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 is a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Roads#ELG vs. current templates. -- NE2 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
| ||
|
How should we handle an exit like the one illustrated as Exit 900? Note that OK-3 is not on either Morgan or Hefner Rd, it is on its own alignment, but the three roads share an exit. See also Exit 910, where OK-74 is on both the Hefner Pkwy and Portland, but not on Memorial.— Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
SH 3 Morgan Road Hefner Road |
SH 74 — Lake Hefner Parkway, Portland Avenue West Memorial Road |
Template:jct includes a "road" parameter that produces I-5 / other roads – Los Angeles; the "name" parameters give I-5 (West Side Freeway) – Los Angeles. If there are multiple other roads, I've been using commas, but I don't see a problem with slashes; I also don't see a problem with manual usage of a comma instead of a slash between the route number and other roads. -- NE2 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the standard is too firmly entrenched in Wikipedia by now, but I'd like to propose that the "destination" column be split in two. As it currently stands, the column indicates both which road the freeway interchanges with or exits onto, and where that road in particular might take you. This is somewhat confusing, especially when said destination is another road. I think we should have "Destinations" be a second column, with "Interchanges" or something as the first. - Branddobbe ( talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
So the dispute over county abbreviations in the postmile column isn't going away. Here are examples of a list
and
the abbreviations. My argument is that they're redundant; the county name and abbreviation are already in the county column, and the fact that they reset at county lines, if not obvious, is stated above the table. The other side argues (when not simply stating that they're "necessary") that they make it less confusing. So how about it? -- NE2 03:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
County | Location | Blah | Blah blah |
---|---|---|---|
Orange | Anaheim | 0 | dirt road |
Orange | 1 | 4x4 trail | |
Orange | Anaheim | 0 | dirt road |
Orange | 1 | 4x4 trail | |
Los Angeles | Los Angeles | 0 | boulevard |
Honolulu | 2551 | WHAT?!? | |
earth | Manila | 8000 | !!! |
Mars | 36000000 | closed | |
space | |||
and back | 72000000 | whew! |
How's either of these for a "thicker" line? -- NE2 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If California only uses county based postmiles on Interstates, how do they know which exit number to use? From what I can tell they use mileage based exit numbers. -- Holderca1 talk 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What distance should be used if an exit is for two different cross roads? -- Holderca1 talk 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, what about the situation where there is an exit for a particular street, then the highway terminated into a different highway and never reaches the street for the prior exit. -- Holderca1 talk 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I know we had something saying that a commonly-used freeway name can be included even if it's not on signs. Does anyone know what happened to this? -- NE2 00:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:California State Route 58. -- NE2 08:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Having recently done some traveling in Iowa, I've noticed some exits have signs with county roads and cities and some just have cities, even though the road is an official county road. So do we list everything, or just everything on the sign? If just everything on the sign, there's some I have to redo. DandyDan2007 ( talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Are there any objections to the method I used in U.S. Route 30 in Oregon#Major intersections to deal with a single route using many different mileposted highways? I wouldn't do it on every route, only on the ones where this sort of thing happens frequently. (If we're lucky, ODOT will fix the issue soon.) -- NE2 08:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There is this whole debate going on about whether thumbnail shields should be included in infoboxes and junction lists in articles. The FA for New York State Route 32 passed only after these were removed, contrary to the over 10,000 articles in WP:USRD that already use thumbnail shields. There is a discussion going on at WT:USRD, if you would like to opine, feel free. C L — 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Are there objections to using shields in the exit list column at interchanges where a concurrency begins/ends and both routes have different numbers and on that concurrency? Here's what I mean: (from Interstate 70 in Illinois)
18 | IL 162 – Troy | |
20 A-B 15 A-B |
I-55 north / I-70 east / I-270 west – Chicago, Indianapolis, Kansas City |
I-70 West joins I-55 South and eastern terminus of I-270. I-70 mileposts follow I-270 mileage. |
It's I-70's exit list, but for the first 20 miles, it uses I-55's numbers. On the east side of this interchange, I-70 has a different number than it does on the west side, so the shield is added to let the reader know that's how the exit number was determined. I've seen this on a lot of Illinois interstate articles and I want to know if it's fine. -- Fredddie ( talk) 10:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
