IN: I-65 northern end issue?

[rickmastfan67]

Do we have the wrong location for it?

Looking at StreetView, there's a I-65 South shield @ US-12/20, plus there's a 262 MM there as well going both directions (SB / NB).  They even have the 'enhanced' MM's north of Exit 262 for I-65** (see NB MM 261.8).

So, should we recenter '262' and extend I-65 up to US-12/20?

[mapcat]

The INDOT Road Inventory says the segments between Exits 261/262 and US 12/20 are connectors, not part of the interstate. No need to extend it.

[Jim]

It's an annoying lack of graph connection there.  Not reasonable to move both I-65's 262 and I-90's 17 to a common point somewhere in the middle of all that?

[mapcat]

That I can fix. https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4824

Unfortunately, ending I-65 at the overpass over I-90 introduced a sharp angle error. I added a placeholder to datacheckfps.csv, but since I don't know the angle, I can't complete it, so it will remain until my next opportunity to edit, which will probably be in late June.

[rickmastfan67]

Code: [Select]

+X16 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.578150&lon=-87.296162
261 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.587266&lon=-87.306290
+X720764 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.593685&lon=-87.306762
262 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.589288&lon=-87.304144(so people can quickly plug it in the editor to see)

======

Ooof, I don't know about this change to be honest.  I would have put '262' @ where you now have '+X720764' instead to allow people who haven't gotten onto I-90 there (and instead went up to US-12/20) to properly map their progress, and maybe label the point for I-90 as either 262A or I-90.

If we want the graph connection with I-90 instead of US-12/20, maybe this location ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.593108&lon=-87.305088 ) in both files would be more reasonable?  The current 'switch-back' you're suggesting adds an extra .4 miles to I-65, which I don't think is justified IMO.  Mine only adds .1 of a mile and shouldn't really affect I-90's mileage as well (well, maybe an additional shaping point in the curve below on I-90 could be justified).  Plus my suggestion would prevent the sharp angle error in the first place.

The INDOT Road Inventory says the segments between Exits 261/262 and US 12/20 are connectors, not part of the interstate. No need to extend it.

Still don't get why they put MM's all the way up to US-12/20 then.  Seems one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.

[Markkos1992]

If we want the graph connection with I-90 instead of US-12/20, maybe this location ( http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.593108&lon=-87.305088 ) in both files would be more reasonable?  The current 'switch-back' you're suggesting adds an extra .4 miles to I-65, which I don't think is justified IMO.  Mine only adds .1 of a mile and shouldn't really affect I-90's mileage as well (well, maybe an additional shaping point in the curve below on I-90 could be justified).  Plus my suggestion would prevent the sharp angle error in the first place.

Yeah, I like your change a lot better.

Still don't get why they put MM's all the way up to US-12/20 then.  Seems one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.

Well Rothman did convince me to extend I-476 to US 6/11 that one time.

[Duke87]

Ooof, I don't know about this change to be honest.

Yeah I don't like it either, though I would propose a different solution.

Based on the INDOT inventory, I-65's mainline ends at exit 262. There's an end sign in the field agreeing with this too!

Thus, it seems to me it is only proper that I-65 should be mapped ending at that location.

This means there will be no graph connection to I-90, or to US 12/20, but... well, this is one of those cases where that can't be helped without mapping things in a nominally incorrect manner.

[Markkos1992]

Based on the INDOT inventory, I-65's mainline ends at exit 262. There's an end sign in the field agreeing with this too!

That GSV link IMO more justifies it ending at US 12/20 than just cutting it off at that location.

[vdeane]

Ooof, I don't know about this change to be honest.

Yeah I don't like it either, though I would propose a different solution.

Based on the INDOT inventory, I-65's mainline ends at exit 262. There's an end sign in the field agreeing with this too!

Thus, it seems to me it is only proper that I-65 should be mapped ending at that location.

This means there will be no graph connection to I-90, or to US 12/20, but... well, this is one of those cases where that can't be helped without mapping things in a nominally incorrect manner.

