<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">They should have just renamed 290 to 395. After all, it now ends at 495, and is not a circumferential beltway (or at least not any more so than the current 395).<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">«Connecting Interstate routes and full or partial circumferential beltways around or within urban areas carry a three-digit number. These routes are designated with the number of the main route and an even-numbered prefix. Supplemental radial and spur routes, connecting with the main route at one end, also carry a three-digit number, using the number of the main route with an odd-number prefix.»<br class=""><div><br class=""></div><div>— Andy</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 5, 2022, at 12:41 PM, Bill Ricker <<a href="mailto:bill.n1vux@gmail.com" class="">bill.n1vux@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">The road nerds maintaining Wikipedia Interstate pages have documented this situation. 🛣 <div dir="auto" class=""><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_290_(Massachusetts)#Milepost-based_exit_numbering" class="">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_290_(Massachusetts)#Milepost-based_exit_numbering</a><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">I would have thought that once the second interchange of projected i-290 with parent i-90 was dropped, it should have been renumbered as an Odd-hundred, maybe 390. 🤷 (or, for consistency, dual number 495 between 90 and 290 as 290, so that it is a loop bypass.) </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""> If I see a sign for i-2xx (and 400s, 600s) while driving i-xx, I should be able to follow i-2xx back to i-xx by the numbers (and not have to hope there's a i-495 S To i-90 E/W sign in Marlboro). </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">(Now that Waze & Google Maps gives live traffic overlay, guessing by the signage alone that a bypass is time-saving albeit a little longer is no longer necessary but that's how it's supposed to be.)</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Dual numbering 290, a partial bypass of 90 as 395 (a 95 spur since it goes to 95 in Conn) makes some sense, but it goes there from 495, so shouldn't it be 695 *? (Which might have to be dual with 495 to 95 at Amesbury for consistency?) </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">*(Or 295 since that was never built, beyond ramps from current i-93, and Melnea Cass Blvd surface artery)</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Peculiar geometries like this stress the neat commonsense rules of MUTCD?</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""> </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jun 5, 2022, 09:30 Greg Troxel <<a href="mailto:gdt@lexort.com" class="">gdt@lexort.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br class="">
Someone pointed out that on I-290, all the way to 495, there are in many<br class="">
places dual mile markers, that given the same value, labeled as being<br class="">
for I-290 and I-395. Someone else said they have seen these also. I<br class="">
said I knew road nerds and would ask.<br class="">
<br class="">
For background, 395 starts at the CT line and turns into 290 at I-90.<br class="">
There are 290 ends/395 begin signs etc. While placing that breakpoint<br class="">
at the meter level is hard, it's clearly about there. OSM has seemed<br class="">
correct.<br class="">
<br class="">
Were I in charge I would have used a single MM numbering from the CT<br class="">
line to 495; especially near 90 people are not quite sure which road<br class="">
they are on. Indeed, that is how the exits are numbered.<br class="">
<br class="">
But, I don't get why it makes any sense to consider 290 NE of the pike<br class="">
to be in any way actually be 395.<br class="">
<br class="">
Any insight?<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" class="">Talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org" class="">Talk-us-massachusetts@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>