On junction list I think is better to not use crossing no access, because there is no way people can access from the interchange. It will be better if we eliminate noaccess color from junction list. About Concur terminus cyan color from what TwinsmetsFan talk about, I have no problem of eliminating color from junctions. But honestly; nobody sincerely cares about colors. I don't sincerely care about colors, I just go by WP:ELG guidelines on first sentence say "Do not add background color on exit list". I just want to eliminate crossing no access from all junction list; because its similar to normal exit list.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you discussing exit lists, which are covered by this guide, or junction lists which are not? Exit lists are for freeways and not surface routes that don't have interchanges. Whole they look the same they are two different concepts. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 04:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to have this discussion without it being initiated by Freewayguy, since it's pretty hard to understand what he's saying. I'm pretty sure we discussed this before, though, and decided that a true "no access" (with no ramps or anything like a ramp) should not be listed, period. -- NE2 05:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, ELG covers only freeway (motorway) exit lists and not tables of junctions on surface roads. This has caused confusion, especially since USRD has no de jure standard for junction tables ({{ jctint}} and friends are only a de facto standard, but many of the various USRD subprojects have varying implementations of it). NE2 has recently said this division is "silly", and for once, I agree with him. The two method approach breaks down when you're trying to do a junction list for a surface route that has freeway sections, since the jctint templates and ELG are mutually incompatible with different columns. I propose that ELG be expanded to also cover non-freeway routes. This would also have the benefit of allowing the UK's A roads to have a true junction table and allow them to get the long junction list out of the infobox. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The biggest thing that we will need to deal with if we go forward with this is how to differentiate between a freeway interchange and a non-freeway intersection. I have two ideas as to how to do this. One possibility is to add a new "IC" (interchange) column that would be left blank for at-grade intersections. For interchanges, we could insert a symbol for the type of interchange ("◊" could be a diamond interchange, "⌘" could be a cloverleaf, etc, or we could use small SVG icons). Another option would be to simply place a "–" (en dash) in the exit number column for intersections. Unnumbered interchanges would then be left blank, and numbered interchanges would have the number. (This is a pretty elegant solution to the problem, but has the disadvantage of having no way to denote an interchange where the article route is the non-freeway. Maybe an asterisk or dagger or something could be used?) — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The biggest problem here are the colors, and what to leave in and take out. Currently, we have colors for concurrency termini, crossing no access, unconstructed, deleted, and closed. I have no opinion on what to do about unconstructed and deleted, and I've already elaborated my position above with regards to crossing no access. As for closed, I think it shouldn't be a big deal if we keep the color for closed junctions (those that have been built and are still signed but are closed off temporarily) and would even be beneficial for freeways with closed exits. As to concurrencies, I think that simply giving the direction (e.g.
SH-24 south) would do the trick without having to specifically point it out in the notes column. (Obviously, that would mean that the direction shouldn't be used where some other route terminates at the article route mean there is only SH-24 south, since it would be confused for a concurrency.) Anyway, that's my thoughts. What do you guys say? —
Scott5114
↗
[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
For the U.S. Route 127 in Michigan article I created {{ MIexit}} based on {{ MIint}} to do an exit list. I used notes to indicate where the freeway ended and lwft the exit number blank fir intersections. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 17:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This was made so the same section of the list can be shown on two exit lists, but I see it as a problem. There's been little discussion on WT:CASH after these were made. Can we please get more comments? -- NE2 07:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Awaiting a statement from 66.66.117.141 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) regarding the placement of non-standard shields in exit lists. See the user's talk page for warnings and other statements. Sswonk ( talk) 23:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
i-40 shouldn't have a blue plate. Sometimes dirs is not too important since Wikipedia is not a yellow page or mapquest. Wikipedia is not a route planner guide. -- I-405 ( Free way) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) 66.66.117.141 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked for one week. I have reverted the list at Pennsylvania Turnpike to the earlier version without supplemental shields of any kind. I think the time is right to formulate a guideline that explicitly mentions the use of the directional shields etc. I will be logging off for most of the day after this post, but will be adding input throughout the week. Just to get the discussion started, I have two opinions (rants?) to offer.
