![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are a few templates floating around that are specific to this project... can someone more familiar with them add these to a "Templates" section of the project page? Thanks! I'm specifically looking for the "this exit list is nowhere near complete" template. — Rob ( talk) 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Does the exit list on Bundesautobahn 12 look good? I made it as a test of applying this to Europe. -- NE2 10:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The shields are fine when we're listing the exits, but the colspans that say "west end of I-69 overlap" are prose. We wouldn't go putting in shields in the middle of a paragraph of text, so why here? It already stands out with the different color and bold. And the links here are almost always going to be redundant, since the row is just above or below the actual exit for the route. -- NE2 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:NE2#Exit lists and User talk:Imzadi1979#Exit lists for the introduction. Imzadi1979 claims that M-39 should use template:MIint. Now, ignoring what WP:MISH actually says - that freeways should follow the exit list guide - if MISH required use of the intersection template, would it override the exit list guide? -- NE2 07:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I think what Mihsfbstadium is trying to say is to merge the two tables together. While I can't speak for him, this may help:
County | Location | Mile | Destinations | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Wayne | Detroit | 0.00 |
![]() |
Southern terminus of M-x |
Freeway ends; road continues at-grade. | ||||
Genesee | Flint | 66.67 |
![]() |
And so on. Note that I'm making the above stuff up, but it may make Mihsfbstadium's comments clearer. Hope this helps. O 2 ( 息 • 吹) 19:51, 11 October 2007 (GMT)
I'm proposing that the following be made clear in the guideline. Note that some of these disagree with the existing examples; think carefully before commenting.
Unless text forms a complete sentence, do not put a period after it.
In the destinations column, shield images should all be to the left of the text.
The format in the destinations column should be [shields] [route numbers and to/directions] (street names, after the routes they apply to, as well as unsigned routes) – cities and other non-street destinations. Unsigned routes should not have shields, and should always be mentioned in parentheses. For example:
For readability, the format when a "/" is required needs to put a
non-breaking space before and breaking space after the slash, to prevent the material from being so run together. It also needs a non-breaking space between the icon(s) and the text that follows it/them, and non-breaking spaces between the characters of any of the piped names that would othewise have normal spaces between them (SR 5
rather than SR 5
), to prevent line breakage that renders the material harder to read (this is why, per
WP:MOSNUM, measurements and their units are also nbsp'd, e.g. 5 cm
):
This means that {{ jct/shield}} and any related templates will need upgrades to handle the nbsp needs. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So nbsp should be added in the following cases?
It should not be hard to modify template:jct to do this. -- NE2 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (note: see below for implementation)
In general, only information that appears on the main signs for the exit (in other words, not the ones saying "Foo Street / USE EXIT 14") should be listed. Exceptions include unsigned route numbers (which should be in parentheses) and possibly names of freeways and other major roads, especially if that road has an article.
In a simple case of a partial cloverleaf, where there is one exit for each direction, signed as "Bar Street east" and "Bar Street west", the two exits should be combined into one row, with a note in the notes column to the effect of "Signed as exits 5A (east) and 5B (west) northbound". If the exits are technically for two directions of the same road, but they are signed completely differently, it may make sense to use two rows if using only one would be significantly more complicated. If there are two exits that are combined in one direction but separated in the other, and serve two different roads, two rows should generally be used, unless it is felt that one would be simpler and still clear.
In general, proposed interchanges should not be listed, unless they will majorly change the road, and are definitely on track to completion, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project. If construction has started, the interchange should be included, but with a light gray background and a note in the notes column, making it clear that it is not open. A similar treatment should be used for former interchanges that have been permanently removed.
Do not guess exit numbers for proposed exits or exits that, for whatever reason, lack numbers. Unless a reliable source (such as Cal-NExUS) has reported on what the exit number is, do not include it, even if it "makes sense".
You should not mention in the exit list that two blocks away is the "medical corridor", or that the intersecting route travels north 27 miles to the only ferry across the Mississippi River. Leave this to the route description or the article on the existing route. Exceptions include former route numbers, especially when the route is not presently numbered. Think about whether the information helps the reader understand the exit list and route it describes or not.
