CBenson wrote:I always thought the "to" was needed to distinguish from the actual road. Not so important if the sign has the control city, but if it doesn't you need to say "to I-95 N" rather than just "I-95 N" on the ramp.
This is exactly it. It interfered with the Select Entire Street feature when we were creating the standards two and a half years ago.
I have recently been considering the removal of "to". I like the idea of not having it on the display at all. The Select Entire Street feature is a lot less essential now that most extraneous nodes have been removed and those that exist are very easy to remove, so that's a minimal loss. For road reports, well, it's not quite optimal, but the minimap display does help.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this as well.UPDATE
: After updating one interchange as a test subject for the removal of "to", I realize just how much this would affect. It would not only make Select Entire Street problematic for freeways, but for almost any street a freeway intersects. I cannot recommend this in good faith unless the Select Entire Street function is altered to select only segments that have the same Type. Otherwise we would be making editing a lot more troublesome, especially for new editors.
FrisbeeDog wrote:I'm not in favor of having multiple colons. It looks funny to me and is something you would never do grammatically. I know what we are doing is shorthand for directions, but I think we do need to follow some rules of punctuation usage.
What I offer though is that there is no better alternative:
"Exit 220: I-310 S: Boutte / Houma
" - proposal
"Exit 220: I-310 S Boutte / Houma
" - this is the current method. "I-310 S Boutte" runs together and is unclear.
"Exit 220: I-310 S, Boutte / Houma
" - commas will always look completely out of place to me here.
"Exit 220: I-310 S / Boutte / Houma
" - this is illogical, as it offers Boutte and Houma as options that "compete" with I-310, rather than two options that "compete" with each other as a result of I-310.
"Exit 220: I-310 S - Boutte / Houma
" - this looks okay, but takes up more room than the colon. I would offer this as a secondary proposal. Technically, according to English punctuation rules, we would use an em dash (—), but this is longer and difficult to type.
Someone had said that the request was made to have the slash also execute a pause so I say we keep the current standard with one Colin have the exit number and patiently wait for Waze to update the TTS.
The current standard, like I said above, does not include a slash in any of the places I am proposing colons. I don't think a slash "works" here.
What we also have to keep in mind is that not everyone wants TTS so we want to keep the ramp name clear too and I think the additional colons makes that confusing.
Perhaps then the hyphen is the better solution here. We would have to ensure that Waze gives the hyphen a pause too. I have not tested this.
That said, using the hyphen to eliminate dual colons would be inconsistent with the colon in entrance names and pathfinders. And, really, I don't think "Exit 230: I-610 E: Slidell" is really going to confuse
anyone, even if it offends a few English professors.