That inventory seems to vary the end by which direction one is going.  NB ends at the exit to I-90 (and does not take it), but SB begins at the at-grade with the industrial facility.  And I agree with Markkos1992 about the street view; in addition to the tenth mile markers, there's no TO banner on this sign (or the one in the other direction).  Plus end signs don't always end up at the exact endpoint.  Nobody would say NY 9P ends at this driveway instead of US 9.

[dave1693]

Ooof, I don't know about this change to be honest.

Yeah I don't like it either, though I would propose a different solution.

Based on the INDOT inventory, I-65's mainline ends at exit 262. There's an end sign in the field agreeing with this too!

Thus, it seems to me it is only proper that I-65 should be mapped ending at that location.

This means there will be no graph connection to I-90, or to US 12/20, but... well, this is one of those cases where that can't be helped without mapping things in a nominally incorrect manner.

That inventory seems to vary the end by which direction one is going.  NB ends at the exit to I-90 (and does not take it), but SB begins at the at-grade with the industrial facility.  And I agree with Markkos1992 about the street view; in addition to the tenth mile markers, there's no TO banner on this sign (or the one in the other direction).  Plus end signs don't always end up at the exact endpoint.  Nobody would say NY 9P ends at this driveway instead of US 9.

Based on the very clear SB signage, I'm in favor of extending I-65 to US 12/20... and I also remember 25 years ago when there WAS no direct interchange between I-65 and the I-90 Toll Road, and I-65 North very clearly extended to that traffic light at Dunes Hwy.

[nwi_irish96]

Ooof, I don't know about this change to be honest.

Yeah I don't like it either, though I would propose a different solution.

Based on the INDOT inventory, I-65's mainline ends at exit 262. There's an end sign in the field agreeing with this too!

Thus, it seems to me it is only proper that I-65 should be mapped ending at that location.

This means there will be no graph connection to I-90, or to US 12/20, but... well, this is one of those cases where that can't be helped without mapping things in a nominally incorrect manner.

That inventory seems to vary the end by which direction one is going.  NB ends at the exit to I-90 (and does not take it), but SB begins at the at-grade with the industrial facility.  And I agree with Markkos1992 about the street view; in addition to the tenth mile markers, there's no TO banner on this sign (or the one in the other direction).  Plus end signs don't always end up at the exact endpoint.  Nobody would say NY 9P ends at this driveway instead of US 9.

Based on the very clear SB signage, I'm in favor of extending I-65 to US 12/20... and I also remember 25 years ago when there WAS no direct interchange between I-65 and the I-90 Toll Road, and I-65 North very clearly extended to that traffic light at Dunes Hwy.

I'm aware of what the INDOT road inventory says, but 65 is clearly signed up to 12/20, so count me in the camp of people who think it should go there in Travel Mapping. If not, then it's an unnumbered freeway which has a category in TM as well.

[si404]

I'm aware of what the INDOT road inventory says, but 65 is clearly signed up to 12/20

seems to me like it is clearly signed as ending at the 262 diverge. But then there's I-65 milemarkers right after. The 262 milemarker, right at the US12/20 lights is a plain one (but the 261.8 one is an explicit I-65 one with shields).

[vdeane]

I'm aware of what the INDOT road inventory says, but 65 is clearly signed up to 12/20

seems to me like it is clearly signed as ending at the 262 diverge. But then there's I-65 milemarkers right after. The 262 milemarker, right at the US12/20 lights is a plain one (but the 261.8 one is an explicit I-65 one with shields).

And, as I mentioned, end signs aren't always exactly at the end point (plus the weird phrasing makes it even more ambiguous - I normally see that "X ENDS" type signage when a route ends ahead, not right there).  Plus the inventory is inconsistent, as only the NB direction has it end at the split - SB ends a little ways to the north, at the at-grade for the driveway.

[mapcat]

Okay, finally looked at this again. The ramps to US12/20 will get a "262A" point on I-65, and the 262 point for I-65 (I-65's N end) and the 17 point for I-90 will be moved here where 65 passes under 90 on the way to the 90E/90W ramp split. It's a better location for the 262 point from I-65's perspective, but not as great of a location for the 17 point from I-90's perspective. I-90 goes out of tolerance so a shaping point will be added on the curve south of the interchange.

[mapcat]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/4998