— Scott5114 ↗ 05:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on each of these proposals, and whether, even if you don't think they should be actually added to the guideline as text, they should still be applied to the "best practice" examples. Thank you. -- NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'm going to apply the changes to the guidelines, and add the non-"common sense" ones to this guide. -- NE2 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Three problems immediately present themselves here:
I'm not trying to knock anyone's work here, just saying that the rapidly emerging general consensus on what to do with iconic images of flags, seals, signs, etc., is rendering parts of this document rapidly obsolete, and that we shouldn't put {{ guideline}} tags on things without a lot of discussion and buy-in (such discussion usually favors expanding existing documents over creating new ones and more shortcuts). I'm not slapping a {{ disputedtag}} or {{ merge}} on WT:ELG right now, but I suspect that someone or other from WT:FLAG may well do so, because it is recommending usages that most editors who have commented on the matter so far (i.e. since [[WP:FLAG began, in April 2007) consider to be objectionable, and where it is not doing that, the guideline-worthy material need not be in a separate alleged guideline that almost no one knows exists and which is probably too focused on minutiae to be of any use to non-specialists. I.e., I'm criticizing the process and the form, not the underlying content or motivation. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Reflexive reversion on the basis that an edit you didn't make wasn't discussed with you is not very wiki of you. It is not required to have a discussion before editing. This is a matter of official policy. I am of course well aware of WP:BRD, but the "R" in that is generally not brought into play unless someone has a substantive objection to the edit (your objection was only that it wasn't pre-discussed, which is a circumstantial objection, not a substantive one), and the burden is logically upon the reverting party to start the discussion as to what they think was wrong with the edit; I note that you have not done so (with regard to WP:ELG, I mean). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoa... whoa... whoa... I almost
tl;dred the above. But I got to thinking... do we really need the shields? Sure, they look nice, but they really are decoration. I've noticed a few exit lists with a note at the top saying "shields are used at junctions with other Interstates"; was this from a time when shields were being added? But I don't see where
WP:FLAG applies, when its actual arguments are based around issues of nationality and which one to use. It should be noted that one of the above proposals that looks likely to pass will place all shields at the beginning of the row, so there won't we anything like
I-95 /
I-495, except possibly in the overlap colspans (
which I disagree with). In other words, the shields are not sprinkled throughout the text; they are only in specific places within the exit list table. (If you need an example, see
Interstate 35E (Minnesota); the only shields are in the infobox and the exit list.) To the highway editors: don't panic, guys; he may have come out of "left field", but it's not like he's saying we should delete the articles or anything. --
NE2 06:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Another problem here is that much of this material and that of WP:USSH should merge, since they overlap in scope. Meanwhile this document is purporting to be a general style guideline about highway exchange handling when in fact it does nothing but address the US case, as if highways did not exist in Canada or England or India or where ever. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say here and at WT:MOS that ELG, for all that it sports a {{ guideline}} tag, seems rather too embryonic, and that it comes across as if it were developed in a vacuum without relating to other purported guidelines. The overall idea of having the related WikiProject(s) advise on consistent formatting/notation style is quite sensible, but the implementation tactics have been rather, well, sideways, and the implementation strategy doesn't seem to exist, thus all these issues. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) In fact, SMcCandlish is correct. A quick glance at the text reveals the following, obvious, non-exhaustive examples:
For Interstates that span multiple states, the exit list should be broken up by state.(section 2)
When linking to state highways, a commonly-used abbreviation for that state should be used for the displayed text for the link. In cases where ambiguity is possible, such as an exit at a state line that serves two state routes in two different states, then the state's official two-letter abbreviation as designated by the United States Postal Service should be used for the displayed text for the link to eliminate any ambiguity.(section 2.2)
Shields that are square are to be 20px in width. Shields that have a different shape are to be 20px in height, regardless of shape. For most three-digit shields, this requires the shields to be 25px in width.(section 2.3. In fact this section is meaningless for the UK situation, and may be so for other countries.)
Finally American English terms are routinely used throughout without any regard to whether non American English speakers will even understand them.
If it were an article, it would certainly be a justifiable case for a Template:Globalize tag. That it is supposed to be part of some MOS makes it even more urgent to globalize it. DDStretch (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
OK... so this went haywire and then suddenly stopped. Why? -- NE2 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
To assist those wanting to globalize this, I've put together a /Glossary. Hope this helps. — Scott5114 ↗ 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to suggest a more global approach before. Maybe it is appropriate to bring this out of the archives for wider comment from people outside the USRD project.
Since it has been moved out of the USRD project space, combined with the recent change indicating it applies to highways around the world, I think it is appropriate to discuss more widely the standards. Because different countries do things differently, there needs to be a rewriting of the guide to use more generic terms, and also a relaxing of the guideline itself. I'm opening the discussion here to see what others think about how to re-write this for worldwide applicability, or if it should be explcitly stated that this guideline applies only to the U.S.
Currently, we have columns requiring "County", "Location", "Mile", "Exit number", "Destinations", and "Notes". There is also a note about breaking up the list by state. Now, many countries do not have an intermediate administrative subdivision similar to county and that needs to go. County and location are essentially indicating where the exit/junction and can, in principle, be combined as just "Location". The U.S. situation will then be just a special case. "Mile", obviously, will become "km" in many countries. This might even be labeled "Distance from terminus" or something similar. "Exit number" is generally just a label for an exit. Some countries use "Interchange name" or "Exit name" instead of using an exit number. Some have both a name and a number. "Destinations" goes by what signage indicates so that is ok. "Notes" is also ok.
