![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Hi, there was some discussion in the edit comments about changing the order of the line, and now that change has gone in. I'm not sure it is really of benefit, however. I find it confusing because the line description runs south to north and is opposite of how the route appears on maps. As an alternative, would placement of either mileposts or travel time on a north to south route description be acceptable? Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 18:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
@ Epicgenius: When you have a chance, can you fix the template to include abandoned connections to the Piermont Branch, the New City Branch and the Haverstraw Branch, as are shown here? Thanks.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 11:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
Hi, there was some discussion in the edit comments about changing the order of the line, and now that change has gone in. I'm not sure it is really of benefit, however. I find it confusing because the line description runs south to north and is opposite of how the route appears on maps. As an alternative, would placement of either mileposts or travel time on a north to south route description be acceptable? Thanks. -- ChrisRuvolo ( t) 18:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
@ Epicgenius: When you have a chance, can you fix the template to include abandoned connections to the Piermont Branch, the New City Branch and the Haverstraw Branch, as are shown here? Thanks.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 11:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)