![]() | This 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Today is the day, and while I am still working on the route description, the rewrite of the article is mostly complete and could really use some proof reading and any corrections before going live. The reason I'm posting here is because I want Interstate 40 Business (North Carolina) (and its talk page) into the history of the new Salem Parkway, currently in sandbox. I'm not good at moving articles, so after you all are comfortable with it, if you could go ahead and do that for me that would be great. Recent editors: @ Vchimpanzee:, @ Beejayhelper:, @ GretaLint: and @ Roadsguy:, please also share input. Thank you! -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
If no one else objects I won't either, but I still say if the name change was official all the sources would be saying "Salem Parkway is closed" rather than "Business 40 is closed".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please fix Template:Infobox road/shield/USA so that 3-digit US routes in New York call "File:US X (NY).svg" as the shield since that style is used by the state? Dough 4872 03:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there has been a suggestion to split US 74 Bypass (Monroe Expressway) from Special routes of U.S. Route 74. Please consider sharing your opinion on the matter. Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 03:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I recently came across South Metro Express Lanes and my first response was "why does this even exist?" My opinion is that managed lanes should be incorporated in the main route article; but my opinion isn't gospel so what do other editors think about managed lanes, do they deserve their own articles? -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 15:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I recently created the article Washuotaku is so concerned about. I created it because there are other pages that are similar to it within the state. We are in a bit of a disagreement because they believe it is against this projects notability standards for the article to exist, while I obviously disagree, having spent some hours doing research on the page and creating it. I believe that the page meets the notability of Wikipedia per Wikipedia:PAGEDECIDE. Opinions aside, I think we need to decide if the notability standards of this project conflict with those of Wikipedia at large. Why do we have pages on interchanges? Why do we have pages on bridges? The managed lane projects are similar in scope to these pieces of engineering. Philosophy aside, if they are deemed to not conflict with the standards, then we should make sure and get rid of all managed lane pages to avoid further confusion. Best, Mccunicano ( talk) 09:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
One concern I have with the title of South Metro Express Lanes is that it doesn't tell us very much. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says that titles of articles should make the subject recognizable to someone who isn't familiar with the subject. Personally, I would move the article to South Metro Atlanta Express Lanes. "Metro Atlanta" seems like the most natural way to say it. – Fredddie ™ 14:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a proposed article renaming at Talk:New Jersey Route 179#Proposed rename: Route 179 (New Jersey – Pennsylvania). Dough 4872 18:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion taking place at Talk:Interstate 285 that people here may be interested in following. – Fredddie ™ 03:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added Category:Interstate 70 to the Interstate 470 disambiguation page. However, another editor keeps removing it. What is the project's stance on such circumstances? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I was out of town on Saturday. On my way back, I took US 1/ SR 4 from Tobacco Road to Barton Chapel Road. The entire path was also signed as SR 540, the highway number for the Fall Line Freeway, of which US 1/SR 4 from Wrens, Georgia to Augusta, Georgia is part. I looked online and found a news story that SR 540 is being signed in Columbus, Georgia. I did a Google search and found a picture of a SR 24 shield (didn't see where it was at) that had an SR 540 shield added alongside it. Does anyone know more about this? I tried finding the information on the Georgia Department of Transportation's website, but I couldn't find anything. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there has been a suggestion to split the proposed I-885 from North Carolina Highway 147 to its own page. Please consider sharing your opinion on the matter. Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 06:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A while back I tried to address the issue of material from Interstate 80 in Wyoming#Business routes being moved to Business routes of Interstate 80#Wyoming. I swiped most of the info from that segment in hidden text to each segment on the Business route article, but nobody else has taken the issue in the slightest consideration. So why has this been overlooked? --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 14:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on expanding History sections for Minnesota highway articles and referencing them to official or direct sources, as part of eventually improving them to B-class and beyond. Before I go much further, I'd like some feedback on what I've written thus far. It's difficult to tell whilst in the process of researching and writing how much is too much or too little (although the intricacy of each highway's history dictates much of that anyway).
