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

[Andy Anderson]

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).

«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.»

— Andy

> On Jun 5, 2022, at 12:41 PM, Bill Ricker <bill.n1vux at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The road nerds maintaining Wikipedia Interstate pages have documented this situation. 🛣
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_290_(Massachusetts)#Milepost-based_exit_numbering <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220605/326c53f8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20220605/326c53f8/attachment.sig>