rd St)

Truck OR 131:
US101 +US101/OR6 (as is at 1st St)

This would have the side affect of breaking OR 6 and 131's connection in TM, but would more accurately reflect the setup in Tillamook?

That said, I am completely not a fan of removing secondary route types in tags as it increases ambiguity, and of removing secondary routes completely because it removes referential material for the tag... all for the sake of saving a moment of typing and a byte or two of data? This is one of the moments where I disagree with Tim and the resultant mandate in the Manual.

Likewise with the multiplex situation with US 20 and 26 as they share an endpoint (OR/ID) with no other splits in Oregon (in Idaho and Wyoming, _W and _E tags would absolutely be needed for both routes); context lends itself to the overlap. This makes other routes such as OR 206 need directional suffixes -- OR207 -> OR207_S... and OR74/207 -> ...? (it's OR 206's eastern terminus). (The I-84(97) tag should be probably I-84 only; preferably I-84/US30...)
And OR 207 -- What's I think an already clear OR206, OR74/206, and OR74 (because of the intermediary OR74/206) would mandate a directional suffix at the overlap junctions, even though I think it quite clear by context.
And OR 74...
(See also US 97 and OR 126 in Redmond, and a variance, US 20 and OR 34 --
US20_W and OR34_W for the overlap start in Philomath
OR34/99W and US20/[OR]99W for the overlap end in Corvallis
US20_E and OR34_E for OR 34's terminus in Lebanon; non-overlap point)

My point is if the overlaps are clear by context, it's a non-issue, and I argue that US 20 and 26 fall in that category from Vale to Idaho.
(And I don't think a change is warranted here, but US 20/26 junction in Carey, ID is US26/93 for US20, US20_W for US 26, and US20_W for US 93 -- the US20_W tag for US 26 is technically correct, as the previous split from US 20 in Mountain Home is on I-84/US 30, which would be the true US20_W if it were a duplex.)

I'm also of the opinion that removing secondary route identifiers or secondary routes themselves creates ambiguity over promoting clarity, though I am willing to concede this point for consistency as I've already converted a number of tags in previous updates.

[michih]

Is this still open?

[Markkos1992]

OR 202:  US101_Bus>-US101Bus_S (would rather put it here than in the broken concurrency thread).