NH: I-93 Exit 3 / NH111APel relocation

[yakra]

Hadn't thought that war ahead re:NH, but...

Just having Google Satellite to go by, the I-90 example makes the most immediate sense to me visually. I had a similar situation a while back in Texas on I-30. I chose to add *OldI-30 points and make an updates listing (dated 2015-09-08: "Removed from a demolished freeway and relocated onto a new parallel freeway to the immediate southeast in Fort Worth, between points labeled *OldI-30_W and *OldI-30_E."). Different travelers will have different thresholds for what to mark as declinched. I think that even if they end up deciding a reroute is too minor/insignificant, having the info to make that decision available won't hurt IMO.

OH I-90:
Yowch, when did this open to traffic? After September 2013? Faced with the prospect of having a 100% clinch of the nation's longest Interstate pulled out from under me, I may end up facing the spiritual crisis of determining just what exactly is my threshold for marking something as declinched...

[yakra]

Eric:  I'm not disputing the facts behind your decision.  What I'm disputing is that this is a significant enough realignment to warrant the inclusion of such points.

Grin grin -- how about my "It is possible for" fact? That's it's possible for a traveler to decide, "I once drove on something that is not now part of I-93 at all. There is a segment of what is currently I-93 that I have not traveled on."?
As I said in response to mapcat's post, Different travelers will have different thresholds for what to mark as declinched; different thresholds for what's a "significant enough realignment".
For those who do make that determination re: their travels, why take the option of an *OldI-93 away from them? Especially if the point, in some form or other, is already needed in the file?

Do you agree or disagree with my assessment that making *OldI-93 visible does no harm?
Or to that end, agree or disagree with my assessment that making it visible does some good?
Do you think that *OldI-93 should specifically NOT be visible? If so, on what grounds? If just "not significant enough realignment" grounds, then I would counter that that's up to the interpretation of the individual traveler, and we shouldn't make that decision for them. There hasn't really been a project-wide effort to identify a solid threshold of what does(n't) count as a significant or newsworthy realignment.

Also, how about this Opinion:
"IMO, if a point already has to be at a given location, and it can serve a purpose for travelers, then it should be made visible."?
Do you agree with that statement?
Disagree, due to not considering it a true conditional?
Or think that "it can serve a purpose for travelers" is just not a valid premise that's fulfilled in this case?

to warrant the inclusion of such points.

Now, I think I know what you mean here, but I'm going to be a Big Jerkface & deliberately interpret the word "inclusion" in the way that's most favorable to my agenda, and belabor the fact that the point's already included whatever happens, and that this debate is about whether to make it visible or not. (And at that, I'll go & edit that one usage of the word "included" above to read "visible" instead. 'Cuz, you know, consistency. )

[mapcat]

I had a similar situation a while back in Texas on I-30.

Right, I noticed that as it affected me last year.

Different travelers will have different thresholds for what to mark as declinched. I think that even if they end up deciding a reroute is too minor/insignificant, having the info to make that decision available won't hurt IMO.

Certainly, but how far do you take this? There are certainly some places where the pavement was moved prior to when you started maintaining that route. Someone who joins in the future and travelled I-95 in Connecticut in the 1980s might appreciate a pair of *OldI-95 points where a bridge collapsed and was rebuilt. Do we have one?

OH I-90:
Yowch, when did this open to traffic? After September 2013? Faced with the prospect of having a 100% clinch of the nation's longest Interstate pulled out from under me, I may end up facing the spiritual crisis of determining just what exactly is my threshold for marking something as declinched...

According to this, the replacement bridge opened in November, 2013. This is just one of the replacement bridges, however; a second one is being built closer to where the old bridge was, to handle eastbound traffic.

Maybe what I did regarding I-30 will help you with this crisis: I still count it as clinched, but made a special entry at the end of my .list file to indicate that part of the route I originally clinched has been moved:

YYTX I-30 *OldI-30_W 13

Now I have an incentive to go back, but only so I can remove the note from my .list.

[yakra]

Different travelers will have different thresholds for what to mark as declinched. I think that even if they end up deciding a reroute is too minor/insignificant, having the info to make that decision available won't hurt IMO.

Certainly, but how far do you take this? There are certainly some places where the pavement was moved prior to when you started maintaining that route. Someone who joins in the future and travelled I-95 in Connecticut in the 1980s might appreciate a pair of *OldI-95 points where a bridge collapsed and was rebuilt. Do we have one?

For the CT I-95 example, the Mianus River Bridge was replaced in situ. I would say, road's in the same place (the pavement was not moved), a clinch stays a clinch, no need for new points. But hey, that's my opinion. Others could well disagree. So yes, I do see your point.
Here's what I consider a more compelling example that grabs my fancy a little more: the oxbows of PA I-86 I-76. East of Exit 91, or better yet east of the Allegheny Mountain Tunnel east of Exit 110. I don't know when this was rerouted; I'm content to leave the "how far do you take this?" unexplored/unanswered here.
But yes. How far do you take this? It's a question I've been asking myself here, and one that in the larger picture always seems to hang over the project to some degree. Answers, for whatever situation the question is being applied to, seem to jump around and erratically approach some always-unknown asymptote, somewhere between the extremes. CAN the question be answered? Despite our best to pin things down in a rational & orderly manner, things persist in being wibbly-wobbly...

According to this, the replacement bridge opened in November, 2013. This is just one of the replacement bridges, however; a second one is being built closer to where the old bridge was, to handle eastbound traffic.

Thanks. I'll have a more detailed look around in the future. Holding off for now. Hopefully the new bridge (I traveled eastbound, FWIW) will be in the right place enough that I can justify keeping my clinch. I'm keeping it in place for the time being.

I haven't looked around enough to see what interchanges I would mark off as the endpoints of a declinch if I do decide to go that route, or where any possible *OldI-90 points would go if IMO I even found them necessary. The second bridge is an interesting and significant wrinkle in this case. So right now I'm not going to advise you one way or the other re OH I-90. I'm content to leave it at your discretion as maintainer of Ohio.

Maybe what I did regarding I-30 will help you with this crisis: I still count it as clinched, but made a special entry at the end of my .list file to indicate that part of the route I originally clinched has been moved:

YYTX I-30 *OldI-30_W 13

Now I have an incentive to go back, but only so I can remove the note from my .list.

Looks like a good way to keep track of such cases. If I do end up keeping my OH I-90 clinch my OH I-90 clinch wibbles & wobbles in just the right particular direction, I may consider doing this.

[yakra]

Off-topic & more of an "Updates to Highway Data" item; just dumping it here so I don't forget about it:

US4 / NH16:
Spaulding Tpk reconstruction
Exit 2 closed
Exit 3 relocated