NV: NV-655 question

[rickmastfan67]

Should we try to map this route a little differently?  They way we currently do, it 'makes' it looks like it's on I-80 (yes, I know there's a hidden point to prevent any auto-clinch w/ I-80).

Since there's only 1 sign for the entire route, maybe just route it from 'I-80(28B)' to it's end point, and forget about the 'I-80(28A)' point?

That, or should we at least move the route down onto the service road between the 'I-80(28A)' & 'I-80(28B)' points?  Sure, lose the graph connection @ 'I-80(28B)', but it would be for the best and properly map the route then IMO.

Code: [Select]

I-80(28A) +I-80_W http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.554552&lon=-119.564466
McCRanRd http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.552956&lon=-119.566907
I-80(28B) http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.557857&lon=-119.554666
End http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=39.555926&lon=-119.552143


[cl94]

Yeah, I've been thinking about how to route 655 for a while. I have been thinking about scrapping the graph connection at the EB ramps to make it cleaner. It is far from the only NV route we include that only has one posted shield, but it is a weird case with that turn and how it only exists within the confines of "exit 28", even if said exit is large in distance.

[mapcat]

Why does Exit 28 even need to be split? There's one set of ramps eastbound and another set westbound. It's a single exit.

[Markkos1992]

I believe the double half interchange rule is why there are two points.  (https://travelmapping.net/devel/manual/points.php#double_half)

Double half interchanges: Usually use one central point and treat both halves as a single, full interchange. Exceptions: a clear gap of at least 0.5 mi/0.8 km separates the two halves, or each half connects to a different highway that we are also mapping.

[mapcat]

That guideline would make sense in an urban area, where someone could exit at one location and reenter at another (leaving a gap), but shouldn't apply here.

[oscar]

FWIW, NV 655 was my doing back when I was managing NV, and Mark cites the guideline I relied on.

Since cl94 is now managing NV, I'll go with his take, except I'd prefer to keep the graph connection at what is now 28A. That, and the split into separate I-80 junctions, roughly matches what Tim had when he drafted usanv many moons ago, from the chm_final NV 655 route file.

[cl94]

Nevada is the king of edge cases like this, and NV 655 is far from the only route that has only a tiny handful of shields, or only one shield. This one is a double whammy because it breaks the "one point per interchange" rule by having 1 mile of a route's length within what we'd otherwise consider an interchange. It's a signed route, so my interpretation is in line with Oscar's.

I will bring up NV 671 and NV 880, both of which are also in Washoe County, and are similar cases minus the 1PPI issue. Only 1 or 2 shields, one road it's on is completely unsigned, unsigned turn. In cases where signs are ambiguous, we defer to the logs, and the logs are pretty clear in all of these cases.