Mile markers, cardinal directions, ascending exit numbers. NY890 should be flipped, definitely.
NY5S -> 1A (& maybe recenter it on the overpass here, and if adjusted, fix in NY-5S's file?)
Exit 1A is a mess. The current waypoint is probably in the right location,
Looking at NY890 in isolation, the overpass initially seems the most obvious point.
Taking NY5S into account and how its ramps split up approaching the terminus... where does it end; where does the point go?
The current placement
may be a
"middle of the central ramp triangle" case, though it's not exactly a "3-way high-speed interchange" like, say,
the S end of I-293.
although I would rather see it on the NY890 centerline halfway between 1A and 1B.
I could see an argument for that, seeing how the E->W connection is made.
Also of note for NY5S:
I-890 > NY890 (unless 1PPI at 1B is pursued, which I could potentially see an argument for)
This is an odd case. It is & is not 1 interchange, and it is & is not 2 interchanges. Kind of... an interchange undergoing
mitosis?
A few different ways to handle this:
• Fully 1PPI, with the point centered at 1B for a graph connection with I-890 (which shapefiles imply is correct in the HB, taking the connector to I-90).
• Separate 1A & 1B points, centered on the overpasses.
• 2 points; one @ 1B because I-890, the other midway between the overpasses in an effort to find a central location amidst all the ramp connections.
I'm not so hot on that last option; we should poo or get off the pot WRT 1PPI. One central location
is our one point, making another point @ 1B unnecessary in the 1PPI sense. But it's needed for I-890.
Between the other 2 options?
The part of me that's done extensive work on Texas and its frequently-overlapping interchange footprints is fine with having 2 points here.
If only the 1A connections existed; if 1B weren't part of the picture here or were farther down the line & not overlapping, 1A would get a point here, at the overpass. Missing connection notwithstanding.
In mapview, if the graph connection is made @ 1B, I could see that throwing people off, looking counterintuitive.
Finally, those who've taken the NY5S exit
(even if nobody has yet per pointsinuse.log) may appreciate the ability to claim something other than all-or-nothing on NY890.
I was debating myself on mentioning it, but I think I know why yakra went with 'I-890', due to that's the only direct on-ramp you can access from NY-5S itself.
`Tweren't me! 
Can only speculate. That could be the reason, or, that
I-890/890 is just kinda fugly.
If the graph connection is made at 1A, then NY890 does appear most intuitive.
And even if not? Now, if I
really wanna split hairs...
EB, NY5S fully merges into the NY890 mainline. Then a little farther along, I-890 enters the picture on the ramps to/from the Thruway connector.
NY890 seems reasonable as a point label.