In short, my opiniion is that the required columns should be: (1) Physical location of exit; (2) Distance of exit from some reasonable point (the milepost or kilometerpost); (3) Name of exit (usually the exit number in the U.S.); (4) Destinations (as indicated by signage); (5) Notes. Any reasonable variation, including using a separate County column for the location, or using a different label for "Location" such as "Municipality", should be deemed as within the guideline.
The section on "State highway link appearance" obviously does not apply worldwide and needs to be removed or changed. Finally, we would need examples from different countries, not just from the U.S. Also, breaking up by states (or primary country subdivisions) might not always be useful for other countries as many expressways outside the U.S. are administered nationally or by a single private corporation, even if they span multiple states/provinces/etc.
-- Polaron | Talk 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've written an example of the section of the M6 motorway from j21A to j30 in Cheshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and Lancashire in England. Please comment or edit as needed. (Disregard the missing not-shields.) — Scott5114 ↗ 00:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I brought this up on IRC last night, but why are WE (the US editors) making exit list guides for other countries? Let's make sections, one is a North America section for US and Canada, and maybe we can make a UK section, but I don't feel I'm at all qualified enough for that. Then when other countries decide they want exit lists, they can make their own section, too. The US case will not work for every country that has expressways or freeways. -- MPD T / C 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why county would have to go, it is optional to begin with, if the country doesn't have a smaller administrative division, then the column wouldn't be there. -- Holderca1 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, some of Chinese expressways' signage standards are directly counter to this guideline. Exit numbers are from east→west and north→south, which go against the south→north/west→east standard already set. There are almost no control cities listed on signage; only the road and its direction(s). Also, I'm interested to see how locations are to be formatted, since China's counties are independent from an urban area, leaving only the province, municipality, or autonomous region as the blanket "county". Furthermore, urban areas, including municipalities, have districts inside them, and for municipalities only: some counties lie in a municipality ( Chongming in Shanghai). Based on all this, I want some input on how exit lists in this nature should be formatted. O 2 ( 息 • 吹) 02:44, 17 October 2007 (GMT)
The general idea is that "location information" goes to the left of "exit information". Beyond that, it depends on how things are done in the country. Does the hierarchy go province → municipality → city? -- NE2 10:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've correctly applied the changes discussed above to template:jct. However, I don't think this looks right:
Any suggestions? (I know there are two spaces after the slash; I couldn't figure out any way to fix that while keeping the space after breaking.) -- NE2 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I added consistent spaces, because otherwise the non-wrapping was causing a problem where long fields just didn't wrap at all. The whole idea is that it's better to have a line break at the slash than between the abbreviation and number or between the number and direction. I looked for a special code that will break the line if necessary without a space, but couldn't find one. -- NE2 10:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've properly applied the changes discussed above to the examples, and in the special-case section. I've also changed the examples to remove the northeast U.S. (especially New York) bias. Please comment. -- NE2 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This template confuses me if I'm trying to edit an existing list. It's fine for the initial appearance of the junction, but can it subst'ed every time it's used? — Rob ( talk) 21:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ jct}} now has the capability of handling the plates for bannered routes. Right now it is only working for TX, started there since they only have plates US Bus and Alt routes. Will be working my way through the other states, getting them functional. As of yet, the TO plates have not been addressed. -- Holderca1 17:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Update on banner plates, I will be doing them in phases, the first phase will consist of states that use square shields for all route numbers and have no state bannered routes and only have bannered US routes. The following states fall under this phase: AK, CO, CT, HI, ID, NV, NM, NC, TX, UT, and WI. If this list is incorrect or there are additional states that fall under this category, let me know. Thanks. -- Holderca1 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Should the size of the banner plates match the size of the shield width or not? The issue I found using different widths is it also gives them different heights which in most cases is not noticed, but if they are side-by-side it is.
