Author Topic: UT: exit numbers  (Read 445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline US 89

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • Last Login:Today at 12:37:03 am
UT: exit numbers
« on: December 27, 2019, 09:28:52 pm »
In keeping with the recent discussion regarding exit numbers for waypoint labels, the following waypoints in Utah have a signed exit number but do not currently use it as a label:

US 6:

US6/191Bus_N -> 232
US6Bus_N -> 240
UT10 -> 241
US6Bus_S -> 243

US 40 (and corresponding US 189):

I-80/189 -> 1
SilCreRd -> 2
UT248 -> 4
UT319 -> 8

UT 10

UT57 -> 34



In addition, the US 6 waypoints at its northern interchange with I-15 need to be corrected to the new I-15 numbers:
I-15(257) -> I-15(257A)
I-15(258) -> I-15(257B)

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 471
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:49:44 pm
Re: UT: exit numbers
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2020, 01:51:01 am »
I went ahead and put the exit numbers in for US6 and US40 (as well as fixing 257A and B).


UT10 I am just going to leave as is since there's only one lone interchange on what's otherwise not even a freeway that just happens to have a signed exit number because... who knows.


For US189... what do we want to be the correct way of labeling concurrent exit numbers? Should it be "US40(2)" a la the way it would be done if US189 were concurrent with an interstate? Or should it be "2(40)" a la the way it would be done if two interstates were concurrent?
"US40(2)" would be correct if US189 is deemed a "non-exit-numbered route" but then... is it really any less an exit numbered route than US40 is?

Methinks some more thorough manual cleanup than just removing "we don't use exit numbers on US highways" is necessary.

My preference personally would be to eliminate the "2(40)" form from the manual altogether and go for the "US40(2)" form for all exit-numbered concurrencies going forward. The latter is more intuitive and more widely adaptable, and it doesn't really make sense to have two different sets of rules based on a fuzzy distinction of whether a route is "exit-numbered" or not.
(that said I'm also fine allowing any existing "2(40)" form labels to remain, grandfathered in)

Offline Duke87

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 471
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 09:49:44 pm
Re: UT: exit numbers
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2020, 01:49:43 am »
Oh hey a thing I never finished resolving.

Going ahead and adding exit numbers to US 189 with labels in the form of US40(2), US40(4) and US40(8). This matches the form of adjacent labels on the I-80 concurrency so is tidy enough.

Offline the_spui_ninja

  • TM Collaborator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 438
  • Last Login:Today at 03:27:07 am
  • THE Western SD Highway Nut
Re: UT: exit numbers
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2020, 07:15:21 pm »
Oh hey a thing I never finished resolving.

Going ahead and adding exit numbers to US 189 with labels in the form of US40(2), US40(4) and US40(8). This matches the form of adjacent labels on the I-80 concurrency so is tidy enough.
Yeah that's consistent with how I did non-interstate concurrent exits in Colorado Springs just recently.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton