X69 isn't a proper highway designation, if I'm not mistaken; however, I am sure it is referred to as Audubon Pkwy.
OpenStreetMap
X69 isn't a proper highway designation, if I'm not mistaken; however, I am sure it is referred to as Audubon Pkwy.
Discussion
Comment from Baloo Uriza on 30 November 2009 at 21:55
Be sure to mark this on OpenStreetBugs, too, if you don't have enough information to make the edit yourself. I don't know the region myself, but as far as I'm aware, the only letters in Interstate designations are I35W and I35E.
However, I am aware of some truly rural, desert-roasted guidance in Eastern Oregon that still refers to "I80N" instead of "I84". In an effort to remain consistency with the rest of the world map, it's best to avoid hyphens and spaces in references.
Looking around that area, I also see numbered county and state roads listed as names... these should probably be refs of some sort instead of names, with county roads being tertiary by default.
Comment from Baloo Uriza on 30 November 2009 at 22:05
Zooming out farther, it appears "I-X69" is an "extension" of I69. If it's signed as I69, I'd join it as part of that relation, but this might be a "paper interstate," that is, an Interstate that only exists in US DOT documents for funding purposes. Another example of a paper interstate would be the "IA1" through "IA4" which are not signed as Interstates, and in most cases are actually broad gravel roads (and not motorways)! As such, you'll only see trailblazers for these four Interstate highways on Wikipedia; the signage you would see along these routes are mostly for the Alaska state highway system.
Three Interstates exist in Puerto Rico as well, though these are all signed as Puerto Rican Autopistas.
Comment from Baloo Uriza on 30 November 2009 at 22:12
Another update, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69_in_Kentucky#Federal_Legislation_Designating_Parkways_as_I-69 appears to suggest that it is indeed a proposed extension of I69 if you dig into the sources. The ref that is given in Wikipedia does not match the legislation cited.
I would remove the ref= tags from the underlying way and create a relation for the proposed extensions as "state=proposed" on the relations. Note that the existing I69 relations and the relations for the proposed extensions cannot be the same, yet. Once the extensions become official, signed parts of I69, then the proposed members can be moved to the I69 relations.