CO: I-70 BL Limon appears to extend to Exit 363

[the_spui_ninja]

So while I was planning for an upcoming trip to Kansas to see family, I noticed that there was I-70 BL signage at Exit 363, whereas we have it ending at Exit 361. (GMSV) Just thought I'd let everyone know I'm planning to extend this in case anyone has an issue with it.

[the_spui_ninja]

Just had a realization on my run today; how would I go about doing this? Point "I-70_E" is in use already, so I can't just extend it to Exit 363 and name that point "I-70_E" since that would extend lots of people's travels. Would renaming the I-70 points to "I-70(359)", "I-70(361)", and "I-70(363)" be acceptable? I know the standard would be to have "I-70_W", "I-70(361)", and "I-70_E" but that would break people's list files.

[yakra]

Point "I-70_E" is in use already, so I can't just extend it to Exit 363 and name that point "I-70_E" since that would extend lots of people's travels.

To the letter of the manual, this is the thing to do.
We'd certainly have to do this is it were, say, a bannered US Route ending at a parent without exit numbers.
A lot of the time, situations like this are unavoidable, and we just have to make an updates entry and let people find out about it and update their lists.

Would renaming the I-70 points to "I-70(359)", "I-70(361)", and "I-70(363)" be acceptable? I know the standard would be to have "I-70_W", "I-70(361)", and "I-70_E" but that would break people's list files.

All that said, this isn't in the manual, but I think there's no reason it shouldn't be. It's intuitive, fits in with other conventions used around the site, and allows more versatility in avoiding breaking lists.

IMO this is a worthy manual change.

Thoughts?

[Jim]

While moving I-70_E could be extending some users' travels on a road they didn't actually travel, for others couldn't it suddenly cover a segment that that did actually travel?  I think either way, a user who has traveled that end of the route will want to be aware and either verify the new label(s) accurately match their travels or make a needed change.

Though looking at this particular case, travelers with an existing clinch would seem likely to have already mapped it using any or all of the 3 US highway designations that that segment already carries.

[the_spui_ninja]

Point "I-70_E" is in use already, so I can't just extend it to Exit 363 and name that point "I-70_E" since that would extend lots of people's travels.

To the letter of the manual, this is the thing to do.
We'd certainly have to do this is it were, say, a bannered US Route ending at a parent without exit numbers.
A lot of the time, situations like this are unavoidable, and we just have to make an updates entry and let people find out about it and update their lists.

Would renaming the I-70 points to "I-70(359)", "I-70(361)", and "I-70(363)" be acceptable? I know the standard would be to have "I-70_W", "I-70(361)", and "I-70_E" but that would break people's list files.

All that said, this isn't in the manual, but I think there's no reason it shouldn't be. It's intuitive, fits in with other conventions used around the site, and allows more versatility in avoiding breaking lists.

IMO this is a worthy manual change.

Thoughts?

Alright, that's what I thought, and I'll wait until the discussion in the other thread is over before extending this according to how that shakes out.

[oscar]

While moving I-70_E could be extending some users' travels on a road they didn't actually travel, for others couldn't it suddenly cover a segment that that did actually travel?  I think either way, a user who has traveled that end of the route will want to be aware and either verify the new label(s) accurately match their travels or make a needed change.

Though looking at this particular case, travelers with an existing clinch would seem likely to have already mapped it using any or all of the 3 US highway designations that that segment already carries.

That's my situation, since I've already claimed that mileage on all three of those US highways (24, 40, 287). So however this is resolved won't affect me.

[Jim]

Again looking specifically at this case, let's look at the users who might be affected.

The following 24 users have at least the easternmost segment of the current plot claimed with a list entry for I-70BLLim:

Code: [Select]

25or6to4 aaroads barefoot_driver bejacob brendan charliezeb dcm55343 dharwood duke87 highway63 jayhawkco justjake keithcavey lkefct mapcat mefailenglish ntallyn okroads oscar ovoss_old ozarkman417 snowedin tikester vespertine
Of those, all have also claimed what would be the extended segment, except for:

Code: [Select]

aaroads brendan charliezeb keithcavey lkefct ntallyn ovoss_old snowedin
I think all except brendan update regularly.  Seems reasonable to break those few lists.

[yakra]

I think all except brendan update regularly.  Seems reasonable to break those few lists.

Everyone else except ovoss_old (though Oscar is aware of the situation ^) has updated in October or September this year.

[the_spui_ninja]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5238

[rickmastfan67]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5238

Just me, but I would have included the following text at the end of the 'update' entry:
"along US 24, US 40, and US 287 between the two exits. This also required point "I-70_E" to shift locations."

This is mainly because of the exit number mention.  Plus, it's always wise to mention the end point label shifting location in cases like this in the update entry.