OK: I-40 updates

[rickmastfan67]

Missing -> 82A (formerly 81)

< ones below would also have to be adjusted/added in US-270's file >
NEW -> 134 (Frisco Rd)
NEW -> 146 (Portland Ave)
147A -> 147 ? (since 147C is 'closed')
'shaping point' -> 151A There's a shaping point here, but it should be a visible point.
154 -> should this be centered on the overpass here?

[yakra]

Missing -> 82A (formerly 81)

Leaving this alone, as it doesn't meet the 0.5 mi Double-Half Interchange threshold. The existing point 82 is already fairly well-centered within the footprint, and further tweaking it may bring the route out of tolerance to the NE.

NEW -> 134 (Frisco Rd)
NEW -> 146 (Portland Ave)

Added.

147A -> 147 ? (since 147C is 'closed')

Nah. Still complies with the manual in my view.
Even if it's unlikely with how exits are constructed & spaced, and with 146 in the picture, it still "burns" a waypoint label.

'shaping point' -> 151A There's a shaping point here, but it should be a visible point.

Huh. +x151A and everything; dates to CHM. Wonder it it was added in in anticipation of a future point when the concrete was still drying and the connection had yet to be made.
Either way, unhidden.

154 -> should this be centered on the overpass here?

Eh, sure. Moved, since this one got a mention.
However, this may just be a more extreme example of Point Drift in the area. Many nearby points a tiny bit off-center, and I haven't bothered fixing them; diminishing returns.

Committed locally. To be pushed with several other OK forum items.

[rickmastfan67]

Missing -> 82A (formerly 81)

Leaving this alone, as it doesn't meet the 0.5 mi Double-Half Interchange threshold. The existing point 82 is already fairly well-centered within the footprint, and further tweaking it may bring the route out of tolerance to the NE.

I would say this qualifies for a separate point due to the fact that it was posted as Exit 81, and completely separate from the 'original' Exit 82 up till at least May '24 (yes, only LAST YEAR!!)  This change to being signed as a part of Exit 82 happened less than a year ago.

Had I made this post back in November before that Dec '24 GSV showed up with the updated exit number, I bet you'd have 0 issue adding it in.

[yakra]

Not necessarily.
Separate numbers notwithstanding, the 2 halves still function as one interchange; WB off/on, EB off/on.

Exits 4 & 5 in one interchange. For a single interchange with ramps given different exit numbers, use the lower number.

Canonical example IMO is NY I-278 8

There's another location in NYS that comes to mind (I'll keep the location quiet until I'm ready to address the topic*) another contributor PMed me about, with 2 separately numbered points roughly the same distance apart, connecting to separate halves of a couplet. I forget what exactly was in the PM, but it led me to consider collapsing the 2 halves into a single point in the middle, which would gain us teh graph connectionz.

*Eagle-eyed forum regulars who are familiar with NY may be able to find it, but anyway.

[yakra]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8266/commits/51d496c58672e6615a07a5b86f07434ac727d7b8

[rickmastfan67]

Not necessarily.
Separate numbers notwithstanding, the 2 halves still function as one interchange; WB off/on, EB off/on.

Exits 4 & 5 in one interchange. For a single interchange with ramps given different exit numbers, use the lower number.

Canonical example IMO is NY I-278 8

I would honestly say this is completely different.

There 'USED' to be an Exit 82 going EB on I-40 up till sometime between Jan '16 & Jul '18 before the new 81 got renumbered to 82 a couple of months ago.

'Exit 81' didn't open till sometime between July '13 & Jan '16.  However, I will give you that the missing WB on-ramp for Exit 82 was @ Exit 81 already prior to the Exit 81 EB off-ramp opening

However, 'BOTH' exits were open @ the same time in Jan '16, which IMO makes them be considered as SEPARATE interchanges in my book.