<small>
tag for the word "TO" as I did in my MA 3 example. I am only starting to learn templates and parser functions so if anyone else has direct knowledge of the {{
jct}}, they should work on this. The code might be something like: {{jct|state=MA|I|93|dir1=south|US|1|dir2=south|
insto=yes|to3=to|I|95|city1=Canton}}
, with "insto=yes" meaning "insert the formated word 'TO' here between shields". I really don't like using the "TO" plates as they clutter the layout and don't appear that way on the overhead signs, as in the I-81 example photo I linked to above. There could be an idealized limit on using the "insto=yes", say if the distance to the destination road is greater than a mile and other shields would appear before it, like the I-93 to I-95 and I-74 to I-77 examples. For short travel on a surface road to reach another road, like the I-81 Paxtonia example or
Breezewood, PA, I think using the regular "to3=to", etc. to simply add the word "To" to the text after the shields would be correct. The
I-40 in NC page illustrates use of that style for example at exits 123, 126 and 132.
Sswonk (
talk) 19:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[reset] But it will happen, and I don't think it's necessarily up to us to decide what is "worthy" of "TO". That could be considered somewhat OR too I suppose. -- MPD T / C 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
insto=yes
option to the {{
jct}}, we would allow both shield display styles ("TO" or no "TO" between or before shields) to coexist, whereas making it a built-in feature of to2=to
would force the placement of text among the shields. That would also make the placement of a plated "TO" pretty bad looking if a project decided to go that way. So I guess I am changing my mind a little. I would like to have the option added and documented and we can see what happens after that.
Sswonk (
talk) 01:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like we can at least agree on inclusion of these statements in the "Shields" section of the guideline standard (italics for display of statements in this thread only, would be normal type in guidelines):
<small>TO</small>
) before the shield for indication of an indirect junction between roads is optional.I will look into having the template supplemented to allow an "insto=yes" parameter. Please add comments below so we can close this thread. Sswonk ( talk) 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in saying this? [6] -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Would somebody send a message to Anonymous IP 71.234.165.62 to stop screwing up the notes and other features on Exit Lists of South Carolina interstate highways? The user has a bad habit of deleting notes from Interstate 20 in South Carolina and Interstate 95 in South Carolina. ---- DanTD ( talk) 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just an aside, if it is vandalism, 3RR does not apply. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Take it slow. Make sure that the IP knows what they are doing isn't what we'd like. Hammer it in on the talk page. Be nice. If they didn't stop, assume they didn't see the talk page notes. Leave HTML comments on the pages they're messing up. Leave links to the ELG page. If you've tried all that and they're still being a pain, then lock the pages down and let the blocking commence. That way you have evidence that you've tried repeatedly to (nicely) resolve the behavior if another (non USRD) admin comes in and disputes the actions. More work, but much less drama. This is how we handled the St Louis Signer, and in the end, since we went the extra distance, nobody could argue it wasn't vandalism, and we were able to get the anti-vandalism admins to help with determining IP ranges and such. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WT:USRD regarding county columns for single-county routes. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm here particularly because of edits made at Georgia State Route 400. An experienced editor added a "km" column to the exit list. Georgia 400 has sequential exit numbers, so the article already has exit and mile numbers. He cited WP:UNITS as the reason to add the column. However, MOS:CONVERSIONS—the section just below that—says the following:
The article already converts the overall length of the highway. I think exit lists are covered under the item above, and we call it a "mileage" table. If anything, adding another column of numbers inhibits the readability of the table. Accordingly, I support keeping the exit list definition the way it is currently, "mile or km",[emphasis added] and not "mile and km". Thoughts? — C.Fred ( talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
On an exit list, every line-item is a different unit: 1.7, 3.2, 4.4, etc. Only if those same numbers appear again further in the article is it the same unit. Also, since "Wikipedia is not country-specific" ( WP:UNITS and elsewhere), and over 90% of the world is unlikely to have any idea how long a mile is, it is not appropriate here (or anywhere else) to have only non-metric units. The "or", if deliberate, is likely there so that miles do not have to be included for the rest of the world. If not included as a separate and equal column, I propose that it be included in smaller numbers in the same column and cell, directly below the miles. While worldwide metric units should not be subordinated to archaic local US/UK units, this would be okay as a compromise. I can make a template to do this easily, like {{ELmi|1.5}}, which would list a regular 1.5 and then a small 2.4 under it, maybe in a slightly lighter color. – radiojon ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Relevant discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)/Archive_3#Kilometre_posts -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I encountered this on Connecticut Route 8 the other day:
Route 108 (Nichols Avenue) – Stratford To Route 15 north |
I edited it to this below, but it was reverted shortly thereafter.
