# Km/mile numbering on motorways



## x-type (Aug 19, 2005)

there is now space for 3 exits in 1 km  in 1 mile - maybe. if an exit is added afterwards, it can only make distance between 2 exits smaller, so it is not miles away (miles away = light years).
i don't see why would it be easier to deal with exit numbers than by distance markers while it is the same thing


----------



## wdw35 (Dec 12, 2008)

Danielk2 said:


> You can't just say that something sucks, explain why..


1. When you look on a map / on an atlas, seeing km-based exits you can immediately visualize distances and times you need to travel over a given stretch or combination of stretches of motorway.

Km-based exit numbers are usually given in relation to an important point. E.g.: if I know I have to go somewhere near exit #320 on A2 in Austria, I already know how much it takes for me to drive to Vienna, and I hence immediately know how long it will take until the destination.

2. Introducing new exits on existing motorways (yes, it will always happen, regardless of how well you planned the motorway) with sequential exits will lead to the horrible "Exit 23C" type of numbers.

3. Having km-based exits makes it much more easier for you to know when your exit comes up, since you can look at ANY km marker and realize immediately how many kms you still have to go.
On sequentially number motorways you have to specifically wait for an exit to see what number it is and then to keep track of exits (which are not positioned symmetrically, such as the km-posts) to follow to your exit.

If someone calls me on my cellphone while I'm on the motorway and asks how long till I arrive, I can tell them "I still have 45 km to drive until I get off the motorway". With sequential exits, you tell them... what? I still have 5 exits? wtf?

And so on. There is not a single advantage for the sequential system, except maybe lower cost with the paint for printing the exit number.


----------



## Danielk2 (Jun 2, 2009)

wdw35 said:


> There is not a single advantage for the sequential system, except maybe lower cost with the paint for printing the exit number.


Yeah, that's a very good way to save millions of dollars, by cutting the cost of paint to the road signs :lol:


----------



## Danielk2 (Jun 2, 2009)

But, more seriously. What do you do in countries with mileage-based exit numbering, when there's a concurrency of 2 or 3 roads. Which distance will be the one that decides the exit number??


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

wdw35 said:


> There is not a single advantage for the sequential system


You sound a bit too self-confident. @x-type and I have already mentioned a couple of advantages.



Danielk2 said:


> But, more seriously. What do you do in countries with mileage-based exit numbering, when there's a concurrency of 2 or 3 roads. Which distance will be the one that decides the exit number??


The same as in the sequential system, the more important road prevails (usually the one with a lower number).

An interesting thing by the sequential system is also that cloverleaf interchanges and junctions of two motorways/freeways in the cross shape (×) are signed as one, even though there're two exits and two entrances in it. Let's say it's a downturn of the system. Another thing I don't like by it is that it's more obvious when a motorway is interrupted by another motorway. You have to wait for all those interchanges of the concurrent motorway to continue with exit numbers, even if there's no concurrency, just a junction with a more important motorway, it's as if that junction doesn't exist on the less important motorway, while the next interchanges would have the same numbers in the distance-based system.


----------



## keber (Nov 8, 2006)

wdw35 said:


> with sequential exits will lead to the horrible "Exit 23C" type of numbers.


So ...
What is then the difference to "Exit 236"? That's not horrible?

And there are countries, that have distances to here and there on special big boards (usually green or blue). So I don't see a problem with "oh my, I don't know, where, here is a sequential exit numbering system".


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Both systems have equal advantages and disadvantages. No need to change between them, unless it's to have consistency within one country (like the United States). Personally, I prefer the distance-based exit numbering.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Verso said:


> Another thing I don't like by it is that it's more obvious when a motorway is interrupted by another motorway. You have to wait for all those interchanges of the concurrent motorway to continue with exit numbers, even if there's no concurrency, just a junction with a more important motorway, it's as if that junction doesn't exist on the less important motorway, while the next interchanges would have the same numbers in the distance-based system.


