NY/CT: I-84 and US 5 Minor Point Concerns

[Markkos1992]

I-84:
1.  I would consider a shaping point between 21 and NY/CT as the line crosses US 6/US 202.  (only one in NY)
2.  I would consider a shaping point on west of Exit 3 as the line follows US 6 briefly.  I would also consider a shaping or visible point on US 6/US 202 between 1 and 2 as the line goes south of I-84.
3.  I would consider a shaping point on east of Exit 8 as the line follows US 6 briefly.
4.  19 could arguably be 18A.
5.  It looks like the 23 point should be 22A.
6.  It looks like the 24 point should be recentered.  Also this whole area seems to be Exit 25.

US 5: It looks like the 56A point from I-84 should be added to US 5 for a graph connection here.  Note that it may create a NMP with nearby PitSt.

[yakra]

1.  I would consider a shaping point between 21 and NY/CT as the line crosses US 6/US 202.  (only one in NY)
2.  I would consider a shaping point on west of Exit 3 as the line follows US 6 briefly.  I would also consider a shaping or visible point on US 6/US 202 between 1 and 2 as the line goes south of I-84.
3.  I would consider a shaping point on east of Exit 8 as the line follows US 6 briefly.

Not on the TM  Blank tilesets though.

4.  19 could arguably be 18A.

Exit 19 matches the number for SB CT8, and it's positioned just about exactly at the gore. In the earliest days of "Clinched Interstate Mapping", the 1PPI rule wasn't as firmly established as now, and we had things like separate 8 & 9 points on NY I-278.
If I were drafting CT/usai from scratch, I might be tempted to 1PPI 18A into existing 18 to the west. But OTOH, it serves the EB onramp from HighlandAve. And OK, more arguably the WB offramp too. Which is as part of 18 here.
I'll just go no-build & leave it in, and keep the existing label for the CT8 interchange.

5.  It looks like the 23 point should be 22A.

Signed as 23 EB.

6.  It looks like the 24 point should be recentered.  Also this whole area seems to be Exit 25.

Looks like the mainline was shifted southward here. I'll give this a a closer look.

US 5: It looks like the 56A point from I-84 should be added to US 5 for a graph connection here.  Note that it may create a NMP with nearby PitSt.

PitSt is not in use. Simply replaced it.

[Markkos1992]

I should have clarified on the first three.  When I mention those, I mean it crosses the actual line of the road on the OSM Maps.

5.  It looks like the 23 point should be 22A.

Signed as 23 EB.

Even though you are correct based on the location that the EB ramp for 23 begins, my interpretation is that 23 was specifically for CT 69 while 22 was for the ramps around Baldwin St, McMahan St, and Union St.

[yakra]

I should have clarified on the first three.  When I mention those, I mean it crosses the actual line of the road on the OSM Maps.

Hence me mentioning TM Blank.
Sometimes I'll add points when a route takes a complicated route thru a city. And sometimes not. Cases such as these, naah. The route traces don't interfere with one another on mapview; that's good enough. The actual routes on the tiles underneath leave the one waypoint, and travel to the other, but it's plenty clear what's going on; no real ambiguity.
It can turn out to be an awful big rabbit hole to go down...

Even though you are correct based on the location that the EB ramp for 23 begins, my interpretation is that 23 was specifically for CT 69 while 22 was for the ramps around Baldwin St, McMahan St, and Union St.

The long answer: 23 and 23A are both in use. This is still within the footprint of the Exit 23 interchange, so that's legit. I'm not too wild about having a 23A with no visible vanilla 23 counterpart, and changing 23 +-> 22A seems like chasing stuff down for too little gain & just adding cruft to the repo & data structures, when no-build works just as well.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/3304