Route 108 (Nichols Avenue) to
Route 15 north –
Stratford
I thought the consensus was to use as few rows as possible. -- Fredddie ™ 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The actual signage for the southbound exit is in two rows separated by a horizontal line. Northbound signage does not include the second row. One issue with the single row is that Route 15 north does not go to Stratford and the single row display implies that it does. -- Polaron | Talk 12:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It should be made clear in this guideline that this MoS is generally aimed at US roads articles, or the UK variant of the exit lists should be included. As it stands it is misleading. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please can someone update all the UK motorway lists to the American version. It's much better. Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk) 03:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well apparently, since people want the discussion now... the color scheme of both tables is definitely not MOS compliant. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
This MoS entry appears to have been created primarily by US editors with very little input from the rest of the world. I will stand in the way as much as I can of any attempt to impose it on our articles without a wider and more appropriate discussion, there is more to the world than the USA. The US centric exit lists are wholly inappropriate for UK usage, counties and towns have varying boundaries depending on which system is chosen, and if you can get a group of people to agree on a specific system to use (traditional or ceremonial counties for example), then I'll applaud you, its rarely done. The system we use is that the destinations shown on the exit list match what is signed on the ground, and in many cases (probably more so than in the US) this can be completely different in either direction. Yes its not perfect, but iron out the problems rather than impose an inappropriate MoS. The colours can be sorted and space can be added for notes. The system we use gives more useful information than the US counterpart, and if (as suggested above) we were to use the US system and strip out the county and location columns, we'd too all intents and purposes be left with what we have now, except without differentiating what is signed in the appropriate direction, so overall we end up with less information, in a less aesthetically pleasing, and more confusing table. And as I understand it, the US articles use a different route diagram system for railways than what is used in European articles, so I'm not sure what the big issue is here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I do concur with MPD - the general format of the exit lists should be the same, with alterations if necessary for European roads. As someone who has traveled to several European countries, it is ignorant to state that the North American standard should be exactly applied to the roads of the rest of the world. (For example, roads are rarely signed "north" and "south" but are signed with an emphasis on control cities instead.) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the M62 Motorway is an FA and has appeared as the featured article back in early 2008. The version that appeared on the main page [7] had an exit list that essentially complied with this Exit List Guide. Despite the assertions to the contrary, the members of the UK Roads wikiproject at the time DID help develop this standard and defended it through the FA process. Dave ( talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe it important that national flexibility be retained. Each country has its own characteristics. In the United Kingdom for example, unlike the United States, local government devisions are of little conseqence to the motorist (apart from the four principal divisions of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales). Moreover, with the introduction of driver location signs it is now possible to assign distances to junction numbers. The Highways Authority has published a map for the M25 that does just this. I believe that it is up to the Wiki community in the country concerend to agree a format. I have added the Highways Authority information to the article on the M25 and am awaiting user reaction. We could therefore require columns showing both junction number and distance. Martinvl ( talk) 12:31, 23 June 2009 (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 is a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Roads#ELG vs. current templates. -- NE2 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
| ||
|
How should we handle an exit like the one illustrated as Exit 900? Note that OK-3 is not on either Morgan or Hefner Rd, it is on its own alignment, but the three roads share an exit. See also Exit 910, where OK-74 is on both the Hefner Pkwy and Portland, but not on Memorial.— Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
SH 3 Morgan Road Hefner Road |
SH 74 — Lake Hefner Parkway, Portland Avenue West Memorial Road |
