D1.1 and D1.5 don't specifically address that orthotropic bridge deck detail.  For most other cases of a cope hole, the AWS assumption is that it is better not to wrap the fillet weld.  Mostly because of undercut.

But there are various differences.  What happens is there are a lot of situations in engineering where each option has its own set of problems.  Different engineers or code committees will have different opinions about choosing the lesser of two or three evils.  This happens in design, this happens in the welding codes.

An example:  not too long ago I was involved with a U.S. project done by a European company.  They kept introducing access holes where we had not asked for them, because their standard practice was to avoid intersecting welds at all costs.  So where a web would cross a flange splice, they put in a hole in the edge of the web to skip over the flange splice.  Apparently European designers are not worried so much about the fatigue performance of the web-to-flange fillet welds terminating at those access holes, but are terrified of any kind of intersecting welds.  In the U.S., we say some intersecting welds are bad and some aren't a problem, and the web-to-flange weld running across the various web and flange splices is not an issue, but those "access" holes are a terrible, terrible fatigue detail.

The problem was that the bridge was designed to U.S. standards and when the European fabricator introduced European practices without permission, they introduced problems that the bridge was not designed for.  Perhaps a European designer would have designed differently because they were expecting those holes.

This is why we cannot mix and match standards.