The articles I've done so far are:
The last one I also expanded the route description as much as it could be. Any feedback on prose quality, if there's too much detail or not enough, or anything else would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Sable232 ( talk) 23:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that some of the List of special state routes in Georgia (U.S. state) have year-specific shields. However, if I try to change the type parameter to show them, I get a Lua error. What is the correct way to display these shields? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 01:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Can anybody think of the proper temporary commons category for "Snow Emergency Route" signs? For those who aren't from north of the Carolinas these are the types of signs I'm talking about. --
I'm just testing the waters with this one, but should we have some guidelines for |maint=
in {{
Infobox road}}
with regards to how many agencies should be listed? I was looking at
Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania), which has four maintaining agencies listed. I feel like 4 is excessive. –
Fredddie
™
22:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor please close this ACR? Thanks. -- Rs chen 7754 22:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
As per WP:USRD/STDS#Major intersections, the major intersections section of the infobox should not list more than 10 intersections. However, I noticed in some of the California road articles recently, someone appears to bypassing this rule by combining all the major intersections in each city onto one line.
For example, currently on Interstate 5 in California, [1] there is the line on the infobox:
even though they are actually three separate interchanges. The East Los Angeles Interchange is only I-10, US 101 and SR 60, while SR 110 and SR 2 are each separate junctions.
Similarly on U.S. Route 101 in California, [2] there currently is in the infobox:
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/I-80_%281957%29.svg/24px-I-80_%281957%29.svg.png)
I-80 /
SR 1 in
San Francisco
even though I-80 never even meets with SR 1.
And currently on the infobox of California State Route 1, [3], there is
even though the are also actually separate interchanges.
So basically instead of literally listing 10 junctions, it really lists 10 cities with major junctions. Is this allowed, or should they be reverted? Zzyzx11 ( talk) 05:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Some editors keep added "to" entries to junctions in the infobox on the Interstate 87 (New York) page. I have been reverting them, since it is not procedure. Can some consensus from the project be reached about this? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 00:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Figured I'd post this here to reach more people and get their opinions on this. I think the current title is long and redundant; the new one would be shorter and simpler. Main discussion here: Talk:State highways deleted by the Utah State Legislature in 1969#Requested move 5 January 2019. Roadguy2 ( talk) 03:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I have been using the routelist templates on my sandbox to be able to add the special routes to the List of U.S. Highways in Georgia page. I have some problems. One, I want to be able to use year-specific shields. Two, I can't correctly add a temporary route. Could someone please fix the code so these work? Thank you. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 09:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
abbr = MI["US-Byp"].abbr,
" where MI
is used instead of GA
.
Johnuniq (
talk)
08:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Do it like this [4] and it will work. – Fredddie ™ 00:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
US 1926-Temp
is overkill. –
Fredddie
™
00:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
|country=USA
instead of |state=GA
for that one row. There's a different Lua module for national-level items, and it wouldn't have all of the fancy vintage stuff in it.
Imzadi 1979
→
17:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
There are three highways where I have recently seen back-and-forth editing and discussion in the talk pages about which cities should be listed in the intro:
Do we have a project-wide guideline for how many cities should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of the article? I know there was discussion about the major cities box of the infobox, but I can't find anything about the introduction.
There seems to be a range of possibilities, since I-25 seems to include some smaller cities. Should it be just the biggest of the big? The ones with the most significant junctions? The ones with the largest population? One representative city per state? Obviously, there will be some variation—I mean, the I-90 intro is going to look vastly different from the I-97 one—but I'd like to get a reasonable degree of consistency in the articles—or at least get more eyes on the trouble spots I listed above. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I took a stab at a better concept: expanding the state and city listing in the lead of the I-75 article into a narrative summary of the RD]. There's still room for a bit of expansion there, just so long as people remember that the lead is a summary, not a replacement for the body of the article. As a side note, you can list more cities naturally in such text without turning it into a sentence that will not end. Imzadi 1979 → 15:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
And another such edit: [6] -- Rs chen 7754 06:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Hraines46: please join us in this conversation here and please revert your recent edits pushing extra cities into those long, listy sentences in the batch of articles you edited within the last 24 hours. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model, and because this situation applies to more than just one article, we're discussing it in a centralized place. You may not have seen direct replies at the individual article talk pages, but I know C.Fred mentioned on Talk:Interstate 75 that he was going to discuss the situation here. Imzadi 1979 → 14:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello? What is it? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hraines46 (
talk •
contribs)
16:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, you should take a look at WP:OVERLINK; we don't repeatedly link things in close proximity. For I-90, since "Seattle" is linked when it is first mentioned as a terminus, we wouldn't link any additional mentions of it in the lead.
