A first thing to note here is several "LABEL_SLASHES" datacheck errors. CHM's rule, which we have continued to follow so far in TM, is that when a waypoint label is at a place that suggests inclusion of 3 or more route numbers, we select two of them and use only those numbers. So something like SC 21's "US21/176/321" would become "US21/176".
Personally, I have no problem changing this guideline and using all three (or more) numbers for labels like this, but that's a discussion for the larger group to have.
I feel strongly that the guideline should be kept, in the name of brevity.
If 3 or more route numbers had been allowed from the get-go, label brevity would never have existed in places like Maine or Oklahoma.
Trying to imagine a world in which US201/8/11/27/100 is followed by US201/202/9/100/105. Et cetera.
No thanks; I'll keep them as US201_S & U201_N. Simple; elegant; clean.
Which brings me to another point:
I would even move things a bit in the other direction: The
"we select two of them" was something that wasn't originally codified in the beginning, but Tim gradually became more insistent on enforcing it.
I think a collaborator should have the choice of whether to use one route number or two in a label, at his discretion, based on whatever makes the most sense and looks best in the context of a given route file.
For example, instead of US202/9_W or US202/9, just US202_W is OK. Instead of US201/100, just US201.
I have always labeled waypoints this way, and continue to do so.