I've been using 20px:
However, usually US 90 would go first; the second spacer is only needed if there is more than one three-digit shield, or if a business state highway comes after. -- NE2 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
How about exit lists using sortable tables? See Help:Sorting. There are (usually) two directions in every highway, why not view the lists that way as well, say, for example, Interstate 80 in California, that the exits could be sorted from Nevada to San Francisco, in descending numerical order? -- Geopgeop ( T) 08:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking a bit, and I'd like to see others' thoughts about why we include the distance. The only reason I can think of is so readers can get an idea of how far an interchange is from the beginning or another interchange. Are there other reasons? -- NE2 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If anyone has any other reasons for the column, please pitch in, but the only "good" reason (if you disagree, say so!) has been to show distance. Thus we should show an actual 1:1 distance (possibly with the zero point not at the beginning) and not adjust the figures to the imperfections of mile markers ( milepost equations, resetting at county lines). Does this sound reasonable? -- NE2 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need it, we have the overall distance, but why do we need the distance to every exit/junction? Wikipedia is not a travel guide. -- Holderca1 talk 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the distance is important, and not just on highway articles; Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney is a good precedent if we need one. What I'm trying to figure out is if there's any reason to list the milepost/postmile if it differs from the actual distance. -- NE2 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset) Why do you ask? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) It seems to me that the issue with California is that we have everything except one piece: the distance from the final exit to the county line. The last exit could be PM 46.23, and the next exit could be PM 1.55, but we don't know variable X which is from 46.23 to the county line. If that number can be found and sourced (a per-county breakdown from Caltrans, e.g.), then I see no reason why we couldn't add 1.55 to variable X and get variable Y as the total distance. That's like adding distances of an Interstate from all the states and getting a total length. -- MPD T / C 08:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So what would qualify as a reliable source for distance? Especially for states that don't use mile markers. Is Google Maps a RS? -- Holderca1 talk 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I will not agree to the removal of postmiles from CASH articles, to clarify. I suppose I would support statewide mileages being added as well as postmiles, as long as it was made clear that the mileage was unofficial. But one could get a good enough approxamation from the exit numbers.., -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
(reset) So California's unique - big deal! If we have a source of the modern mileposts - lets implement that and remove the county postmile system. What encyclopedic value would that have to the exit list anyway? — master son T - C 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Breathe, count backwards from 1,000 and say "bubble" between each number...
First of all, this is the first time I've weighed in on anything really significant regarding the CalState Highways Project. Second, I have a few questions to interject so that they can be hashed out here; 1) Why would CalTrans data from the bridge log NOT be a "verifiable" resource? 2) NE2-- There is no harm in having another column there, unless you are using an old CRT with 640x480 screen rez. Otherwise, it comes out fine, is valuable info, and IMHO, should be there. It helps to break up an otherwise GHASTLY long list into more digestible chunks. 3) Would someone please reiterate what the basic question here is? It's gotten lost way up there on the page... Edit Centric 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
(To the left, to the left!) As a reader, I think it's useful. Both. Yes, Regis, that's my final answer. Edit Centric 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's list all the information that county-based postmiles have, as apposed to statewide mileage:
Details about realignments, whether recent or not, should be in the history section. As for the county lines, I don't see why that matters. Nowhere else do we list the mileage of each county line, unless there's a major water crossing there. -- NE2 04:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I still say both. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. Edit Centric 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Supposing your car breaks down somewhere on I-5. What resource are you going to have to locate yourself when calling a friend to pick you up? Just postmiles. Statewide distance won't help you there. Statewide distance is great for calculating distances. Postmiles won't help you much there. This is basically two different ways of presenting the same data. Why not include both? You can get around the "takes too much space" thing with clever formatting. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
NE2 - Regarding your inferrence of a "combative tone" in my statement, I assure you that there was none intended. If I offended, then I apologize. I merely meant that I HAD a firm opinion regarding the topic of discussion. Since you have seen fit to illegitimize and negate that opinion, I will refrain from voicing any such opinions in the future. Feel free to do whatever you deem essential to the process.