Template:jct includes a "road" parameter that produces I-5 / other roads – Los Angeles; the "name" parameters give I-5 (West Side Freeway) – Los Angeles. If there are multiple other roads, I've been using commas, but I don't see a problem with slashes; I also don't see a problem with manual usage of a comma instead of a slash between the route number and other roads. -- NE2 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the standard is too firmly entrenched in Wikipedia by now, but I'd like to propose that the "destination" column be split in two. As it currently stands, the column indicates both which road the freeway interchanges with or exits onto, and where that road in particular might take you. This is somewhat confusing, especially when said destination is another road. I think we should have "Destinations" be a second column, with "Interchanges" or something as the first. - Branddobbe ( talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
So the dispute over county abbreviations in the postmile column isn't going away. Here are examples of a list
and
the abbreviations. My argument is that they're redundant; the county name and abbreviation are already in the county column, and the fact that they reset at county lines, if not obvious, is stated above the table. The other side argues (when not simply stating that they're "necessary") that they make it less confusing. So how about it? -- NE2 03:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
County | Location | Blah | Blah blah |
---|---|---|---|
Orange | Anaheim | 0 | dirt road |
Orange | 1 | 4x4 trail | |
Orange | Anaheim | 0 | dirt road |
Orange | 1 | 4x4 trail | |
Los Angeles | Los Angeles | 0 | boulevard |
Honolulu | 2551 | WHAT?!? | |
earth | Manila | 8000 | !!! |
Mars | 36000000 | closed | |
space | |||
and back | 72000000 | whew! |
How's either of these for a "thicker" line? -- NE2 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If California only uses county based postmiles on Interstates, how do they know which exit number to use? From what I can tell they use mileage based exit numbers. -- Holderca1 talk 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What distance should be used if an exit is for two different cross roads? -- Holderca1 talk 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, what about the situation where there is an exit for a particular street, then the highway terminated into a different highway and never reaches the street for the prior exit. -- Holderca1 talk 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I know we had something saying that a commonly-used freeway name can be included even if it's not on signs. Does anyone know what happened to this? -- NE2 00:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:California State Route 58. -- NE2 08:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Having recently done some traveling in Iowa, I've noticed some exits have signs with county roads and cities and some just have cities, even though the road is an official county road. So do we list everything, or just everything on the sign? If just everything on the sign, there's some I have to redo. DandyDan2007 ( talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Are there any objections to the method I used in U.S. Route 30 in Oregon#Major intersections to deal with a single route using many different mileposted highways? I wouldn't do it on every route, only on the ones where this sort of thing happens frequently. (If we're lucky, ODOT will fix the issue soon.) -- NE2 08:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There is this whole debate going on about whether thumbnail shields should be included in infoboxes and junction lists in articles. The FA for New York State Route 32 passed only after these were removed, contrary to the over 10,000 articles in WP:USRD that already use thumbnail shields. There is a discussion going on at WT:USRD, if you would like to opine, feel free. C L — 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Are there objections to using shields in the exit list column at interchanges where a concurrency begins/ends and both routes have different numbers and on that concurrency? Here's what I mean: (from Interstate 70 in Illinois)
18 | IL 162 – Troy | |
20 A-B 15 A-B |
I-55 north / I-70 east / I-270 west – Chicago, Indianapolis, Kansas City |
I-70 West joins I-55 South and eastern terminus of I-270. I-70 mileposts follow I-270 mileage. |
It's I-70's exit list, but for the first 20 miles, it uses I-55's numbers. On the east side of this interchange, I-70 has a different number than it does on the west side, so the shield is added to let the reader know that's how the exit number was determined. I've seen this on a lot of Illinois interstate articles and I want to know if it's fine. -- Fredddie ( talk) 10:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
