Thanks Kent this looks very good. I didn't edit the text for Ramp much if any because I didn't intend to change the rule.kentsmith9 wrote:Sketch, I took the liberty to make some adjustments to the Ramp section based on our discussions on ramps so far. I put up a version of that page here here to review. I was especially worried about the wording of the double negative section of when not to use ramps. I think this proposal addresses that possible confusion point.
I was looking at that section and was wondering why the language "grade-separated interchange" isn't used at all. It might provide a good contrast to "at-grade". I added a caption to the expressway image under Highways that uses that language, also.
---
For what it's worth, I got that Florida FC map to load (slowly, but eventually).
dbraughlr's point is well-taken. Disputes may arise in anything. The idea that a better-defined system will have more, rather than fewer, disputes is preposterous.
If this system works nationwide, unmodified, then deviation from the standard won't be necessary AT ALL. The only deviations I've made from this system are mostly inconsequential, basically places where a separate road is used effectively as an at-grade connector. That's it, and I've implemented it in two major metropolitan areas — one of which I did entirely on my own — along with much of the surrounding countryside (and bayous).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Re: Road Types (USA) – comprehensive overhaul of drivable ro