Edit Centric 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
When Caltrans makes small realignments, like at [3], are all the postmiles north to the next county line adjusted? -- NE2 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Reading through [4], it appears that, given the exact text of a postmile, that maps to exactly one point on the roadway from 1964 until today. In other words, postmiles are never moved without getting a prefix. Therefore, when little "bumps" like on SR 99 are built, the postmiles do not match actual mileage, and we have no actual figure that gives the true mileage. So there goes our main reason for including any mileage figure, county-based or statewide. Even giving the county-based postmile would seem to be misleading if the reader assumes that they are measured based on the current alignment, or rather useless if the reader realizes that they are measured based on the 1964 alignment. -- NE2 06:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
More confirmation can be seen on California State Route 99; exit 217 is the first of many that does not correspond to the added postmiles ( Caltrans rounds the "odometer mileage" to the nearest integer). That PDF claims that the odometer listings are published, but I cannot find them online. -- NE2 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the problem is that not all equations are listed in the bridge log; compare [6] with [7]. -- NE2 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I checked Interstate 280 (California) on my 12 inch laptop screen and it looks fine. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought about it a bit, and I believe I would accept California State Route 120#Major intersections. If we get full information on equations, or use another source (like Google Maps), we can add a statewide column. Does this look reasonable? -- NE2 21:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There are a few templates floating around that are specific to this project... can someone more familiar with them add these to a "Templates" section of the project page? Thanks! I'm specifically looking for the "this exit list is nowhere near complete" template. — Rob ( talk) 19:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Does the exit list on Bundesautobahn 12 look good? I made it as a test of applying this to Europe. -- NE2 10:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The shields are fine when we're listing the exits, but the colspans that say "west end of I-69 overlap" are prose. We wouldn't go putting in shields in the middle of a paragraph of text, so why here? It already stands out with the different color and bold. And the links here are almost always going to be redundant, since the row is just above or below the actual exit for the route. -- NE2 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
See User talk:NE2#Exit lists and User talk:Imzadi1979#Exit lists for the introduction. Imzadi1979 claims that M-39 should use template:MIint. Now, ignoring what WP:MISH actually says - that freeways should follow the exit list guide - if MISH required use of the intersection template, would it override the exit list guide? -- NE2 07:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I think what Mihsfbstadium is trying to say is to merge the two tables together. While I can't speak for him, this may help:
County | Location | Mile | Destinations | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Wayne | Detroit | 0.00 |
![]() |
Southern terminus of M-x |
Freeway ends; road continues at-grade. | ||||
Genesee | Flint | 66.67 |
![]() |
And so on. Note that I'm making the above stuff up, but it may make Mihsfbstadium's comments clearer. Hope this helps. O 2 ( 息 • 吹) 19:51, 11 October 2007 (GMT)
I'm proposing that the following be made clear in the guideline. Note that some of these disagree with the existing examples; think carefully before commenting.
Unless text forms a complete sentence, do not put a period after it.
In the destinations column, shield images should all be to the left of the text.
The format in the destinations column should be [shields] [route numbers and to/directions] (street names, after the routes they apply to, as well as unsigned routes) – cities and other non-street destinations. Unsigned routes should not have shields, and should always be mentioned in parentheses. For example:
For readability, the format when a "/" is required needs to put a
non-breaking space before and breaking space after the slash, to prevent the material from being so run together. It also needs a non-breaking space between the icon(s) and the text that follows it/them, and non-breaking spaces between the characters of any of the piped names that would othewise have normal spaces between them (SR 5
rather than SR 5
), to prevent line breakage that renders the material harder to read (this is why, per
WP:MOSNUM, measurements and their units are also nbsp'd, e.g. 5 cm
):
This means that {{ jct/shield}} and any related templates will need upgrades to handle the nbsp needs. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
So nbsp should be added in the following cases?
It should not be hard to modify template:jct to do this. -- NE2 20:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC) (note: see below for implementation)
In general, only information that appears on the main signs for the exit (in other words, not the ones saying "Foo Street / USE EXIT 14") should be listed. Exceptions include unsigned route numbers (which should be in parentheses) and possibly names of freeways and other major roads, especially if that road has an article.
In a simple case of a partial cloverleaf, where there is one exit for each direction, signed as "Bar Street east" and "Bar Street west", the two exits should be combined into one row, with a note in the notes column to the effect of "Signed as exits 5A (east) and 5B (west) northbound". If the exits are technically for two directions of the same road, but they are signed completely differently, it may make sense to use two rows if using only one would be significantly more complicated. If there are two exits that are combined in one direction but separated in the other, and serve two different roads, two rows should generally be used, unless it is felt that one would be simpler and still clear.
In general, proposed interchanges should not be listed, unless they will majorly change the road, and are definitely on track to completion, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike/Interstate 95 Interchange Project. If construction has started, the interchange should be included, but with a light gray background and a note in the notes column, making it clear that it is not open. A similar treatment should be used for former interchanges that have been permanently removed.
Do not guess exit numbers for proposed exits or exits that, for whatever reason, lack numbers. Unless a reliable source (such as Cal-NExUS) has reported on what the exit number is, do not include it, even if it "makes sense".
You should not mention in the exit list that two blocks away is the "medical corridor", or that the intersecting route travels north 27 miles to the only ferry across the Mississippi River. Leave this to the route description or the article on the existing route. Exceptions include former route numbers, especially when the route is not presently numbered. Think about whether the information helps the reader understand the exit list and route it describes or not.
