KY I-69/Purchase Parkway issues

Currently, there’s a user that keeps changing the ‘Purchase Parkway’ in Kentucky to I-69 between Exits 0 & Exit 21, even though KYTC hasn’t gotten approval from the FHWA to post it yet between those exits (it officially ends just south of Exit 21). There’s still upgrades that KYTC needs to finish before they can get approval to post it, like upgrading Exits 1, 2, & 14 to current standards. See: Work for I-69 Upgrades Ramping up along Purchase Parkway

It also doesn’t help this user keeps using the changes description of “changed everything listed”, which doesn’t help, and when I did fix up everything last night, he came to my changeset and said “Wrong, It’s I-69”. Sadly, “Future Corridor I-69” signage doesn’t count for the ‘ref’ tag, as far as I know, KYTC hasn’t removed any Purchase Parkway signage yet, due to the ‘upgrades’ still needed.

I’m pretty sure there would have been a big press release by KYTC announcing the designation being official already, but if you look at the link above, they said the official date for the completion of this December 15, 2024.

Is it possible I can have some backup on this? This isn’t the first time the user has changed it to I-69 after other users (not me before today) have corrected it back to the Purchase Parkway.



If there is such signage, a route relation with network=US:I:Future can be added. For example future I-99 here. This is displayed as a concurrency with US-15 on OSM Americana. Perhaps doing the same for future I-69 could put a stop to these premature changes.


1 Like

The “On the ground” principle applies here. The tags should match what a motorist would see out their windshield. The latest available Bing Streetside imagery, from April 2020, still shows the Purchase Parkway signage without any I-69 signage in the Wingo area.

@jrm2020 hasn’t cited any evidence to support their assertion that all of it has been designated I-69. As you note, KYTC themselves still talk about “eventually” extending I-69 along the Purchase Parkway in statements as recently as March.

Even once I-69 is extended to cover the remaining segment, Purchase Parkway signs will remain for about a year, per KYTC policy. But old_ref would be the appropriate key by that point.

As far as I can tell, only Purchase Parkway shields are posted along this stretch, no Future I-69 Corridor signs in sight:

The official state highway map for this year also marks the southern segment as only the Purchase Parkway (with “JC” shields corresponding to the parkway’s official name). OpenStreetMap Americana is currently consistent with this depiction, but only because it ignores ref tags on ways in favor of route relations:

1 Like

The only reason the the ‘JC’ shields are now showing up, is because last night I fully repaired the relation for the Purchase Parkway while fixing the ref tags on the ways, as the relation was seriously damaged sadly. How, I’m not sure, as I really didn’t dig into that rabbit hole.

Cross posting from talk-us

I put in a zero-hour block for the user to let them know they should use better changeset comments. That will require them to read it, as Mateusz said. jrm2020 blocked by ElliottPlack | OpenStreetMap

If one of you sees continued disruptive updates on this subject please let me know via email subject: Ticket#2023112210000019

1 Like

Looks like the the proposed future route of I-69 has been mapped through TN, MS, and AR for over a decade. Much of it not on existing roadways.
Proposed I-69 route relation:
Example way: Way: 174462752 | OpenStreetMap
Is this providing any sort of value or should it perhaps be removed for the time being?

I don’t find those highway=proposed useful. Many of them are old and represent something a DOT has put in a master plan or something like that but they can always change until the construction begins. Similar to abandoned railroads, the proposed highway doesn’t mesh well with the OSM ‘on the ground’ rule.

It is interesting that fut_ref has about 10,000 uses. Never heard of that one.

1 Like

Well, supposedly the ‘Union City, TN’ part will be opening very soon. However, there’s been reports (w/ photos) over @ AARoads that on one end, it has I-69 shields ready to go (which means the first posted I-69 segment in TN, even though they had approval to sign it in Memphis before this), but on the other end, there’s TN-690 shields instead (post w/ photos here).

So, it’s unknown for sure what it will be posted as until it officially opens, supposedly around Thanksgiving. Hopefully TDOT will get their act together and decide on what route number to post it as officially.

I think @NE2 added most of those about a decade ago. Usage has steadily climbed since then as roadways get split for lane counts and such. Like old_ref, fut_ref may not be very well-maintained these days, in large part because no software exposes it to mappers or end users.

If fact, there’s just 1 changeset @jrm2020 had a ‘normal’ description on, and on it, admitted it was still the ‘Purchase Parkway’ and not I-69.

And that was done on October 27th, 2023.

Which then lead me to this PR by the KYTC: Ramps at Purchase Parkway/KY 339 Wingo Exit 14 Are Open

Once the project is complete and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has approved, I-69 will be extended southward along the parkway from the 21-mile marker at Mayfield to the Kentucky-Tennessee State Line at Fulton by late 2024. The contractor continues to have northbound and southbound lane restrictions along the Purchase Parkway for various construction activities, including placement of new guardrail, drainage improvements, and upgrades to bridges and overpasses.

Once again, more ‘recent’ proof that it is indeed still the Purchase Parkway, and not I-69 yet.

1 Like

without providing sources for matching actual official serious plans, with indicator of actually happening in some way? I see no value at all