[Talk-us-massachusetts] Interstate 290 and dual mile markers for 395?

[Bill Ricker]

The road nerds maintaining Wikipedia Interstate pages have documented this
situation. 🛣
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_290_(Massachusetts)#Milepost-based_exit_numbering

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.)

 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).

(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.)

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?)

*(Or 295 since that was never built, beyond ramps from current i-93, and
Melnea Cass Blvd surface artery)

Peculiar geometries like this stress the neat commonsense rules of MUTCD?





On Sun, Jun 5, 2022, 09:30 Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

>
> Someone pointed out that on I-290, all the way to 495, there are in many
> places dual mile markers, that given the same value, labeled as being
> for I-290 and I-395.  Someone else said they have seen these also.  I
> said I knew road nerds and would ask.
>
> For background, 395 starts at the CT line and turns into 290 at I-90.
> There are 290 ends/395 begin signs etc.  While placing that breakpoint
> at the meter level is hard, it's clearly about there.  OSM has seemed
> correct.
>
> Were I in charge I would have used a single MM numbering from the CT
> line to 495; especially near 90 people are not quite sure which road
> they are on.  Indeed, that is how the exits are numbered.
>
> But, I don't get why it makes any sense to consider 290 NE of the pike
> to be in any way actually be 395.
>
> Any insight?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list
> Talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20220605/79d42abc/attachment.htm>