Definitely keep the concurrency.
This wouldn't be the first time we have points for all parts of the intersection. Look @ VA US-522's file where it intersects US-17 & US-50 at I-81 Exit 313 as an example.
Well, 2 of 3 parts at least. Same deal as
NH US3.
I mean, would look a little unorthodox, but we can't look past the small, but legit multiplex of US-90/US-98 there.
A third, central, point does seem excessive when a traveler can only physically enter the roadway at the adjacent points, where US98 neatly corresponds with the ramp termini.
I would say remove the 'I-10(35B)' point in US-90's file, and put a centered point on the main part of the interchange (& add same point to US-98's file).
We could add a hidden point to US90 & 98, matching the coords from I-10. The resulting graph file would retain a connection usable in Jim's labs. We could still use the "Intersecting/Concurrent Routes" feature to surf from I-10 (with its visible point) to US90 & 98. Just no surfing
from US90 or 98
to I-10 though, but I've got
tricks up my sleeve to get around that.
Why can't we look past the overlap? We do at traffic circles.
Are you for serious?
This isn't a traffic circle.
This. How would we
not overlook an overlap, while faithfully mapping both routes? Can't even be done, from a geometric standpoint. Not a valid comparison.
I'm with James regarding keeping the concurrency. We have numerous examples of short concurrencies (including shorter than this US 90/US 98 example) that we have kept separate points for.
Ditto. I see no reason to squash down an ordinary, perfectly legitimate concurrency between two surface routes, just because a freeway interchange happens to pass through the mix.
As for the OP, my memory's a bit hazy, but I'm pretty sure this was an early example (Alabama being one of the first sets of US routes drafted) of Tim wanting to keep point labels short, and the lack of the hyphen was deemed acceptable here.
That can't be right, unless as you said,
early example. The '-' has always been there, and standardizing the usual United States route prefixes was an early priority. KS7 not K-7, MI28 not M-28 or M28, etc. In any case, why lose that one char when there's an extra "US" after the '/'? Dropping prefixes after the slash goes back to the earliest "routedata.html" days.
As for I10, the dash is pointless. All the time (not just TM) it's extraneous, but it always (except for here) seems to be put it in anyway for some weird reason. 
There was a
at the end of that sentence, there was a
at the end of that sentence...
