was part of my post above, but added before the applauseAs a TM user, I pay just about no attention to what the name of the waypoint is. I just use the map to find whichever waypoint I need and use whatever name pops up when I click on it.
Indeed. And that's how it's always been. I remember drafting gbna, and Tim getting annoyed that at intersections with two or more other A roads I'd use one as a the label, and then alt labels for the others, so people could go "I took the A4 between the A321 and the A456, so ENG A4 A321 A456" without needing to check the A4 and see if they were the right labels (for instance the A321 junction might also be the junction with the A322 and the label A321/A322). The response was they have to look at the route in the browser whatever.
The browser is the primary guide of how to map, and what you can map, travel-wise. It's the source for labels to use, what routes there are, and where those routes go. Therefore, as long as the names are reasonable, it doesn't matter that much what they are. But, at the same time, it's nice to have some sort of consistent rules that they follow so that they are consistent throughout the site - which we have in the manual.
I also don't understand the point of avoiding exit numbers for waypoint names when they are clearly and consistently signed, even if the entire route isn't necessarily a freeway.
Indeed. I can understand some collaborators not changing it now because it feels a bit like busy work, but I never understood why state/US routes had them forbidden in the first place.
We use junction numbers on A roads far less in the UK - this isn't a cultural thing (there's a few long distance should-be-motorways, and a handful of city centre ring roads that are mostly recent) where I'm being baffled by US stuff. Many freeway (or thereabouts) roads in the UK don't have exit numbers because they aren't motorways, but I don't get not using exit numbers that are there simply as the road isn't an interstate/toll road.
