| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:04 am Post subject: CT US7 Brookfield bypass |
 |
|
CT US7 Brookfield bypass (still U/C as of 2009-10-18; field verified by me)
Opens in Nov?
affects US7 & US202 |
|
| Back to top |
  |
 |
oxlahun
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Posts: 314
Location: Easthampton MA
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Last I checked, it only affects US7. |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The surface street US202 will need a new point where US7 rejoins, and some other minor relabeling.
Edit: Durnit! I KNEW there was an existing thread about this somewhere! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brookfield Bypass opens Thursday, so I'm putting the update together.
This means a new US7 point on US202, and a new US202 point on US7.
There are already US#_A, US#_B & US#_C points in each file.
This new point could be US#_D, but that puts it out of sequence between US#_B and US#_C.
I assume I should leave the suffixes out of sequence, as a bit of a historical anomaly, in order to break existing .list files as little as possible? Existing US#_C is already used in a .list file for each route.
US202 can get away with only having a new point inserted; no other changes. With the right label, no existing .lists are broken.
US7 will break at least one .list by virtue of losing the CT25 point. But there may be people using US202_C not affected by this change. In which case I should probably avoid needlessly breaking their lists on `em; limiting the breakage to only those by necessity affected? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rickmastfan67
Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 2031
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How about US#_BA? |
|
| Back to top |
 |
|
admin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 4053
Location: Maryland
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yakra wrote: |
This new point could be US#_D |
Use that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oxlahun
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Posts: 314
Location: Easthampton MA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know there's a policy of not using exit numbers on US highways, because some states allow duplicate numbers, but I wonder if disambiguating a twining situation like this (in a state that isn't duplicating numbers) might be a reason to break that. US202 having points US7(11), US7(12), new US7(13) would be very clear. US7 is trickier, but something like US202_(11) or (11)US202 might be reasonable. The current _C point could be US7_N and US202/CT67_E (the state route does begin at that intersection).
Another tack: Exit 11 (point _A) straddles the Danbury/Brookfield town line. Exit 12 (_B) is in Brookfield, the new point (exit 13, I assume) is close to the Brookfield/New Milford town line (hard to tell exactly, but I can probably get down there this weekend to look for a sign), and _C is well within New Milford. The town names (Danbury and New Milford) could be used to distinguish the multiplexes from the simple crossing (_B, current southern end of New Milford mux) in Brookfield. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yakra
Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In an early draft I did use city suffixes on the 7/202 points, but scrapped that plan. IIRC it was due to multiple junctions in Brookfield, and the confusion between the northern one being a multiplex splitting to the south and the southern one being a duplex splitting to the north. (What to do for naming?) So I went with _A _B & _C, which at the time was simpler & cleaner. I coulda planned ahead for this, but the bypass extension wasn't on my radar, despite it being planned back then.
Anyway.
Tim, yesterday I went ahead and made the changes (Glad you agree ^_^); I'll send them in late tonight or in the wee hours tomorrow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
