Talk:Interstate 269

message: I have driven along I-269 and I-22. Please stop reverting the edits! I am trying to find references. Until I do, Please don't Revert!
-EBGamingWiki; 1/29/2016; 12:53PM EDT  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EBGamingWiki (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Using your personal, unpublished, observations from a drive along the road is the definition of original research. The correct procedure would be to find the sources first, and then use them to update the article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: SR 385

message: I'm putting this here because I couldn't find a clean way to throw a bunch of references into the mix.
Three sources:
* USGS US Topo, 7.5-minute for Collierville TN, dated 2016-04-07 (https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/StagedProducts/Maps/USTopo/1/22632/7576464.pdf)
* Tennessee Property Viewer (http://tnmap.tn.gov/assessment/), hosting assessors' GIS data for most counties in TN.  Search for Fayette County parcel 183 039.00 to zoom in
* Shelby County Assessor GIS (http://gis.assessor.shelby.tn.us/), with similar data for Shelby County.  Search for parcel C0245 00328 to zoom in
...all show the same information as regards the location of the I-269 right of way and the county line.  The USGS map can be considered to be an official map of the federal government, with USGS survey discs forming the basis of non-GPS survey work countrywide, while county assessor data can be considered an official reckoning as to whether a county believes it has the ability to assess taxes over a particular piece of land (and, for our purposes, "official" as long as they don't disagree on where the county line is).
In other words, absent a surveyor's report driven by either physical boundary monuments, legislative descriptions, or some other data source not linked back to the dataset informing these three sources, this information is as official as we're going to get.  (Annoyingly, the legal/surveyors' description of the 269 and 385 rights-of-way don't seem to be online.)
(I will acknowledge that the political boundary layer and the property line layer in the assessor GIS renderings online are not perfectly aligned, but it's close enough for our purposes here. The property line vs county line argument can be further supported by comparing parcel numbers in the two assessor systems with those described in the deeds available for the Shelby County properties, particularly for properties that span parcels in both counties.)
It is not possible based just on the above information to know precisely where the county line is with respect to the I-269 pavement at any given point along that stretch of highway - there isn't sufficient precision in that information.  However, we can clearly see the following:
* From the northern ramps of Exit 2 in Tennessee to a point just north of the Mississippi state line, the county line is in the I-269 right-of-way.
* The county line is close to the northbound roadway between Exits 1 and 2.
* For Exit 1, the western ramps are mostly in Shelby County, while the eastern ramps are mostly in Fayette County.
* For Exit 2:
** The ramp from EB 385 to SB 269 is entirely in Shelby County
** The ramp from NB 269 to WB 385 is partly in Fayette County, but mostly in Shelby County
** The ramps from EB 385 to NB 385(269) and from SB 385(269) to WB 385 cross the county line between the two mainlines
** The I-269 mainline crosses the county line.
All of the above can be corroborated by looking up the county assessor data for abutting properties and observing which parcels appear in which county's database / tax rolls.
The status for exit 1 is debatable. The maps appear to suggest that the county line is a few feet east of the northbound pavement, but that distance is probably within the maps' margin of error.  If that were true, however, then we could say that a driver exiting northbound 269 for US 72 would be wholly in Shelby County as they start their movement, but that at least some vehicles could straddle the county line before they have completely left the northbound roadway.  Whether Exit 1 is in only Shelby County, or on the line would depend on whether the determination is made by the jurisdiction of the mainline between the ramps, the jurisdiction of the mainline AND the ramps, or the right-of-way as a whole....again assuming the maps are accurate to within a foot or two.  As I write this, I'm reverting the exit list to show it on the line, but I would accept it if consensus were for it to be described as just Shelby.  (There's not enough evidence for a claim of just Fayette.)
Exit 2 is much simpler.  The maps and online property records make it very clear that the county line passes through the interchange.  Traffic on the current/future 269 mainline will cross (or begin/cease straddling) the county line between the northern and southern ramps.  Even the general public is made aware of the presence of the county line in Exit 2 with the posted signage. (See sheet 5 in https://www.tdot.tn.gov/PublicDocuments//Construction/Design_CADD_Files/October%206,%202017%20Letting/Region%204/125391-00-RoadwayInfoOnly.pdf)  On the 269 mainline, the county line signs can be found just north of the overpass carrying traffic from NB 269 to WB 385; and on the 385 mainline, the county line signs are along the roadways between the ramps to/from 269 south and the 269/385 northern mainline.  Admittedly, county line signs are not completely definitive as to the precise location of the line; I mention them here as they are more-or-less consistent with the lines shown on the maps, and as evidence of the kind of public-awareness that influences other Wiki-related decisions.
And, while I'm on a roll...county line signs are also semi-consistent with all of the above when it comes to Exit 1.  Per the TDOT signing plans, drivers are alerted to the county line at about mile 0.4 (northbound traffic crossing into Shelby County) and then again in the middle of Exit 2 (northbound traffic crossing back into Fayette).  The TDOT plans don't indicate the location of the signs on US 72, but Google Streetview indicates that drivers are alerted to the county line as they cross under I-269. (See https://goo.gl/maps/NCF9u2KxmtP2 and https://goo.gl/maps/mLRisaTHhCS2 .)  Again, the signage doesn't define the presence of the county line, but it is consistent with the notion of the line being in the right-of-way, and the general public awareness.
MikeTheActuary (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  TN Exits 1 & 2 / County Line 

message: So, the last MS stretch of I-269 is being opened as I type this.
We have in the past discussed that we were not going to recognize the section of TN 385 between Collierville and Arlington until TDOT announced the change was official.
The resigning contract was complete months ago.  The state highway map has been changed.  TDOT's county highway maps have been changed.  TDOT's highway bridge inventory lists have been changed (links to all of these in the prior discussion).
TDOT has been silent on the redesignation.
While it doesn't hurt to wait a few more hours, it seems extremely likely at this point that there will be no public announcement by TDOT on the change in status, and that we have ample evidence that TDOT internally recognizes the change.
I propose updating the I-269 and TN 385 pages to reflect that TN 385 between Collierville and Arlington is now I-269.
The alternative would be continuing to wait for a TDOT announcement, which realistically may not happen until a major construction event on that stretch of highway, or until the northern segment is redesignated (presumably in conjunction with opening of a currently unbuilt section of I-69 near Millington).
MikeTheActuary (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have to agree at this point, TDOT didn't say it but everything else is now there. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I-269 between Collierville and Arlington (redux) 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus.  Those who wish for a split, please see , those who want to gain further consensus on a move, please feel free to renominate to gather more input.  Also, nominator has withdrawn and there are no support !votes.  (closed by non-admin page mover) TextClick (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have to keep SR 385 around.  Even after I-69 is built and the northern segment of SR 385 is renumbered, the southern segment (between I-240 and I-269) will continue to live on as a discrete highway. MikeTheActuary (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Don't Merge – Did you forget about the section between Germantown and Collierville? There is still a long and distinct section of SR 385 that goes in a completely different direction from I-269 and with a totally separate history. The information on the stretch north of Collierville can be incorporated into the I-269 article, and the two articles for that section can be treated as any other concurrency. Roadsguy (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

text: That "spur" would 15 miles long (about 1/3rd the present length of 269), is a significant part of metro Memphis' highway system, and has higher traffic counts than 269.   If future 385 were just going to be a short stub (like SR 300), a merge might make sense (although SR 300 does have its own page); but I think in 20-30-50 years, when 269 is signed to Millington, the remnant segment of 385 will still be significant enough to merit its own page. --MikeTheActuary (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge SR 385 into I-269