On junction list I think is better to not use crossing no access, because there is no way people can access from the interchange. It will be better if we eliminate noaccess color from junction list. About Concur terminus cyan color from what TwinsmetsFan talk about, I have no problem of eliminating color from junctions. But honestly; nobody sincerely cares about colors. I don't sincerely care about colors, I just go by WP:ELG guidelines on first sentence say "Do not add background color on exit list". I just want to eliminate crossing no access from all junction list; because its similar to normal exit list.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you discussing exit lists, which are covered by this guide, or junction lists which are not? Exit lists are for freeways and not surface routes that don't have interchanges. Whole they look the same they are two different concepts. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 04:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to have this discussion without it being initiated by Freewayguy, since it's pretty hard to understand what he's saying. I'm pretty sure we discussed this before, though, and decided that a true "no access" (with no ramps or anything like a ramp) should not be listed, period. -- NE2 05:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, ELG covers only freeway (motorway) exit lists and not tables of junctions on surface roads. This has caused confusion, especially since USRD has no de jure standard for junction tables ({{ jctint}} and friends are only a de facto standard, but many of the various USRD subprojects have varying implementations of it). NE2 has recently said this division is "silly", and for once, I agree with him. The two method approach breaks down when you're trying to do a junction list for a surface route that has freeway sections, since the jctint templates and ELG are mutually incompatible with different columns. I propose that ELG be expanded to also cover non-freeway routes. This would also have the benefit of allowing the UK's A roads to have a true junction table and allow them to get the long junction list out of the infobox. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The biggest thing that we will need to deal with if we go forward with this is how to differentiate between a freeway interchange and a non-freeway intersection. I have two ideas as to how to do this. One possibility is to add a new "IC" (interchange) column that would be left blank for at-grade intersections. For interchanges, we could insert a symbol for the type of interchange ("◊" could be a diamond interchange, "⌘" could be a cloverleaf, etc, or we could use small SVG icons). Another option would be to simply place a "–" (en dash) in the exit number column for intersections. Unnumbered interchanges would then be left blank, and numbered interchanges would have the number. (This is a pretty elegant solution to the problem, but has the disadvantage of having no way to denote an interchange where the article route is the non-freeway. Maybe an asterisk or dagger or something could be used?) — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The biggest problem here are the colors, and what to leave in and take out. Currently, we have colors for concurrency termini, crossing no access, unconstructed, deleted, and closed. I have no opinion on what to do about unconstructed and deleted, and I've already elaborated my position above with regards to crossing no access. As for closed, I think it shouldn't be a big deal if we keep the color for closed junctions (those that have been built and are still signed but are closed off temporarily) and would even be beneficial for freeways with closed exits. As to concurrencies, I think that simply giving the direction (e.g.
SH-24 south) would do the trick without having to specifically point it out in the notes column. (Obviously, that would mean that the direction shouldn't be used where some other route terminates at the article route mean there is only SH-24 south, since it would be confused for a concurrency.) Anyway, that's my thoughts. What do you guys say? —
Scott5114
↗
[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
For the U.S. Route 127 in Michigan article I created {{ MIexit}} based on {{ MIint}} to do an exit list. I used notes to indicate where the freeway ended and lwft the exit number blank fir intersections. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 17:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This was made so the same section of the list can be shown on two exit lists, but I see it as a problem. There's been little discussion on WT:CASH after these were made. Can we please get more comments? -- NE2 07:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Awaiting a statement from 66.66.117.141 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) regarding the placement of non-standard shields in exit lists. See the user's talk page for warnings and other statements. Sswonk ( talk) 23:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
i-40 shouldn't have a blue plate. Sometimes dirs is not too important since Wikipedia is not a yellow page or mapquest. Wikipedia is not a route planner guide. -- I-405 ( Free way) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) 66.66.117.141 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked for one week. I have reverted the list at Pennsylvania Turnpike to the earlier version without supplemental shields of any kind. I think the time is right to formulate a guideline that explicitly mentions the use of the directional shields etc. I will be logging off for most of the day after this post, but will be adding input throughout the week. Just to get the discussion started, I have two opinions (rants?) to offer.
