![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This seems rather POV against the system. I don't feel like working with it but someone else may want to. -- SPUI 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've NPOVed it; it should maybe be renamed exit number and expanded to cover all systems though. -- SPUI ( talk) 00:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest (as you can infer from my change :-) tha t you hadn't quite NPOV'd it enough, and I think I've hayulpt (as the girl on the Rice-A-Roni ads used to put it).
--
Baylink
04:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Putting this here as a holding place:
I-93 MA northbound:
I-95 ME northbound:
I-95 RI northbound had exits 5S-N (RI 102)
Taiwan's freeway #1 switched from kilometer numbered exits to sequential for some reason.
I removed the reference to the southern part of the M4 in Durban having sequential numbering as maps reveal this is not the case. The first exits south of the city centre are are numbered 1, 2, 4. The confusion seems to arise because most are roughly one kilometre apart and so appear to have sequential numbers, but several urban South African freeways are similar in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 ( talk) 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
"A number of European countries (including the Netherlands, Belgium and France) do not number motorway intersections, apparently because one cannot "exit" the motorway there." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.112.66 ( talk) 07:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the listed "disadvantages" of distance-based is ""Suffixes are required when the same mile of highway contains multiple exits". Previously there was a refutation of such as a disadvantage, "for calculation purposes, suffixed exits in a distance-based system can be approximated by using the number without a suffix", which was removed.
Similarly, another "disadvantage" is "Businesses and motorists have to adapt to the changes, and it costs money to replace the signs (as well as for temporary "old exit" tabs to ease the transition)." This was refuted with "these are general disadvantages to any change in a highway system" and "these disadvantages do not apply when a new road is built and marked with distance-based numbers from the start" which were also removed.
Finally, someone replaced speculation with other speculation, regarding the Atlantic City-Brigantine connector. Currently the speculation is that NJ didn't want to deal with many suffixed exits, while previously the speculation was that NJ didn't want to renumber the ACE (since the AC-B is an extension from the zero point of the ACE). I think neither speculation is appropriate on WP.
-- 162.239.236.97 ( talk) 00:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The section listing disadvantages of distance based exits says that on I-70 in Kansas City "there are 23 exits in the same mile, numbered 2A through 2Y", which is incorrect. The actual exit numbers on I-70 are 2A thru 2M, and they extend over somewhat more than 2 miles. Exits 2N thru 2Y do exist, but they are on different highways (I-35 and I-670). Since this number scheme covers multiple highways over a distance of several miles, it can't really be used as an example of distance based numbering. Unless someone has a good reason for keeping it, I will remove this example from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.220.37 ( talk) 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to add the following citation for Exit 0s:
[Conneticut] will not use Exit 0. Some states do use this at the start of a freeway.
I believe it passes USPS, since it is by an expert in the field (esp. for CT), Scott Oglesby, and because he has been referenced by multiple reliable third-party sources, which include:
These are the top three results I have found that reference his work, either directly, or as a valid source for "further reading". Secondly, the contributor who reverted my edit, @ Imzadi1979, seems to be alright with not incorporating this reference in this article, while being aware of a reference from the same website in another article, at Connecticut Route 40, see 1, where at the time of his edit, a reference from Kurumi existed therein: Connecticut Roads, Route 40, which sets a double standard. Clearly, this article (Exit number) is in need of references, and this reference that I am trying to incorporate is of [high enough] quality, and substantiated at least in [good] part by trustworthy third-party publications. Thank you for your clarification, and input on this matter, [and let's go ahead and include this source! Radlrb ( talk) 03:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)] Radlrb ( talk) 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This seems rather POV against the system. I don't feel like working with it but someone else may want to. -- SPUI 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've NPOVed it; it should maybe be renamed exit number and expanded to cover all systems though. -- SPUI ( talk) 00:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest (as you can infer from my change :-) tha t you hadn't quite NPOV'd it enough, and I think I've hayulpt (as the girl on the Rice-A-Roni ads used to put it).
--
Baylink
04:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Putting this here as a holding place:
I-93 MA northbound:
I-95 ME northbound:
I-95 RI northbound had exits 5S-N (RI 102)
Taiwan's freeway #1 switched from kilometer numbered exits to sequential for some reason.
I removed the reference to the southern part of the M4 in Durban having sequential numbering as maps reveal this is not the case. The first exits south of the city centre are are numbered 1, 2, 4. The confusion seems to arise because most are roughly one kilometre apart and so appear to have sequential numbers, but several urban South African freeways are similar in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 ( talk) 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
"A number of European countries (including the Netherlands, Belgium and France) do not number motorway intersections, apparently because one cannot "exit" the motorway there." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.112.66 ( talk) 07:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the listed "disadvantages" of distance-based is ""Suffixes are required when the same mile of highway contains multiple exits". Previously there was a refutation of such as a disadvantage, "for calculation purposes, suffixed exits in a distance-based system can be approximated by using the number without a suffix", which was removed.
Similarly, another "disadvantage" is "Businesses and motorists have to adapt to the changes, and it costs money to replace the signs (as well as for temporary "old exit" tabs to ease the transition)." This was refuted with "these are general disadvantages to any change in a highway system" and "these disadvantages do not apply when a new road is built and marked with distance-based numbers from the start" which were also removed.
Finally, someone replaced speculation with other speculation, regarding the Atlantic City-Brigantine connector. Currently the speculation is that NJ didn't want to deal with many suffixed exits, while previously the speculation was that NJ didn't want to renumber the ACE (since the AC-B is an extension from the zero point of the ACE). I think neither speculation is appropriate on WP.
-- 162.239.236.97 ( talk) 00:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The section listing disadvantages of distance based exits says that on I-70 in Kansas City "there are 23 exits in the same mile, numbered 2A through 2Y", which is incorrect. The actual exit numbers on I-70 are 2A thru 2M, and they extend over somewhat more than 2 miles. Exits 2N thru 2Y do exist, but they are on different highways (I-35 and I-670). Since this number scheme covers multiple highways over a distance of several miles, it can't really be used as an example of distance based numbering. Unless someone has a good reason for keeping it, I will remove this example from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.220.37 ( talk) 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to add the following citation for Exit 0s:
[Conneticut] will not use Exit 0. Some states do use this at the start of a freeway.
I believe it passes USPS, since it is by an expert in the field (esp. for CT), Scott Oglesby, and because he has been referenced by multiple reliable third-party sources, which include:
These are the top three results I have found that reference his work, either directly, or as a valid source for "further reading". Secondly, the contributor who reverted my edit, @ Imzadi1979, seems to be alright with not incorporating this reference in this article, while being aware of a reference from the same website in another article, at Connecticut Route 40, see 1, where at the time of his edit, a reference from Kurumi existed therein: Connecticut Roads, Route 40, which sets a double standard. Clearly, this article (Exit number) is in need of references, and this reference that I am trying to incorporate is of [high enough] quality, and substantiated at least in [good] part by trustworthy third-party publications. Thank you for your clarification, and input on this matter, [and let's go ahead and include this source! Radlrb ( talk) 03:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)] Radlrb ( talk) 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)