Travel Mapping
Highway Data Discussion => Updates to Highway Data => Solved Highway data updates => Topic started by: rickmastfan67 on February 01, 2016, 04:25:58 am
-
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/first_leg_of_montgomery_outer.html
So, with this opened back on 01/26/16, do we want to create a 'Future I-85' file now since this future reroute has already been approved by the AASHTO?
I've added the new exit on 'current' I-85 via this Pull Request (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/390) that also fixed the location for exit 16, and added exit 50 (http://clinched.s2.bizhat.com/viewtopic.php?t=2209&mforum=clinched) so that we can easily make the 'Future' file if we want to do so. Only thing I'm not 100% positive is the exit number on current I-85. The I-685 wikipedia page says #14, but the I-85 page says #12. I'm more inclined to go with the number from the I-685 page.
That also brings up another thing. Do we want to create a 'Future I-685' file along I-85? I mean, it is AASHTO approved, and will happen in the future.
-
I suggest not bothering with Future I-685, since it would duplicate existing mileage.
I'm also not crazy about a Future I-85 file, both because it's for now pretty short and to avoid overdoing it on Future Interstate routes.
-
I agree with Oscar on this. At least wait until "Future I-XX" signs are up.
-
I suggest not bothering with Future I-685, since it would duplicate existing mileage.
Which is pretty much a non-reason to not make it - there's a minor penalty if a change happens on the route, but not a huge one and an unlikely occurrence.
Though sure, wait for signs - not much is missed by not having it.
avoid overdoing it on Future Interstate routes.
I read this as "oh no, my 98.7% (http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=oscar&sys=usaif) will go down slightly." Total non-reason to include it.
I'm a firm "go for it", especially on I-85Fut until the naysayers get better reasons - in part as the naysayers have rubbish reasons for denial. Though isn't froggie the maintainer of AL?
-
Not directly relevant to the decision at hand whether or not to put a Future I-85 in here, but it gave me an idea of something to put into the data processing: a per-system log of what percentage of its mileage is concurrent with other systems. So usaif would have lots of concurrency with usaus, some with usany, etc. I wonder how much total clinchable mileage usaif adds overall. Seems unlikely to be much.
-
avoid overdoing it on Future Interstate routes.
I read this as "oh no, my 98.7% (http://tm.teresco.org/hbtest/mapview.php?u=oscar&sys=usaif) will go down slightly." Total non-reason to include it.
What I really had in mind are questions raised here and there about whether we should keep the Future Interstates system at all. That suggests we should hesitate to expand a system some of us would like to deprecate.
Otherwise, once Future I-85 signs start showing up, I have no problem adding it. It would be a little weird to have an FI route with the same number as a current Interstate, and not an extension or gap-filler for that Interstate, but that's no biggie.
-
Count me as a "go for it once signs are up".
-
Count me as a "go for it once signs are up".
Same here.
-
Though isn't froggie the maintainer of AL?
Yes, he is. But since I didn't see any action on the post about Exit #50 @ the old forums, I thought I'd quickly solve that so there would be one less thread we needed to deal with over there. That's how I discovered the other new interchange opening with I also quickly fixed the location for Exit #16 which was way north of the correct location.
-
So....its been over a year and a half. Have signs gone up along this route yet?
-
Well, according to StreetView, it's posted as AL-108 right now. I checked the entire road in StreetView, and saw no mention of a 'Future I-85 corridor'.
Plus, the correct exit number is '15'. So, both I-85 & US-80's files will need to be corrected.
-
Well, according to StreetView, it's posted as AL-108 right now. I checked the entire road in StreetView, and saw no mention of a 'Future I-85 corridor'.
Worth adding to usansf? That system already has part or all of four other Alabama routes.
-
Well, according to StreetView, it's posted as AL-108 right now. I checked the entire road in StreetView, and saw no mention of a 'Future I-85 corridor'.
Worth adding to usansf? That system already has part or all of four other Alabama routes.
Probably. At least it would allow this topic to be solved. :)
-
I drove AL 108 last month. Still no Future Interstate signage in the field.
-
If it's signed as AL 108, it will eventually get added as such later this year as I work on Alabama routes (after I get Mississippi done). If there is no Future Interstate signage yet, then I'm not going to bend over backwards to add it early as something else.
-
Designating this as solved. It will be added as AL 108 as I work on the Alabama lists. The exit number correction on I-85 will likely get fixed in the next week or so once I complete my update of the Alabama Interstate and U.S. lists.