CT: I-91/I-291/CT-218 issue

[rickmastfan67]

I-291:
1 -> 2 - Since we're 'ending' I-291 @ I-91 and not 'continuing' it along the ramps to CT-218 (which is Exit 1), I think we should 'reflect' the exit number for the I-91 ramps here instead.

I-91:
35 -> 35A
NEW -> 35B (for CT-218)

We're missing a genuine graph connection here for CT-218 with I-91.  Sure, it's barely north of the center point for I-291, but they are both completely separate interchanges here with all the possible movements.

Plus, CT-218's file already has a point for I-91 there.  Adding the same point into I-91's file would make complete sense here.

[yakra]

I-291:
1 -> 2 - Since we're 'ending' I-291 @ I-91 and not 'continuing' it along the ramps to CT-218 (which is Exit 1), I think we should 'reflect' the exit number for the I-91 ramps here instead.

Nope, use the lower number.

I-91:
35 -> 35A
NEW -> 35B (for CT-218)

We're missing a genuine graph connection here for CT-218 with I-91.  Sure, it's barely north of the center point for I-291, but they are both completely separate interchanges here with all the possible movements.

Yes, it meets the "each half connects" criterion, but I'm not sold on the "double half interchanges" idea. IMO (and I'll acknowledge it's a gray area) it's just... one big interchange.
And I just don't wanna add another point to I-91, so close to the existing one that it creates an NMP.

Like I said re NJ NJ42 12 (gotta use my polite words here ), I think a lot of the time some of us put too much emphasis on making graph connections. I'll often be more conservative in that regard.