Oops, not necessarily! It's like that in e.g. Slovenia (sequential), but not in Switzerland (also sequential). There's this concurrency of A1 and A2 in Switzerland, with one common interchange (Rothrist). While it's numbered according to the A1 (interchange #46), it's also silently numbered for A2 (interchange #16) in a way that interchanges on A2 are numbered ... 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 ... so #16 doesn't exist. The same can be done in the distance-based system, so there's no difference between them in this regard.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

Ok, another difference between Slovenia and Switzerland. Switzerland surprised me here, because they obviously have two numbers for junctions of different motorways. For example, the Lutterbach junction between A1 and A5 is #41 on A1, but #34 on A5. We only have one number for junctions.


----------



## x-type (Aug 19, 2005)

iN Croatia we also have only one number. for instance, A3-A4 Ivanja Reka is #6 at A4, althought it should be #12. but A3 has main rule at that intersection, so its number is taken from all directions (A4 anyway ends here)


----------



## nerdly_dood (Mar 23, 2007)

In Roanoke there are a few cloverleafs on Interstate 581 - the exit to go one way, for example, would be Exit 3E (E for East) and the next one would be Exit 3W (W for West) - I think that would be the Orange Avenue interhange... (It's ordered by mile - yes it's a short highway)


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ I've seen that in New York State too.


----------



## wdw35 (Dec 12, 2008)

keber said:


> So ...
> What is then the difference to "Exit 236"? That's not horrible?


So then I assume that you never use telephones because, judging from your reply, the phone numbers are truly horrendous and absolutely abhorrent to you :lol:

(And if you were to use them, you'd prefer numbers of the form 87J3U10XQ :nuts


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

nerdly_dood said:


> In Roanoke there are a few cloverleafs on Interstate 581 - the exit to go one way, for example, would be Exit 3E (E for East) and the next one would be Exit 3W (W for West) - I think that would be the Orange Avenue interhange... (It's ordered by mile - yes it's a short highway)


I think that's better than giving them the same designation just because they're in the same interchange. But what about entrances? How are they numbered?


----------



## nils16 (Apr 15, 2007)

In Switzerland the Highways are Marked every 100m in the Middle Lane.

Every Full KM is a bigger sign. Every 100m a smaller. Is good when you have a accident or see one. I called several times the police. Once a car "flyed" out the highway. 

Or when someting is on the lanes. I call the police to pick of stuff 

Here a Streetview Pic of a such sign which is every 100m:
http://maps.google.ch/?ie=UTF8&hq=&...d=XU-MXSy9tjwejErARwCZAA&cbp=12,192.53,,2,8.7

And the "big" One every km:
http://maps.google.ch/?ie=UTF8&hq=&...id=hSAZy_fTZZnp_SsK8CgQuw&cbp=12,199.2,,2,5.7


----------



## keber (Nov 8, 2006)

wdw35 said:


> (And if you were to use them, you'd prefer numbers of the form 87J3U10XQ :nuts


Apples and pears, maybe?

Even when new exits appear on old motorways, they'll never appear with unimaginable letters like J or U or Q. Is saying "Exit 13A" really that hard?:nuts:


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

^^ Oh?

Gotta love Kansas City 

Yes, that's 2T.


----------



## Verso (Jun 5, 2006)

^^ Where's "Z"? 



wdw35 said:


> 2. Introducing new exits on existing motorways (yes, it will always happen, regardless of how well you planned the motorway) with sequential exits will lead to the horrible "Exit 23C" type of numbers.


You actually get such numbers more often in the distance-based system, especially in urban areas, where there's more than one exit within 1 km (let alone 1 mile). Certainly more often than building new interchanges.


----------



## wdw35 (Dec 12, 2008)

keber said:


> Apples and pears, maybe?


How so?



keber said:


> Is saying "Exit 13A" really that hard?:nuts:


Not really, especially if in general in life you prefer less logical things.


----------



## keber (Nov 8, 2006)

^^ Actually I don't use exit numbers at all (distance or sequential, doesn't matter).
However I'm easier at remembering "Exit 13A" than "Exit 139". I'm not good at numbers. And telephone numbers ... who does remember them in days of mobile phones and their contact lists.


----------

