MI: I-96, M-5, I-696

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Clinched Highway Mapping Forum Index -> Old topics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
afarina



Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 6:18 pm    Post subject: MI: I-96, M-5, I-696 Reply with quote

A concurrency exists in the HB/mapper with I-96 and M-5 between exits 164 and 165. There should be no concurrency for this, however, as they remain on separate roadways. This is akin in some ways to the I-355, I-88 interchanges area in Downers Grove, IL.

Additionally, Exit 163 is missing on I-96, which would be the western point of I-696. I-696 currently ends further east of there in the HB. I assume it had been subsumed into the Exit 165 junction, but it does continue further west on its own carriageway. The access from I-96 east to M-5 east is therefore the first ramp on I-696 (the EB side of Exit 1, I suppose). I guess MDOT likes making things confusing, like they did with the Gateway Project in downtown Detroit.

Thanks.
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
dfilpus



Joined: 14 Jul 2008
Posts: 717
Location: Chapel Hill NC

PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IMO, it is impossible to handle this interchange in the browser so that all exits and movements through the interchange are consistent. This interchange would be served best by one waypoint for the whole interchange. Eliminate waypoint 164 on I 96 and MI5 and relabel it 163.
_________________
Dave Filpus
http://roadgeek.filpus.org/
Back to top View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
yakra



Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A concurrency exists in the HB/mapper with I-96 and M-5 between exits 164 and 165. There should be no concurrency for this, however, as they remain on separate roadways.
This bit itself should be easy enough to tackle...

Quote:
Additionally, Exit 163 is missing on I-96, which would be the western point of I-696.
As I see it, this would fall under the "one point per interchange" rule, and should be folded into 164.
If I really wanna get down to brass tacks though, the label should be 163 (the lower exit number), and not 164.

Quote:
I-696 currently ends further east of there in the HB. I assume it had been subsumed into the Exit 165 junction, but it does continue further west on its own carriageway. The access from I-96 east to M-5 east is therefore the first ramp on I-696 (the EB side of Exit 1, I suppose).
Hmm, yes... I'd say that the western endpoint of I-696 should be changed, and brought west a little bit to meet Exit 164. And then I'd put a new point in at the 3-level, which is signed as... Exit 1.

Oh, bother.

1 is the existing endpoint label, and is in use.
This brings up philosophical questions like, "What's the greater evil: having less precise route traces than there's potential for, or breaking people's 100% clinches?"

Seeking input & comments. Do we...
1.) Leave everything pretty much as-is, and just A.) tweak the coords of I-696's endpoint to match those from 96/275/5, and B.) tweak the coords at the 96/5 Exit 163/164 junction to avoid the false positive multiplex.
2.) Extend I-696 west to Exit 163/164, labeled I-96, and move Exit 1 to the 3-level, thus breaking 100% clinches.
3.) Extend I-696 west to Exit 163/164 and fudge the 3-level to "1A", thus avoiding breaking 100% clinches.
3A.) Label the new endpoint I-96, with 1 as an AltLabel.
3B.) Label the new endpoint 1, no AltLabel.
4.) Collapse the whole interchange to a single point as Dave suggested, perhaps hereish. I'm leaning away from this option right now, though I'll concede that if someone makes a strong enough case I could change my opinion.

Leaning toward option 3 right now, FWIW.
Precedent of similar fudgery: Exit 1 (instead of 1A) was added to TX I-37, with existing 1A label kept as an alternate for the endpoint at US181.
The two-half-interchanges A-suffix labeling convention fudgery might also help legitimize this.
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
afarina



Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess I'll chime in, since I started this madness.

yakra wrote:
1 is the existing endpoint label, and is in use.
This brings up philosophical questions like, "What's the greater evil: having less precise route traces than there's potential for, or breaking people's 100% clinches?"


Given that the new site is nascent and most users are active, I'm not sure this is much of a problem. Even so, I understand the dilemma. Anytime a routes are updated (like St. Louis with the new bridge), things are going to break. If it can be avoided, I'm all for it.

yakra wrote:
Seeking input & comments. Do we...
2.) Extend I-696 west to Exit 163/164, labeled I-96, and move Exit 1 to the 3-level, thus breaking 100% clinches.


Personally, I'm partially in favor of this option given the preciseness. It would be the most accurate. But...

yakra wrote:
3.) Extend I-696 west to Exit 163/164 and fudge the 3-level to "1A", thus avoiding breaking 100% clinches.
3A.) Label the new endpoint I-96, with 1 as an AltLabel.
3B.) Label the new endpoint 1, no AltLabel.


This seems the best compromise to me. It gets my vote. I would recommend labeling the endpoint I-96, since it has no actual exit number. 1A is a compromise that really does not effect anything. I think it's perfectly fair even if it "fudges" the Exit 1 interchange into 1A.

yakra wrote:
4.) Collapse the whole interchange to a single point as Dave suggested, perhaps hereish. I'm leaning away from this option right now, though I'll concede that if someone makes a strong enough case I could change my opinion.


Admittedly, I don't like this option only given that there would be nearly 1.5 miles of I-696 omitted from the system. That seems too far beyond simple fudge-factor. As for I-96: yes, 163 and 164 should be collapsed into a single number (I suppose 163 is preferred), but 165 should remain separate.

Cheers.
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
yakra



Joined: 30 Jul 2008
Posts: 2600
Location: Area Code 207

PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Changes committed. Going with option 3A...
I-96 stays as is. I decided to keep status quo and leave Exit 164 labeled as such, even if 163 is preferred. It ain't all that broke. Why introduce another waypoint label & have it go into use, only to potentially cause problems with the (admittedly slim) chance of further edits down the line? Plus, it makes a bit more intuitive sense when it has the same exit number as MI MI5 I-96(164).
I-696 extended W, 1A -> I-96; 1 kept as AltLabel. Including some updates text. This is very much like the recent extension of NY I-278 at the Bruckner Interchange.
MI5: tweaked coords of I-96(164), to avoid false positive concurrency with I-96.
I-275 stays as is. I thought about extending it north to the 3-level with the new I-696 1A, but decided against it. The MDOT maps I looked at made it look a little bit (though not definitively) like that bit isn't considered part of the interstate proper.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Detroit2_421321_7.pdf
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT-State_MapBack_354300_7.pdf
I suppose if I really wanted to, I could surf up the Route Log and Finder List, find out what the total listed mileage is, and see how that sways me. Edit: 29.97 mi. So it looks like even the overlap with I-96 doesn't count. Yeah, heck with it. It stays as is.
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Clinched Highway Mapping Forum Index -> Old topics All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


2005 Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Free Web Hosting | File Hosting | Photo Gallery | Matrimonial


Powered by PhpBB.BizHat.com, setup your forum now!
For Support, visit Forums.BizHat.com