<small>
tag for the word "TO" as I did in my MA 3 example. I am only starting to learn templates and parser functions so if anyone else has direct knowledge of the {{
jct}}, they should work on this. The code might be something like: {{jct|state=MA|I|93|dir1=south|US|1|dir2=south|
insto=yes|to3=to|I|95|city1=Canton}}
, with "insto=yes" meaning "insert the formated word 'TO' here between shields". I really don't like using the "TO" plates as they clutter the layout and don't appear that way on the overhead signs, as in the I-81 example photo I linked to above. There could be an idealized limit on using the "insto=yes", say if the distance to the destination road is greater than a mile and other shields would appear before it, like the I-93 to I-95 and I-74 to I-77 examples. For short travel on a surface road to reach another road, like the I-81 Paxtonia example or
Breezewood, PA, I think using the regular "to3=to", etc. to simply add the word "To" to the text after the shields would be correct. The
I-40 in NC page illustrates use of that style for example at exits 123, 126 and 132.
Sswonk (
talk) 19:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[reset] But it will happen, and I don't think it's necessarily up to us to decide what is "worthy" of "TO". That could be considered somewhat OR too I suppose. -- MPD T / C 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
insto=yes
option to the {{
jct}}, we would allow both shield display styles ("TO" or no "TO" between or before shields) to coexist, whereas making it a built-in feature of to2=to
would force the placement of text among the shields. That would also make the placement of a plated "TO" pretty bad looking if a project decided to go that way. So I guess I am changing my mind a little. I would like to have the option added and documented and we can see what happens after that.
Sswonk (
talk) 01:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like we can at least agree on inclusion of these statements in the "Shields" section of the guideline standard (italics for display of statements in this thread only, would be normal type in guidelines):
<small>TO</small>
) before the shield for indication of an indirect junction between roads is optional.I will look into having the template supplemented to allow an "insto=yes" parameter. Please add comments below so we can close this thread. Sswonk ( talk) 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in saying this? [6] -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 05:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Would somebody send a message to Anonymous IP 71.234.165.62 to stop screwing up the notes and other features on Exit Lists of South Carolina interstate highways? The user has a bad habit of deleting notes from Interstate 20 in South Carolina and Interstate 95 in South Carolina. ---- DanTD ( talk) 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Just an aside, if it is vandalism, 3RR does not apply. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 02:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Take it slow. Make sure that the IP knows what they are doing isn't what we'd like. Hammer it in on the talk page. Be nice. If they didn't stop, assume they didn't see the talk page notes. Leave HTML comments on the pages they're messing up. Leave links to the ELG page. If you've tried all that and they're still being a pain, then lock the pages down and let the blocking commence. That way you have evidence that you've tried repeatedly to (nicely) resolve the behavior if another (non USRD) admin comes in and disputes the actions. More work, but much less drama. This is how we handled the St Louis Signer, and in the end, since we went the extra distance, nobody could argue it wasn't vandalism, and we were able to get the anti-vandalism admins to help with determining IP ranges and such. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WT:USRD regarding county columns for single-county routes. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm here particularly because of edits made at Georgia State Route 400. An experienced editor added a "km" column to the exit list. Georgia 400 has sequential exit numbers, so the article already has exit and mile numbers. He cited WP:UNITS as the reason to add the column. However, MOS:CONVERSIONS—the section just below that—says the following:
The article already converts the overall length of the highway. I think exit lists are covered under the item above, and we call it a "mileage" table. If anything, adding another column of numbers inhibits the readability of the table. Accordingly, I support keeping the exit list definition the way it is currently, "mile or km",[emphasis added] and not "mile and km". Thoughts? — C.Fred ( talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
On an exit list, every line-item is a different unit: 1.7, 3.2, 4.4, etc. Only if those same numbers appear again further in the article is it the same unit. Also, since "Wikipedia is not country-specific" ( WP:UNITS and elsewhere), and over 90% of the world is unlikely to have any idea how long a mile is, it is not appropriate here (or anywhere else) to have only non-metric units. The "or", if deliberate, is likely there so that miles do not have to be included for the rest of the world. If not included as a separate and equal column, I propose that it be included in smaller numbers in the same column and cell, directly below the miles. While worldwide metric units should not be subordinated to archaic local US/UK units, this would be okay as a compromise. I can make a template to do this easily, like {{ELmi|1.5}}, which would list a regular 1.5 and then a small 2.4 under it, maybe in a slightly lighter color. – radiojon ( talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Relevant discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)/Archive_3#Kilometre_posts -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I encountered this on Connecticut Route 8 the other day:
Route 108 (Nichols Avenue) – Stratford To Route 15 north |
I edited it to this below, but it was reverted shortly thereafter.
