*UPDATED* Ramp naming convention proposal

[jondrush]

I don't like the repeated colon because it barely shows up on my client. Choose something else, please, that make a more robust visual separator on the client display.

[sketch]

I've done enough testing at this point and I think I've seen enough support to be able to move this forward.

I say we go with the double colon. I'm convinced.

{SIGN}={[EXIT]<SEPERATOR 1>[SHIELDS]<SEPARATOR 1>[CITIES]}

[SHIELDS]=[<SHIELD><SEPARATOR 2><SHIELD>……]

[CITIES]=[<CITY><SEPARATOR 2><CITY>……]

<SEPERATOR 1> = ":"
<SEPARATOR 2> = "/"

Thats how I came to this conclusion.

That's it, broken down in its most basic form.

As for the "to", let's just keep it. It's already there, it's logical, and while it does take up some valuable space, keeping it will save us a lot of time and keep the select all street function easy.

I do propose one other thing that isn't included in conventions, but that was mentioned in this thread: control-city pathfinder signs, the big ones that they put on the interstate when a large number of lanes split off onto another freeway or some other big exit. The format for those would be as follows:

I-10 E: New Orleans Business District

In this case, we don't have a standard, so we don't have to worry about changing up existing labels. Further, using "to" wouldn't be very logical -- since you're already on the indicated road, you're not really going "to" it, you're continuing along it. And this is not a superfluous addition -- there are two locations on my drive to work alone where the left three lanes exit straight ahead onto another freeway, and to stay on I-10, you have to keep and then veer right. Hugely confusing to an unfamiliar driver. I think I've shown these examples before.

[jasonh300]

So are we dropping the double colon and going to colon then slash?

What about onramps with control cities? I think the last discussion was - to I-##: Cityname

You should add "ANY OBJECTIONS, SPEAK NOW" on your original post title so people will see it and come in and read the final proposal.

[sketch]

No, it's still the double colon. Basically what R4C's post is saying is this:

Each sign has elements from any or all of three groups: exit number, shields, and control cities or street names. The groups will be separated with a colon. Some signs will have more than one of each. When multiple elements exist within one group, these elements will be separated with a slash. To wit,

shield : city
to I-10 W: Baton Rouge [ramp]
I-10 E: New Orleans Business District [pathfinder sign on interstate]

exit number : street name / city
Exit 228: Causeway Blvd / Mandeville

exit number : shield : city / city
Exit 220: I-310 S: Boutte / Houma

shield / shield: city / city
to I-310 N / LA-3127 N: Donaldsonville / New Orleans

shield
to I-10 W

street name / city
to Causeway Blvd / Mandeville

...and so forth.

I will add something to the OP. Good idea.

[jondrush]

shield / shield: city / city
to I-310 N / LA-3127 N: Donaldsonville / New Orleans

shield
to I-10 W

I thought when we were using a ramp off of a regular road we had agreed to
Exit to I-310: etc.
and for when we were turning onto a ramp we were to use
to I-310: etc.

That's what I've been doing here for consistency.

[jasonh300]

I thought when we were using a ramp off of a regular road we had agreed to
Exit to I-310: etc.
...
That's what I've been doing here for consistency.

Where are you using that? The only time "Exit to" is supposed to be used is if there's an offramp from a freeway and there's no exit number.

Post a permalink where you've used this...I'm not sure I'm understand what you're saying.

[jondrush]

I'm using it everywhere there is an offramp with no exit number. It makes sense.

[banished]

Without a vote (e.g. Surveymonkey, or similar) that receives at least 50 percent plus one, I object to this or any other proposal.

Without comment on whether I think this specific proposal has merit or not, it is time to formalize the change process. I think 55 percent approval is a better standard, but won't fall on my sword over it. The vote must be publicized (in a new, separate forum) for at least one week before voting starts, and be held open at least two weeks. So there's "sunlight" on the results, the results need to be view-able in real time by everyone, and not just the person who initiated the vote.

How about the first vote be on whether or not we agree to a change control process that requires changes to be adopted by a majority (however that is defined), before any change to the wiki? I trust that even if a change is approved by a majority, there's only our own self-discipline that will prevent us from deviating.

Maybe I see things different, but I would never presume to go in and edit the wiki. If I did, the 5m split "requirement" on divided highways would get dropped to 2.5m (8 feet for you Yanks) if there's clearly separate GPS tracks.

[sketch]

The standard has always only included the word "Exit" for exits from a freeway (limited access)—either "Exit xxx: Road" or "Exit to Road". Ramps onto freeways from roads that are not limited-access have always just been "to Road".

[sketch]

We built the Wiki ourselves, and it is ours to change. I understand the desire for a voting process, but I don't think it's necessary, and to be honest it seems like a bit of a nightmare. We can have a yes or no question asking whether members of the community approve, and if it's "no", we're left with the existing faulty system; or, we can have a few different proposals, none of which will ever get a majority.

Nothing truly great has ever come out of a focus group. Design by committee gave us the Chevy Citation, not the iPod.

As for the split roads thing, strict adherence to the 5m "rule" is an oversimplification. Some roads with much narrower medians cannot be accurately mapped (vis-à-vis U-turns, etc.) as a single, two-way road.