NC: Opening of rest of I-840

[mapmikey]

It seems to me a solution would be to truncate 840 to the I-40 interchange and just have 785 go to I-85.

[rickmastfan67]

It seems to me a solution would be to truncate 840 to the I-40 interchange and just have 785 go to I-85.

But I bet they'll add I-840 shields to that segment too to be honest.

[si404]

But I bet they'll add I-840 shields to that segment too to be honest.

Looks like they left space for it - the shields are wider apart on a narrower BGS than the one next to it.

The 'To' does suggest that we have 2 separate interchanges on I-85 that are both 131, and that the 40/785 junction is a 3rd interchange separate from the 85 ones. I can see using three points is justified on those grounds.

For the first 65 years of the Interstate system, there was only ever 1 concurrency between 3dis: I-271 and I-480 skirting Cleveland. Then NC has added 2 more in less than a year - and both of them are 'useless' concurrencies, where one route doesn't leave the other before terminating. In this case, they will both terminate together...

[mapmikey]

Per this document https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2011_09_02.pdf 840 is clearly shown to end at I-40 and does not extend to I-85.

Meanwhile this document https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf implies in the drawing that 785 ends at I-85; however the mileage of 2.21 miles is from I-40 to US 70.

if you go to their interactive traffic map, the segment from I-85 NB to I-785/840 is labeled as I-785.  If you click on the traffic count on that segment it calls it a ramp from I-85 to I-840.  https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=964881960f0549de8c3583bf46ef5ed4

on their arcgis map https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=5d3ad78971714a30be7ff97fd580e4d5 they call the segment I-785 with a street name of I-840 ramp.

So i think my solution is OK.  If you haven't driven that small piece, you still get all credit for 840.  If both designations remain there no particular benefit to that.  if you want to consider that piece ramps, than the 1PPI would be better, although in reality you could get all of I-85 without driving between those ramps and I-40.

[yakra]

In that case 1PPI sounds like a win in that that level of granularity sidesteps the "is it mainline or ramp" question altogether.

[vdeane]

Given the signage, I would say that it's clearly mainline and that one would need to clinch that piece to clinch the route.

[neroute2]

Given the signage, I would say that it's clearly mainline and that one would need to clinch that piece to clinch the route.

No different from the east end of I-240.

[vdeane]

Given the signage, I would say that it's clearly mainline and that one would need to clinch that piece to clinch the route.

No different from the east end of I-240.

And I would say the same for I-240.  If you're traveling east on I-40 and head west to I-240 (or east on I-240 to I-40 west), I don't think I'd call it a clinch of the east end of I-240 without a U turn at exit 55.

[Markkos1992]

In the meantime, I fixed an error in the I-840 Updates Entry.  (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/6292)

[Markkos1992]

Given the signage, I would say that it's clearly mainline and that one would need to clinch that piece to clinch the route.

After seeing Exit 21 in the opposite direction, I am fine with leaving it as-is.