— Scott5114 ↗ 05:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on each of these proposals, and whether, even if you don't think they should be actually added to the guideline as text, they should still be applied to the "best practice" examples. Thank you. -- NE2 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'm going to apply the changes to the guidelines, and add the non-"common sense" ones to this guide. -- NE2 20:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Three problems immediately present themselves here:
I'm not trying to knock anyone's work here, just saying that the rapidly emerging general consensus on what to do with iconic images of flags, seals, signs, etc., is rendering parts of this document rapidly obsolete, and that we shouldn't put {{ guideline}} tags on things without a lot of discussion and buy-in (such discussion usually favors expanding existing documents over creating new ones and more shortcuts). I'm not slapping a {{ disputedtag}} or {{ merge}} on WT:ELG right now, but I suspect that someone or other from WT:FLAG may well do so, because it is recommending usages that most editors who have commented on the matter so far (i.e. since [[WP:FLAG began, in April 2007) consider to be objectionable, and where it is not doing that, the guideline-worthy material need not be in a separate alleged guideline that almost no one knows exists and which is probably too focused on minutiae to be of any use to non-specialists. I.e., I'm criticizing the process and the form, not the underlying content or motivation. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Reflexive reversion on the basis that an edit you didn't make wasn't discussed with you is not very wiki of you. It is not required to have a discussion before editing. This is a matter of official policy. I am of course well aware of WP:BRD, but the "R" in that is generally not brought into play unless someone has a substantive objection to the edit (your objection was only that it wasn't pre-discussed, which is a circumstantial objection, not a substantive one), and the burden is logically upon the reverting party to start the discussion as to what they think was wrong with the edit; I note that you have not done so (with regard to WP:ELG, I mean). — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoa... whoa... whoa... I almost
tl;dred the above. But I got to thinking... do we really need the shields? Sure, they look nice, but they really are decoration. I've noticed a few exit lists with a note at the top saying "shields are used at junctions with other Interstates"; was this from a time when shields were being added? But I don't see where
WP:FLAG applies, when its actual arguments are based around issues of nationality and which one to use. It should be noted that one of the above proposals that looks likely to pass will place all shields at the beginning of the row, so there won't we anything like
I-95 /
I-495, except possibly in the overlap colspans (
which I disagree with). In other words, the shields are not sprinkled throughout the text; they are only in specific places within the exit list table. (If you need an example, see
Interstate 35E (Minnesota); the only shields are in the infobox and the exit list.) To the highway editors: don't panic, guys; he may have come out of "left field", but it's not like he's saying we should delete the articles or anything. --
NE2 06:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Another problem here is that much of this material and that of WP:USSH should merge, since they overlap in scope. Meanwhile this document is purporting to be a general style guideline about highway exchange handling when in fact it does nothing but address the US case, as if highways did not exist in Canada or England or India or where ever. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say here and at WT:MOS that ELG, for all that it sports a {{ guideline}} tag, seems rather too embryonic, and that it comes across as if it were developed in a vacuum without relating to other purported guidelines. The overall idea of having the related WikiProject(s) advise on consistent formatting/notation style is quite sensible, but the implementation tactics have been rather, well, sideways, and the implementation strategy doesn't seem to exist, thus all these issues. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) In fact, SMcCandlish is correct. A quick glance at the text reveals the following, obvious, non-exhaustive examples:
For Interstates that span multiple states, the exit list should be broken up by state.(section 2)
When linking to state highways, a commonly-used abbreviation for that state should be used for the displayed text for the link. In cases where ambiguity is possible, such as an exit at a state line that serves two state routes in two different states, then the state's official two-letter abbreviation as designated by the United States Postal Service should be used for the displayed text for the link to eliminate any ambiguity.(section 2.2)
Shields that are square are to be 20px in width. Shields that have a different shape are to be 20px in height, regardless of shape. For most three-digit shields, this requires the shields to be 25px in width.(section 2.3. In fact this section is meaningless for the UK situation, and may be so for other countries.)
Finally American English terms are routinely used throughout without any regard to whether non American English speakers will even understand them.
If it were an article, it would certainly be a justifiable case for a Template:Globalize tag. That it is supposed to be part of some MOS makes it even more urgent to globalize it. DDStretch (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
OK... so this went haywire and then suddenly stopped. Why? -- NE2 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
To assist those wanting to globalize this, I've put together a /Glossary. Hope this helps. — Scott5114 ↗ 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to suggest a more global approach before. Maybe it is appropriate to bring this out of the archives for wider comment from people outside the USRD project.
Since it has been moved out of the USRD project space, combined with the recent change indicating it applies to highways around the world, I think it is appropriate to discuss more widely the standards. Because different countries do things differently, there needs to be a rewriting of the guide to use more generic terms, and also a relaxing of the guideline itself. I'm opening the discussion here to see what others think about how to re-write this for worldwide applicability, or if it should be explcitly stated that this guideline applies only to the U.S.
Currently, we have columns requiring "County", "Location", "Mile", "Exit number", "Destinations", and "Notes". There is also a note about breaking up the list by state. Now, many countries do not have an intermediate administrative subdivision similar to county and that needs to go. County and location are essentially indicating where the exit/junction and can, in principle, be combined as just "Location". The U.S. situation will then be just a special case. "Mile", obviously, will become "km" in many countries. This might even be labeled "Distance from terminus" or something similar. "Exit number" is generally just a label for an exit. Some countries use "Interchange name" or "Exit name" instead of using an exit number. Some have both a name and a number. "Destinations" goes by what signage indicates so that is ok. "Notes" is also ok.