On a side note, it would help a lot if you could do two things to follow proper talk page etiquette. First, indent your replies underneath others. My previous comments were preceded by three colons (:::
), each one adding an indentation. Your reply should have been preceded by four colons (::::
). You'll notice that my current reply has five (:::::
), so if you reply to this, you should use six (::::::
) colons to start your comments. Second, please end your comments with four tildes (~~~~
). This code will be replaced by your signature. This is important so that we know who is saying what. After your last comment, a bot had to insert a signature for you, but then you edited your comments and removed that, so I had to add it back. As noted on your talk page, you should always sign your posts on talk pages. These are two simple, but very important things to do with any discussion on a talk page.
Thank you, Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hraines46 (
talk •
contribs)
17:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
We are having an issue at Interstate 80 in New Jersey where an editor keeps adding cities to exit lists that are not on signs, which violates MOS:RJL. This editor has been constantly reverting me ( See history) by adding the cities that are not on signs. Can someone please take care of this issue? I do not want to revert again. Dough 4872 01:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there any way to add multiple "extra" parameters (such as "extra=airport") to a {{ Jct}} entry? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 00:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
{{jct|state=TX|extra=airport}}{{jct|state=TX|SH|151|extra=hospital}}
|extra=
look tacky, especially all the hospitals. Instead of trying to shoehorn the template to fit your needs, why not review what you're trying to convey to our readers? –
Fredddie
™
02:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor that is not a usual USRD editor removed Category:Proposed Interstate Highways from the Interstate 165 (Indiana) because it is no longer proposed. What I was wondering is this: Should the above category and the Category:Proposed U.S. Highways category be used on highways that were previously proposed but were later cancelled? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 00:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
After a discussion at Talk:U.S. Route 301 in Maryland, I noticed we never noted last exits before tolls in junction lists before, as in what is the last exit one would have to get off at before a toll road begins or before coming to a toll bridge or toll tunnel. In some states they note this on the green guide signs, usually in yellow on the bottom. I was wondering if we should start noting the last exit before tolls in junction lists in USRD articles. Dough 4872 04:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, A helpee in IRC help channel suggested that the information on tolls on articles: Florida State Road 408, Florida State Road 417, Florida State Road 429 are very old and need to be updated. Since I am unfamiliar with the information about tolls, could any of you guys have a look? Thanks! ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 12:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Some concerns over the neutrality of the above article were raised on my talk page here (I'll leave it when I archive on Friday). The OP's concerns appear, at least to my uninformed eye, to have some merit. I'm asking that any of you with interest or knowledge that would be pertinent to maybe look there with an eye to help. The OP was going to start a talk thread there, but doesn't seem to have done so yet. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 01:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
As of today, I-165 signs are being placed on the Natcher Parkway in Kentucky. [1] I just started updating relevant pages. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 01:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Just an fyi, my watchlist is getting pretty clogged, I'm going to gradually start unfollowing non-ohio highways and such. Cards84664 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
While browsing through the Glossary of road transport terms, (which I added a few terms to), I noticed that we don't currently have an article for Turn-off-to-stay-on (TOTSO), those scenarios where you have to exit to stay on the same highway. I think this would be a great addition to this Wikiproject, as we have a lot of examples here in the US. What do you all think? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 19:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
So, I haven't made a KML file in years, and after reading that you could seemingly easily create great quality KML files from Google Maps, I was interested in helping again. I made one for a small-ish route, Kentucky Route 399, at Template:Attached KML/Kentucky Route 399. In the article, the OSM map looks fine, but the template itself looks like a complete disaster, at least compared to other KML templates I made years prior, like Template:Attached KML/U.S. Virgin Islands Highway 38. Did I do something wrong? -- AmaryllisGardener talk 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Since Google and Bing removed their ability to show KMLs on their map platforms, I would suggest in addition to creating and placing the KML files to create the "interactive map" for these articles as well. Pennsylvania Route 155 is an article where I created one recently with the code for it located at Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/Pennsylvania Route 155. You can almost take the code from there, swap out the new coordinates (making sure each point has enclosed brackets "[x, y], ...") and name and post. The centroid coordinates of the route can easily be found from clicking for WikiMiniAtlas in the top right corner, hitting the fullscreen button, and getting the lat/long from the URL of the popup window. This would then help reduce our maps backlog too. — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 13:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
