ON: ON-17/RR-508 interchange ('Future' ON-417 Exit 194)

[rickmastfan67]

So, need a few opinions here for the label, mainly because it also affects TCHOtt.

'Exit 194' signage is posted at this brand new interchange (there is currently a point already there, just needs to be shifted to new location), and I'm debating on the label for it.

1) Update label to RR54/508 in both files & updating location without any mention of the exit number.
2) Change label to 194 (and ON17(194) in TCHOtt) and make no reference to it clearly being an ON-417 based exit number.
3) Go with '194(417)' in both files, even though ON-17 has no other posted exit numbers along it's route.
4) Go with ON417(194) in both files to attempt to 'future proof' the label in-case Ontario decides to only extend ON-417 to said interchange in the next few years, since they did leave space for the WB lanes (currently all traffic is on what would be the future EB lanes) under the overpass.

I'm kinda leaning towards 4, due to the 'future proof' function for TCHOtt, even though ON-417 obviously doesn't make it there yet (all signage for ramps on RR-508 show ON-17 shields).  But I'd still like a few opinions before I push an update.

[neroute2]

4 seems wrong, since you're saying that it intersects 417 there and using the exit number to disambiguate.

[rickmastfan67]

4 seems wrong, since you're saying that it intersects 417 there and using the exit number to disambiguate.

Well, we do have another route doing this.  US-74 in NC along the Laurinburg bypass that was posted as I-74 for awhile to the FHWA forced them to remove the shields (I was lucky to travel it while it had the I-74 shields).

Those labels are 'FI-74(182)' in US-74's file, due to them originally being normal 'I-74(182)' labels.  Then again, this was before we started to fully use exit numbers along US Highways, and we didn't want to remove that data.  That's why I thought it was a reasonable option.

Also, with option '3', we did the same thing along NC US-264 when they renumbered the exits to match I-587 mileage, even though they couldn't post I-587 shields West of I-95.  All the labels west of I-95 got the '16(587)' style labels.

So, maybe '3' might be the best option for ON-17, but '4' for TCHOtt?

[rickmastfan67]

Anybody else with a suggestion?

[si404]

3 - 194(417) on both routes.

[Markkos1992]

I think I am with si404 on this.

[froggie]

If 417 hasn't actually been extended (and it seems it won't for awhile unless MTO is going to start using 4xx series routes on 2-lane roads), I feel it would be ambiguous to highlight any mention to 417.  In that sense, I'd go with 1, 2, or just leave the label as is and move the point as needed.

[michih]

2. Hard no to 3+4 since there is no 417 for the time being.

[si404]

happy to concede the point about 417 and go with option 2

[cockroachking]

IMO, option 2 seems to be the most accurate.

[rickmastfan67]

(and it seems it won't for awhile unless MTO is going to start using 4xx series routes on 2-lane roads)

They did for awhile on the southern end of ON-406 till they twinned it.

[rickmastfan67]

Alright, going with #2.

Changes submitted.

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/7062