OR: OR39 point on OR 39

[Jim]

Looks like there are two OR 39's that intersect in Altamont, leading to a LABEL_SELFREF datacheck error.  I haven't kept up with the best practice here.  Should the point be renamed or the datacheck error be marked as FP?

[Bickendan]

I'd have to check what OR 223's labels in Dallas are for its identical situation is.

[michih]

I haven't kept up with the best practice here.

OR39: OR39 -> OR39Kla
OR39Kla: OR39 should be marked FP

[rickmastfan67]

I haven't kept up with the best practice here.

OR39: OR39 -> OR39Kla
OR39Kla: OR39 should be marked FP

Did the same with FL-295 & FL-295WPe.
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=fl.fl295
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=fl.fl295wpe

[Jim]

Thanks, updated the labels:

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/commit/cff7b13fcbcdea202f773b12ef6580580e380725

Not touching OR 223 but it might need some tweaks.

[yakra]

OR39: OR39 -> OR39Kla

Yes.

OR39Kla: OR39 should be marked FP

This doesn't get flagged as an error anymore, so there's nothing to mark FP.

Did the same with FL-295 & FL-295WPe.
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=fl.fl295
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=fl.fl295wpe

This matches best practice. Here, there's a graph connection and the label matches what's expected from the .list name, so siteupdate doesn't flag an error here anymore. The FP entry was removed when the LABEL_SELFREF changes were made.

I haven't kept up with the best practice here.  Should the point be renamed or the datacheck error be marked as FP?

There will still be the occasional FP, but these are far fewer than before. Most of the cases that used to be FPs are no longer flagged as errors at all now.
For items that do get flagged, the Info column on the datacheck page indicates the underlying cause, linking to the bullet points here for info about what can be done to fix an error before marking FP.
Most of the time, there will be another fix available other than marking FP. (In fact, I believe only the NO_COLOC subtype should ever need to be marked FP.)
So yes, OR39 -> OR39Kla was the right thing to do here.

[michih]

OR39Kla: OR39 should be marked FP

This doesn't get flagged as an error anymore, so there's nothing to mark FP.

Yep One easily forgets those great improvements but only remembers the hassle we had to deal with it manually (FP entries) in the past.

[Jim]

Thanks, I'm running another update now to see this and my WA NMP fixes/FPs before I move on to another state.