How do we disambiguate locations in the {{ Jcttop}} template (and sub templates)? Some of the newly-made Kansas highway articles, using {{ KSinttop}}, are entirely within Grand River Township, Sedgwick County, Kansas, but the template links to Grand River Township, Kansas (which doesn't exist). Thank you. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 00:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to make this clear. The intro paragraph and the infobox imply the mainline ends at the GWB, and the RD says the mainline runs to Ridgefield Park where it "continues as I-95". The RD of Interstate 95 in New Jersey is split into "New Jersey Turnpike", covering up to US 46, and "George Wahsington Bridge Approach", continuing from there. I would definitely argue that the road from US 46 to the GWB is part of the turnpike, but is it part of the mainline, or just an extension (like the Pearl Harbor or Newark Bay extensions)? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 14:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 50 in Maryland#Merger with Interstate 595 (Maryland). Dough 4872 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please fix the infobox shown here so that the banner shows? (May wanna do this for all banner types for the old SC shields). Dough 4872 03:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
In Minnesota State Highway 7, Wooddale Avenue in St. Louis Park is listed as a "major" intersection, but Texas Avenue is omitted, as is Louisiana Avenue. Texas seems more "major" than Wooddale by common-sense standards. Are there some standards to determine which ones are "major"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I created {{ Cite NDOT map}} earlier tonight to simplify the addition of Nevada's historic highway maps as citations in articles. Please feel free to start using it as appropriate. In the future, the citation information contained within the template can be updated to add missing details, such as the OCLC numbers for each map, and deploying the template to articles now means they'll be updated as details within the template are updated. Imzadi 1979 → 01:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I created a draft earlier this month that combines all of the state-detail articles related to U.S. Route 522 into one article. The entire route is just over 300 miles, so the result isn't that long. I was hoping some people would see the merger request and comment, but that hasn't been the case. – Fredddie ™ 04:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, the ongoing AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state trunkline highways in Michigan serving parks is a trainwreck going towards "delete" decision against my own view. If there are any ROADS enthusiasts who wish to pile on and crush the opposition (me) with some bureaucratic push, I guess you are welcome to do so. Perhaps this posting will just get me slammed harder, faster, oh well. :(
However, I happen to think that "highways built to serve parks" is a valid type of topic (and hence list-article). If you could possibly be open to understanding that purpose and type of Wikipedia work, I would surely welcome your participation in the AFD.
And whether the AFD succeeds or not in destroying coverage of the topic for the state of Michigan, I would welcome further discussion and development of the general topic nation-wide. I am not a certified member of WikiProject U.S. Roads, but I think I have some common sense and some general knowledge that is relevant (see the AFD), and IMHO it does seem useful for Wikipedia to cover the general topic area of highways co-evolved with parks. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
{Note: I am not posting this at
the Shields Page because it isn't exactly a request for shields; but, if it's more appropriate there, feel free to move it - thx.}
So, editors of Puerto Rico road articles have identified 2 problems that merit attention:
[1] There are shields stored in Commons here that would never be shields seen on a Puerto Rico road because they don't derive from the the PR Government official documents ( this one (pp. 1,2) and this one p. 1-2, section 1-03.01) that establish the guidelines for route numbering in PR. A sampling of some such "invalid" shields (there are many, many others) are:
This creates the problem that editors, having access to using files from Commons, post such invalid shields in Puerto Rico road articles even though such shields don't actually exist in real life, and create road articles that do not inform, but instead confuse, readers.
Proposal: While a temporary solution to this would be to delete all such invalid shields from Commons, a more permanent, more robust approach is needed so that such invalid shields will not be re-created in the future in the first place. We think the best solution is to either (a) for the USRD team to implement internal procedures whereby requests for such shields aren't honored in the future or (b) to integrate logic into the bot ( here) that currently aids in the shield-creation process so that it will not allow for the creation of such invalid shields any longer. Then, also, to delete all the invalid shields from Commons. Of course, we are open to your suggestions and advise as to alternate solutions.
