[Talk-us-massachusetts] new exit numbers..

[Bill Ricker]

And so it begins.  https://newmassexits.com/
(Youtube of a public meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7K5e6SbuuE)


> CONSTRUCTION START DATES
>
> October 18, 2020 - State Route 140 (COMPLETE)
>
> October 25, 2020 - Interstate 195 (COMPLETE)
>
> November 23, 2020 - State Route 25 (COMPLETE)
>
> November 30, 2020 - State Route 3
>
> December 13, 2020 - US Route 6
>
> December 13, 2020 - Interstate 90
> https://newmassexits.com//#it-schedule
>

A year ago Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

Having pondered, I'm coming around to the view that if there is no
> support in navigation apps for old numbers, then there is very likely no
> real benefit to keeping them, compared to effort that could do other
> mapping things.  (But it's certainly legit to do if somebody is into
> it.)


I would disagree, if someone is researching something, having the old exit
numbers in the data even if not in the nav app and not used by any render
still allows them to determine that New 8 is old 3 and Old 8 is new 48 so
that 8 is ambiguous in a text without a date.

 Rule - "Don't tag for a specific render"

I searched a bit and found no 'old exit' tagging.
>

Perhaps since most regions are so far ahead of Mass they will already have
taken down their Old Exit signs by now, so they might be removed from OSM
on the "map what's visibly signed" rule?
(Which i would hold to be an error; old_ref historic data remembers what
used to be signed, and need not be currently signed as Old.)

(*I am saddened that we haven't captured the old exit numbers elsewhere
even if the signs were gone before OSM started. Westbrook Exit 48 will
always be Exit 8 in our hearts.* )

It seems like old_ref= is the obvious approach; that key is basically
> documented as "means like ref= but is what ref= used to be".
>


   - Is this a confirmable plan?


   - Do we have a ruling on whether we have to go out and actually see the
   new signage for copyright purposes, or can we rely upon MassDOT progress
   reports?


 From the useful FAQ (link above) -
WHY ARE THE EXIT NUMBERS CONTINUING FROM I-395 THROUGH I-290?
MassDOT is continuing the I-395 numbering along I-290 to replicate the
present exit numbering, which is continuous from Webster to Marlborough. As
part of this project, the existing mileposts on I-290 will be replaced with
‘dual’ mile markers showing mileage for both I-395 and I-290

I have been on many a dual-shielded interstate and have never noticed dual
mileage markers. Is this USDOT/FHA compliant?
AFAIK elsewhere the milemarkers and exit numbers follow whichever
interstate is considered more-major or the "through route".
If only the milemarkers are dual, this may not affect OSM?


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1vux at gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20201203/a6480844/attachment.htm>