If it were me, I'd have probably not included it.
Not something I'd be interested in adding. To my eyes, it's more of a boulevard that happens to have a few interchanges on it.
To add something to usasf, I'd want it to be an all-freeway facility, preferably something that forms a cohesive link in the larger network.
To clarify, I think of a "cohesive link" as being something that connects to something else in the TM network, preferably at >1 point and/or at least one end. This only has the single US85/87 point in the middle.
For "all-freeway facilities", I prefer including a facility in its entirety over having an all-freeway route in the HB that's a truncated freeway-only part of a larger overall facility.
For truncated routes that do get included, I'd like to see at least half of the overall facility be included.
This facility is a bit of a mishmash. One graph connection in the middle @ US85/87. A short, truncated route with a few at-grade junctions separating it from a couple more interchanges' worth that don't get included. Even if that section were included, it would still be quite a small percentage of the overall Academy Boulevard facility.
While we haven't settled on criteria, I suspect that anything less than two miles long will presumptively not make the cut.
My take on this is not that this would necessary be a hard-and-fast criterion, but rather, just the end result in practice of the decisions the maintainers make.
Maintaining New England, I wouldn't want to see size alone ruling routes out; things are pretty compact here. 5/10 New England usasf routes are < 2 mi long (Storrow Drive barely squeaks in at 2.00446 mi). Everything meets at least a "has >1 graph connection including at least one end" standard, except for Soldiers Field Rd. Rd Soldiers Field is also truncated to <50% of its overall length; if we were to settle on guidelines for usasf that would exclude it, it wouldn't bother me to toss it.
If CO AcaBlvd stays, should its west endpoint CovDr/HarSt be relabeled?
Yes.
The manual says we can include two route numbers in a waypoint label, but no such provision for intersecting road names.
It does however prohibit this for names designations.I suggest picking one and dropping the other. CovDr is more consistent with where the waypoint is placed; if we used only HarSt, the waypoint should be at the Hartford Street overpass about 0.08 mile to the west.
I could see it at the existing coords with either name, on "misbehaving parclo" grounds.
At the other end,
MilProPkwy and
DreRd should be collapsed into a single point midway between, per 1PPI.
...If we even do keep it...