[2] Well-intended editors make changes to the Infobox road's "type" field turning what was a correct shield display into an incorrect one. We have traced the culprit in this problem to be the lack of restrictions (i.e., lack of controls) in the Infobox road "type" field. When we say "lack of restrictions" we mean that, in spite of whichever route number is specified in the "route=" field (remember, there is a govt-established correlation between route number and shield design) editors can still enter into the Infobox's "type" field whichever of the 5 road network options that have been defined ("Pri", "Sec", Ter", "Urban" or "PR" [this last one, displays shields for all 4 networks -- which is fine since, in Puerto Rico, a route may change networks and preserve its route number, for example, PR-1]). As long as the shield(s) exist(s) in Commons (again, here), the Infobox will display it (them).
To illustrate, PR-100 is a Secondary Network route, yet it has this primary shield in the Puerto Rico Commons categories, here. This invalid shield exists in the Commons categories even though PR-100 is not a Primary Network route number, but a Secondary Network route number. Now, if were to populate the "type" field for PR-100 with "PR" (the code to display all shields with that route number on it, regardless of their design), the (invalid) Primary Network shield for route 100 would appear next to the valid secondary Network shield, this one. Such display would be incorrect because PR-100 doesn't belong to the primary network, but to the Secondary Network only. To illustrate further, PR-511 is a tertiary Network road, but it has a secondary shield stored in Commons. If we were to populate the "type" field with "PR", the (invalid) Secondary Network shield for route 511 would appear next to the valid tertiary network shield, this one. Again, such display would be incorrect because PR-511 is not part of the Secondary Network, but part of the Tertiary Network.
This creates the problem that editors create Puerto Rico road articles where there is disagreement between the route number and the Road Network shield type.
Proposal: We believe the solution to this second problem is to introduce logic into the Infobox road for cases where state=PR to enforce the following restrictions:
Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 00:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the first proposal as well if the bot can be programmed that way, although I don't know how anyone could be prevented from creating one manually. I know it's nearly impossible to get anything deleted from Commons no matter how unusable it is, so that problem might persist indefinitely. -- Sable232 ( talk) 01:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
|state=PR
|type=Sec
|route=107
is set, the template will look for
File:PR secondary 107.svg. The categorization does not matter. The rest of your post above does not apply. The template coding only looks at the file name and doesn't know about any categorization scheme. It also doesn't matter if the file is on Commons or hosted here locally; if it exists and matches what the template expects, it will display it.
Imzadi 1979
→
02:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
|type=PR
for everything when we really didn't need to. –
Fredddie
™
02:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I have a couple ideas that could work.
Extended content
|
---|
|type=PR
. We would create
Template:Infobox road/shieldmain/USA/PR which would facilitate this. One difficulty with this was is that we'd have to know what classification each highway falls into. –
Fredddie
™
16:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)| marker_image = [[Urban shield filename here]]
to manually add the Urban primary signs, as needed, into the infobox so the urban will display. Will that work?
Mercy11 (
talk)
22:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Yarfpr, I had a math vacuum moment!
IAE, above, you also said,
"On the other hand, the PDF shared by Mercy11 would imply the following: P or PU for roads between 1 and 99, S or SU for roads between 100 and 299, and T or TU for roads between 300 and 9999, [as opposed to P, PS, PT, PU, PST, PSU, PTU and PSTU for roads between 1 and 99; S, ST, SU and STU for roads between 100 and 299, and T, U, and TU for for roads between 300 and 9999]. At this moment I don't know which one option should be the best."
I wanted to make it clear that I do support the Option that allows editors to display, for example, for
PR-3, shields from the set of {P, PS, PT, PU, PST, PSU, PTU and PSTU} and not just the shield from the set {P}. IMO, that is the best option. That is, I support the idea that whatever change or enhancement is requested of the Template editors that it will allow us to continue to display for PR-3 this:
, and not just this:
. I think this way the system accommodates itself to what is a stated government fact in Puerto Rico road design (and a PR road reality) that "a route can change networks and still maintain its route number."
