The points on US177 were only included to keep the shape of the route within tolerance.
When that happens, it doesn't confer any sense of overall importance on that intersection; it's just a "shaping point".
So, not really
corresponding, per se.
I may not be as hardline anti-point-request as Tim (who originated
Clinched Highway Mapping, TM's ancestor project), but I still take a very skeptical view of them.
Here's my philosophy:
A requested point should be sensible, one that would be reasonable to add in if the route were being created from scratch now. One likely to be used by
regional (not local) travelers to which TM is targeted. For example, a road connecting to a nearby freeway interchange.
...and this one was admittedly "sketchy"
It someone requests a point simply because "I need this for my .list file", I'm pretty unlikely to include it.
OTOH, if a point looks like it'll be useful for many other people per the reasons above, I'll add it.
Unlike Tim, I
do think point requests have their place. Considering them on their merits is OK.
I
don't necessarily think we should just rubber-stamp them though. This creates clutter of almost-useless points in route files, and creates the impression that we grant all/many/most point requests, leading to more requests made, more requests granted, and more clutter.
TLDR:Personally, I'm only likely to grant point requests if they're useful for the project overall, for
regional travelers.