In short, my opiniion is that the required columns should be: (1) Physical location of exit; (2) Distance of exit from some reasonable point (the milepost or kilometerpost); (3) Name of exit (usually the exit number in the U.S.); (4) Destinations (as indicated by signage); (5) Notes. Any reasonable variation, including using a separate County column for the location, or using a different label for "Location" such as "Municipality", should be deemed as within the guideline.
The section on "State highway link appearance" obviously does not apply worldwide and needs to be removed or changed. Finally, we would need examples from different countries, not just from the U.S. Also, breaking up by states (or primary country subdivisions) might not always be useful for other countries as many expressways outside the U.S. are administered nationally or by a single private corporation, even if they span multiple states/provinces/etc.
-- Polaron | Talk 13:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've written an example of the section of the M6 motorway from j21A to j30 in Cheshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, and Lancashire in England. Please comment or edit as needed. (Disregard the missing not-shields.) — Scott5114 ↗ 00:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I brought this up on IRC last night, but why are WE (the US editors) making exit list guides for other countries? Let's make sections, one is a North America section for US and Canada, and maybe we can make a UK section, but I don't feel I'm at all qualified enough for that. Then when other countries decide they want exit lists, they can make their own section, too. The US case will not work for every country that has expressways or freeways. -- MPD T / C 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why county would have to go, it is optional to begin with, if the country doesn't have a smaller administrative division, then the column wouldn't be there. -- Holderca1 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, some of Chinese expressways' signage standards are directly counter to this guideline. Exit numbers are from east→west and north→south, which go against the south→north/west→east standard already set. There are almost no control cities listed on signage; only the road and its direction(s). Also, I'm interested to see how locations are to be formatted, since China's counties are independent from an urban area, leaving only the province, municipality, or autonomous region as the blanket "county". Furthermore, urban areas, including municipalities, have districts inside them, and for municipalities only: some counties lie in a municipality ( Chongming in Shanghai). Based on all this, I want some input on how exit lists in this nature should be formatted. O 2 ( 息 • 吹) 02:44, 17 October 2007 (GMT)
The general idea is that "location information" goes to the left of "exit information". Beyond that, it depends on how things are done in the country. Does the hierarchy go province → municipality → city? -- NE2 10:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've correctly applied the changes discussed above to template:jct. However, I don't think this looks right:
Any suggestions? (I know there are two spaces after the slash; I couldn't figure out any way to fix that while keeping the space after breaking.) -- NE2 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I added consistent spaces, because otherwise the non-wrapping was causing a problem where long fields just didn't wrap at all. The whole idea is that it's better to have a line break at the slash than between the abbreviation and number or between the number and direction. I looked for a special code that will break the line if necessary without a space, but couldn't find one. -- NE2 10:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe I've properly applied the changes discussed above to the examples, and in the special-case section. I've also changed the examples to remove the northeast U.S. (especially New York) bias. Please comment. -- NE2 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This template confuses me if I'm trying to edit an existing list. It's fine for the initial appearance of the junction, but can it subst'ed every time it's used? — Rob ( talk) 21:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
{{ jct}} now has the capability of handling the plates for bannered routes. Right now it is only working for TX, started there since they only have plates US Bus and Alt routes. Will be working my way through the other states, getting them functional. As of yet, the TO plates have not been addressed. -- Holderca1 17:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Update on banner plates, I will be doing them in phases, the first phase will consist of states that use square shields for all route numbers and have no state bannered routes and only have bannered US routes. The following states fall under this phase: AK, CO, CT, HI, ID, NV, NM, NC, TX, UT, and WI. If this list is incorrect or there are additional states that fall under this category, let me know. Thanks. -- Holderca1 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Should the size of the banner plates match the size of the shield width or not? The issue I found using different widths is it also gives them different heights which in most cases is not noticed, but if they are side-by-side it is.