Anyway, I had suggested above that we could submit an Infobox road Template edit request here (which, btw, already has code specific to some other regions, like Canada, Australia, and Mexico), to introduce logic into the Infobox road template for cases where state=PR to enforce the following 4 Restrictions (the last 2 aren't really restrictions, but are there for completeness purposes):
Extended content
|
---|
But this added logic is different from Fredddie's/Yamil's New List of 11 new types (the first 4 below are the ones already existing, but the last 11 (7+3+1) are the new ones proposed by Freddie and Yamil):
which is equivalent to Fredddie's proposal above, namely this one (I've added Yarfpr's "11th" observation so as to include all 11 cases):
|
Point begin, whereas the first set (let's call it Mercy's 4-piece set, for now) enforces a set of Restrictions (which is, I believe, what's really needed in this Puerto Rico road shields "wild, wild West"), the second set of logic (let's call it Fredddie's/Yamil's 11-piece set, for now) doesn't enforce anything; the second set instead states what you want the infobox to display and, as such, the problem of displaying Invalid Shields would continue to be perpetuated. This would be the case because F/Y's approach is only asking for the addition of more types so that an editor (informed or vandal) can control what gets displayed more easily, that is, can control what gets displayed by tweaking the template "type" field as opposed to "playing" the add/remove shields games from the Commons depository. This happens because F/Y's suggestion when implemented would continue to be driven by what is to be available in Commons. Notice that under F/Y's approach the editor (whether the well-intended or the vandal) is still in control by playing around with the 15 types, whereas with the Restrictions approach that I am proposing, much of the ability of the editor has been taken away ("restricted") to what the Govt has said what the look of the shields should be based on the route#. (BTW, we shouldn't confuse this with "Oh, so now PR-1 will only display 1 shield, not 4". That's concept isn't touched at all by the Restrictions. The Restrictions say "for type=P, display the Primary Network road shield only if there is a number 1-99 in the 'route=' field". The Restrictions Do Not say "for type=P, display only the Primary Network road shield existing in Commons that corresponds to the number in the 'route=' field". What to display isn't the job of the Restrictions; that will continue to be the job of the type field. In other words, the type field with the new 15 total shield/shield combo types allow for the display of specified shields, whereas the Restrictions keep Invalid Shields from being displayed (e.g., with Restrictions, the Infobox will not display a Primary shield for PR-500, if an (uninformed or vandal) editor specified type=P for route=500).
That is, Mercy's 4-piece Restriction logic set tells the template to "display from this such-and-such subset only (i.e., the subset "filtered in" by the Restrictions) out of the entire PR road shields universe", but Fredddie's/Yamil's 11-piece logic set tells the template to "display from the entire PR road shields universe, but only the one(s) in the type(s) being specified".
So, under F/Y's approach, if the editor has the parameters populated as follows,
state=PR
route=503
type=ST,
The result would still be the undesirable secondary shield
and the desired tertiary
.
This is because these are all Puerto Rico shields available in Commons with those route numbers, and this logic just says what to display, and not what not to display. So note there is a Secondary shield bc it was present in Commons, perpetuating the presence of Invalid Shields (Routes 300 thru 9999, like Rt 503 are tertiary, not secondary) in the Infoboxes.
Yet, under Mercy's suggested approach, if an editor has populated the template with the same options as before:
state=PR
route=503
type=ST,
The result would be the tertiary
(as desired)
because there would already be logic hardwired into the template to filter out (i.e., to ignore) all Primary shields (bc route#502 isn't in {0<Rt#<100}) and all the Secondary shields (bc the route# isn't in {0<Rt#<300}). Note that there is no Secondary shield displayed even though the type was specified as "ST" (by a uninformed editor or vandal, obviously), bc the Restrictions filtered out the Secondary shield. This means, imo, that if we implement the Restrictions, we can populate Commons with all 9,999 x 4 shields, to include shields for all possible roads 1-9999 for each of the four networks, and then, use only Restrictions and only the current types (Pri, Sec, Ter, Urban, and PR), and by specifying "PR" for any route number and, because Restrictions are in place, roads numbered 1-99 will automatically display all 4 shields (P, S, T, U), roads 100-299 will display 3 shields (Sec, Ter, Urban), roads 300-9999 will display 2 shields (Ter and Urban). Of course, we would still need the availability of P, S, T, and Urban types to account for real-life exceptions (like
PR-52 which is only a primary network road in all its length.)
