CT: I-95 Minor Point Concerns

[Markkos1992]

From north to south:
1.  I would consider shaping points between 54 and 55 to keep the line off of US 1.
2.  It looks like old Exit 45 is now Exit 44.
3.  A graph connection should be added at CT 122 (43A) with the 43 label moved maybe to Campbell Ave.
4.  A graph connection should be added at CT 113 with the 30 label moved maybe to Surf Ave.
5.  A graph connection should be added at CT 130 (25A) with the 25 label moved maybe to Commerce Dr.
6.  I would consider a shaping point just south of 9 to keep the line off of US 1.
7.  I think the 7 point could be moved to Washington Blvd.

[yakra]

1.  I would consider shaping points between 54 and 55 to keep the line off of US 1.
6.  I would consider a shaping point just south of 9 to keep the line off of US 1.

Vetoed.

2.  It looks like old Exit 45 is now Exit 44.

Neither 44 nor 45 are in use. Deleted the *44 point, and moved the 44 label to the current Exit 44 location (existing 45), allowing the old Exit 44 to fade into history.

3.  A graph connection should be added at CT 122 (43A) with the 43 label moved maybe to Campbell Ave.
4.  A graph connection should be added at CT 113 with the 30 label moved maybe to Surf Ave.
5.  A graph connection should be added at CT 130 (25A) with the 25 label moved maybe to Commerce Dr.

Double half interchanges: Usually use one central point and treat both halves as a single, full interchange. Exceptions: a clear gap of at least 0.5 mi/0.8 km separates the two halves, or each half connects to a different highway that we are also mapping.
Neither of the exception criteria are met.

7.  I think the 7 point could be moved to Washington Blvd.

Ooh, frontage roads with overlapping diamond interchanges! Texas says hi!
Some interchanges have unusual shapes or are stretched-out versions of normal interchanges. Use your best judgment.
I agree; Washington Blvd is most appropriate here.
ToDo: see whether CT137 should be extended S to I-95 (Nope).

[Markkos1992]

3.  A graph connection should be added at CT 122 (43A) with the 43 label moved maybe to Campbell Ave.
4.  A graph connection should be added at CT 113 with the 30 label moved maybe to Surf Ave.
5.  A graph connection should be added at CT 130 (25A) with the 25 label moved maybe to Commerce Dr.

Double half interchanges: Usually use one central point and treat both halves as a single, full interchange. Exceptions: a clear gap of at least 0.5 mi/0.8 km separates the two halves, or each half connects to a different highway that we are also mapping.
Neither of the exception criteria are met.

I had thought that we were moving towards having graph connections as much as generally possible.  (minus situations like the turnpike trumpet interchanges or connector roads to the route)  It was why I put a thread in for MA 286 too.

7.  I think the 7 point could be moved to Washington Blvd.

Ooh, frontage roads with overlapping diamond interchanges! Texas says hi!
Some interchanges have unusual shapes or are stretched-out versions of normal interchanges. Use your best judgment.
I agree; Washington Blvd is most appropriate here.
ToDo: see whether CT137 should be extended S to I-95

I want to interpret this as a missing "TO" based on the ramps, but then I see this SB at US 1.

[yakra]

To the motorist, Route 137 seems to begin at I-95, where guide signs mark the route for exit 8. Officially, however, SSR 437 follows Washington Boulevard from I-95 to US 1, and Route 137 continues from there.

The Stamford town road map confirms an end at US1. SSR 493 S of there though, not that it matters.
Several different shapefile flavors count everything S of the CT104 jct as part of CT104. Yeah no, I'm just gonna ignore that.

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