PRT A19 wrong exit numbers

[neroute2]

If the numbers we have actually existed, they were only before 2014.
2 -> 1
3 -> 2
4 -> 3
5 -> 4
6 -> 5
7 -> 6
8 -> 7

[michih]

https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/8491

[rickmastfan67]

This one should probably get a news entry since it was pretty much the entire route that was reentered with new exit numbers.

[michih]

No points in use changed.

[neroute2]

No points in use changed.

Only because you chose the worst option and used 2A/3A/5A instead of 2/3/5...which by the way screws with user toll_roads where I already used the correct numbers.

[michih]

No points in use changed.

Only because you chose the worst option and used 2A/3A/5A instead of 2/3/5...which by the way screws with user toll_roads where I already used the correct numbers.

We aim to not break user list files and I also don't like to do the opposite: credit users for segments they didn't travel. I learned that many users not care about update entries - minimum in Europe. For instance, a new segment of the German B178 was opened in late May. Since B178 was interrupted, the end point of both routes was S128 (plain wp label). The southern route was truncated (rededication to K8610), and I simply had to merged both  B178 files into one. Now, all six travelers are credited for the newly opened section: cougar1989 duke87 martin0102 michih niels panda80

Well, I traveled the section in June, two travelers have not updated their list files since Mid May (note is still in logs) but three users did not update their list files. I'm quite sure that they didn't travel the segment - but they are credited for it!

There are more examples out there I spot over the years. Often due to E road relocations.

On the other hand, wp labels have no meaning for TM anymore since we have the 'list tool'. You just have to click the segments on the map. No need to manually enter wp label names in the list files. To be honest, labels like X123456 and X443322 would be pretty fine!

[mapcat]

Do we really need to concern ourselves with other users possibly getting credit for segments they did not travel? Especially if those users don't seem particularly concerned (or simply don't check the updates entries religiously)?

[rickmastfan67]

Especially if those users don't seem particularly concerned (or simply don't check the updates entries religiously)?

This is why I suggested that there should be an update log entry for these changes.  The entire route got renumbered.  That's a news worthy change.

[michih]

Especially if those users don't seem particularly concerned (or simply don't check the updates entries religiously)?

This is why I suggested that there should be an update log entry for these changes.  The entire route got renumbered.  That's a news worthy change.

I didn’t change any point in use. Thus, not news worthy.

[rickmastfan67]

Especially if those users don't seem particularly concerned (or simply don't check the updates entries religiously)?

This is why I suggested that there should be an update log entry for these changes.  The entire route got renumbered.  That's a news worthy change.

I didn’t change any point in use. Thus, not news worthy.

You're missing the point.  The ENTIRE ROUTE had it's visible labels changed.  That means it's 150% a news worthy change to let people know about that.  It doesn't matter if you didn't 'change' any label in use to another location.

Whenever a route has all it's labels changed, it's always been considered news worthy, even if only 2-3 people have been on it.

You might be able to get away without a news entry if the route had only 2-3 points, but this is a motorway with several exits on it, all of which gained a new number.

Examples:

Code: [Select]

2025-02-13 (USA) Connecticut CT 11 ct.ct011 Relabeled exits from sequential to mileage-based.
2025-02-13 (USA) Connecticut CT 2 ct.ct002 Relabeled exits from sequential to mileage-based.
CT-11 above is a perfect example of this. All labels got changed, news entry added, & no 'in-use' point changed.

[Jim]

My understanding is that if the route could be renumbered with the correct (not made up) new exit numbers, an updates entry is not needed but I also see no harm in adding on as it was a substantial change for the route.  I am strongly opposed to using labels that don't match what's posted just to avoid breaking list files.  Of course we use alt labels to minimize breakage but sometimes an accurate update will break some things and it will be up to users to update (if they care to do so).