Route 108 (Nichols Avenue) to
Route 15 north –
Stratford
I thought the consensus was to use as few rows as possible. -- Fredddie ™ 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The actual signage for the southbound exit is in two rows separated by a horizontal line. Northbound signage does not include the second row. One issue with the single row is that Route 15 north does not go to Stratford and the single row display implies that it does. -- Polaron | Talk 12:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It should be made clear in this guideline that this MoS is generally aimed at US roads articles, or the UK variant of the exit lists should be included. As it stands it is misleading. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please can someone update all the UK motorway lists to the American version. It's much better. Asdfasdf1231234 ( talk) 03:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well apparently, since people want the discussion now... the color scheme of both tables is definitely not MOS compliant. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
This MoS entry appears to have been created primarily by US editors with very little input from the rest of the world. I will stand in the way as much as I can of any attempt to impose it on our articles without a wider and more appropriate discussion, there is more to the world than the USA. The US centric exit lists are wholly inappropriate for UK usage, counties and towns have varying boundaries depending on which system is chosen, and if you can get a group of people to agree on a specific system to use (traditional or ceremonial counties for example), then I'll applaud you, its rarely done. The system we use is that the destinations shown on the exit list match what is signed on the ground, and in many cases (probably more so than in the US) this can be completely different in either direction. Yes its not perfect, but iron out the problems rather than impose an inappropriate MoS. The colours can be sorted and space can be added for notes. The system we use gives more useful information than the US counterpart, and if (as suggested above) we were to use the US system and strip out the county and location columns, we'd too all intents and purposes be left with what we have now, except without differentiating what is signed in the appropriate direction, so overall we end up with less information, in a less aesthetically pleasing, and more confusing table. And as I understand it, the US articles use a different route diagram system for railways than what is used in European articles, so I'm not sure what the big issue is here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I do concur with MPD - the general format of the exit lists should be the same, with alterations if necessary for European roads. As someone who has traveled to several European countries, it is ignorant to state that the North American standard should be exactly applied to the roads of the rest of the world. (For example, roads are rarely signed "north" and "south" but are signed with an emphasis on control cities instead.) -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 04:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the M62 Motorway is an FA and has appeared as the featured article back in early 2008. The version that appeared on the main page [7] had an exit list that essentially complied with this Exit List Guide. Despite the assertions to the contrary, the members of the UK Roads wikiproject at the time DID help develop this standard and defended it through the FA process. Dave ( talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe it important that national flexibility be retained. Each country has its own characteristics. In the United Kingdom for example, unlike the United States, local government devisions are of little conseqence to the motorist (apart from the four principal divisions of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales). Moreover, with the introduction of driver location signs it is now possible to assign distances to junction numbers. The Highways Authority has published a map for the M25 that does just this. I believe that it is up to the Wiki community in the country concerend to agree a format. I have added the Highways Authority information to the article on the M25 and am awaiting user reaction. We could therefore require columns showing both junction number and distance. Martinvl ( talk) 12:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)