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

[Greg Troxel]

Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux at gmail.com> writes:

> And so it begins.  https://newmassexits.com/

> 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.

Fair enough, and  it's not hard.

>> 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?

I second your motion for old_ref to be like ref, but contain the former
exit number.  Discussion?

>    - 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?

The state more or less says that their information is public domain, and
if you were to ask them they would say "of course you can us that - why
did you think it was a good idea to ask".  So I'd say that MassDOT
publications are in the same boat as MassGIS data, where it will soon
end up anyway.

>  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

Wow!  That's neat and maybe confusing, but really 395 and 290 are the
same road.

> I have been on many a dual-shielded interstate and have never noticed dual
> mileage markers. Is this USDOT/FHA compliant?

Out of scope for us!  You can complain if you want.

> 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?

In theory we can put in tags/locations for mileposts.   But given the
intent to have exits match the "395 scheme", it seems like we just tag
exits like they sign them and don't worry be happy.

If we do get into mile markers, then we can see how it is on the
ground.  I bet it's going to be

  mile marker <395-scheme>
  old mile marker <290-scheme>

because these are mostly about people calling for help (plus their own
plowing/construction management).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20201203/39be86e7/attachment.sig>