I've been using 20px:
However, usually US 90 would go first; the second spacer is only needed if there is more than one three-digit shield, or if a business state highway comes after. -- NE2 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
How about exit lists using sortable tables? See Help:Sorting. There are (usually) two directions in every highway, why not view the lists that way as well, say, for example, Interstate 80 in California, that the exits could be sorted from Nevada to San Francisco, in descending numerical order? -- Geopgeop ( T) 08:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking a bit, and I'd like to see others' thoughts about why we include the distance. The only reason I can think of is so readers can get an idea of how far an interchange is from the beginning or another interchange. Are there other reasons? -- NE2 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If anyone has any other reasons for the column, please pitch in, but the only "good" reason (if you disagree, say so!) has been to show distance. Thus we should show an actual 1:1 distance (possibly with the zero point not at the beginning) and not adjust the figures to the imperfections of mile markers ( milepost equations, resetting at county lines). Does this sound reasonable? -- NE2 20:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we need it, we have the overall distance, but why do we need the distance to every exit/junction? Wikipedia is not a travel guide. -- Holderca1 talk 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the distance is important, and not just on highway articles; Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra railway line, Sydney is a good precedent if we need one. What I'm trying to figure out is if there's any reason to list the milepost/postmile if it differs from the actual distance. -- NE2 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(indent reset) Why do you ask? -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) It seems to me that the issue with California is that we have everything except one piece: the distance from the final exit to the county line. The last exit could be PM 46.23, and the next exit could be PM 1.55, but we don't know variable X which is from 46.23 to the county line. If that number can be found and sourced (a per-county breakdown from Caltrans, e.g.), then I see no reason why we couldn't add 1.55 to variable X and get variable Y as the total distance. That's like adding distances of an Interstate from all the states and getting a total length. -- MPD T / C 08:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
So what would qualify as a reliable source for distance? Especially for states that don't use mile markers. Is Google Maps a RS? -- Holderca1 talk 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I will not agree to the removal of postmiles from CASH articles, to clarify. I suppose I would support statewide mileages being added as well as postmiles, as long as it was made clear that the mileage was unofficial. But one could get a good enough approxamation from the exit numbers.., -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
(reset) So California's unique - big deal! If we have a source of the modern mileposts - lets implement that and remove the county postmile system. What encyclopedic value would that have to the exit list anyway? — master son T - C 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Breathe, count backwards from 1,000 and say "bubble" between each number...
First of all, this is the first time I've weighed in on anything really significant regarding the CalState Highways Project. Second, I have a few questions to interject so that they can be hashed out here; 1) Why would CalTrans data from the bridge log NOT be a "verifiable" resource? 2) NE2-- There is no harm in having another column there, unless you are using an old CRT with 640x480 screen rez. Otherwise, it comes out fine, is valuable info, and IMHO, should be there. It helps to break up an otherwise GHASTLY long list into more digestible chunks. 3) Would someone please reiterate what the basic question here is? It's gotten lost way up there on the page... Edit Centric 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
(To the left, to the left!) As a reader, I think it's useful. Both. Yes, Regis, that's my final answer. Edit Centric 03:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's list all the information that county-based postmiles have, as apposed to statewide mileage:
Details about realignments, whether recent or not, should be in the history section. As for the county lines, I don't see why that matters. Nowhere else do we list the mileage of each county line, unless there's a major water crossing there. -- NE2 04:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I still say both. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. Edit Centric 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Supposing your car breaks down somewhere on I-5. What resource are you going to have to locate yourself when calling a friend to pick you up? Just postmiles. Statewide distance won't help you there. Statewide distance is great for calculating distances. Postmiles won't help you much there. This is basically two different ways of presenting the same data. Why not include both? You can get around the "takes too much space" thing with clever formatting. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
NE2 - Regarding your inferrence of a "combative tone" in my statement, I assure you that there was none intended. If I offended, then I apologize. I merely meant that I HAD a firm opinion regarding the topic of discussion. Since you have seen fit to illegitimize and negate that opinion, I will refrain from voicing any such opinions in the future. Feel free to do whatever you deem essential to the process.
Edit Centric 06:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
When Caltrans makes small realignments, like at [3], are all the postmiles north to the next county line adjusted? -- NE2 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Reading through [4], it appears that, given the exact text of a postmile, that maps to exactly one point on the roadway from 1964 until today. In other words, postmiles are never moved without getting a prefix. Therefore, when little "bumps" like on SR 99 are built, the postmiles do not match actual mileage, and we have no actual figure that gives the true mileage. So there goes our main reason for including any mileage figure, county-based or statewide. Even giving the county-based postmile would seem to be misleading if the reader assumes that they are measured based on the current alignment, or rather useless if the reader realizes that they are measured based on the 1964 alignment. -- NE2 06:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
More confirmation can be seen on California State Route 99; exit 217 is the first of many that does not correspond to the added postmiles ( Caltrans rounds the "odometer mileage" to the nearest integer). That PDF claims that the odometer listings are published, but I cannot find them online. -- NE2 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the problem is that not all equations are listed in the bridge log; compare [6] with [7]. -- NE2 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I checked Interstate 280 (California) on my 12 inch laptop screen and it looks fine. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought about it a bit, and I believe I would accept California State Route 120#Major intersections. If we get full information on equations, or use another source (like Google Maps), we can add a statewide column. Does this look reasonable? -- NE2 21:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)