So it seems that what we should really ask for is both, for the addition of the 4 Restrictions and for the addition of the 11 new types. Mercy11 ( talk) 04:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
{{Infobox road/shieldmain/USA/PR|route=1}}
→
{{Infobox road/shieldmain/USA/PR|route=100}}
→
{{Infobox road/shieldmain/USA/PR|route=300}}
→
OK last question before I can feel confident about my coding. Are there any highways that do not fall into the range that they should fall into? For example, it seems PR-9919 is only urban primary. – Fredddie ™ 19:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
One more. In what order should the shields be? PSTU? PUST? – Fredddie ™ 19:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
|type=PR
is using this code. –
Fredddie
™
00:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, the ongoing AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state trunkline highways in Michigan serving parks is a trainwreck going towards "delete" decision against my own view. If there are any ROADS enthusiasts who wish to pile on and crush the opposition (me) with some bureaucratic push, I guess you are welcome to do so. Perhaps this posting will just get me slammed harder, faster, oh well. :(
However, I happen to think that "highways built to serve parks" is a valid type of topic (and hence list-article). If you could possibly be open to understanding that purpose and type of Wikipedia work, I would surely welcome your participation in the AFD.
And whether the AFD succeeds or not in destroying coverage of the topic for the state of Michigan, I would welcome further discussion and development of the general topic nation-wide. I am not a certified member of WikiProject U.S. Roads, but I think I have some common sense and some general knowledge that is relevant (see the AFD), and IMHO it does seem useful for Wikipedia to cover the general topic area of highways co-evolved with parks. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you guys have standards as to the ordering of "major junctions" section of the Template road? That is, do they flow (from top to bottom on the web page) from N->S or from S->N? From W->E or from E->W? If the flow is circular, Clockwise/CCW from N to S, or CW/CCW from S to N? Or you have no such standards? Mercy11 ( talk) 01:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
|direction_a=
and |direction_b=
blank and it'll say From: Point A; To: Point B. –
Fredddie
™
03:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder that we do have 2 open A-Class reviews. Our A-Class review helps to prepare an article for the featured article process. With the shortage of nominations from our project recently, we will run out of articles that can be run on the Main Page in about 2 years. -- Rs chen 7754 16:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
This is pretty straightforward for highways like Interstate 287, where we call the terminus at the NJTP the "South end", being geographically south of the other terminus. Likewise, the terminus in NY is called the "East end", which is in fact east of the other terminus. But Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania) is not as straightforward. The "West end" is geographically east of the "South end". Is there any guideline for naming the termini of highways that change cardinal directions along the route? One highway, Arizona State Route 101 uses "CW" (clockwise) and "CCW" (counterclockwise). I'm not sure where the guideline specifying that is, but it somehow stuck. On the other hand, Interstate 295 (Virginia) labels the terminus at I-64 as the "North end", despite the segment geographically west of I-95 not being signed with cardinal directions. What is the best way to go about all of these scenarios? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 21:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
|terminus_a=
and |terminus_b=
, respectively. –
Fredddie
™
22:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)The "2019 Spring Meeting Report to the Council on Highways and Streets" by the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering at AASHTO has been located online. They approved 33 items, and we've got them listed at WP:USRD/AASHTO. The report has been added to {{ AASHTO minutes}}, but they haven't published the report on their website; it is still being hosted through the auspices of a third-party conference website at the moment.
Also, I'd like to remind editors that we could use some eyes over on Wikisource to complete validation of the transcriptions of old AASHO/AASHTO minutes. If you look at {{ AASHTO minutes/testcases}}, any of the citations up to 1988 [a] that link to a PDF on Commons still need validation on Wikisource so that we can switch the citation over.
Validation is easy. I've written up a set of instructions here. If you have any questions, please let me know. Imzadi 1979 → 19:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
References
FYI, see Talk:Puerto_Rico_Highway_103. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 04:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you remember the last time we had an assessment audit? Hint: it was early in this decade. So it's time that we do it again. I'm not saying we should drop everything and go audit-crazy like we did back then, but I think it's a good idea to shine a light on some of the states that don't (or didn't) have a regular editor. – Fredddie ™ 02:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the old AASHO/AASHTO minutes, we have a small handful of other documents that need validations.
Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Moabdave and Highway 89 and any other Utah editors I missed:
I created a draft to replace List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions and I wanted your opinions before I take it live. I replaced the table with WP:USRD/RCS entries and then added a routelist table to the top in order to keep the sorting that the previous table had. – Fredddie ™ 02:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't recall this having been discussed before, and if it was it probably wasn't recently. In any case, it's Minnesota-specific.
Should county state-aid highways be referred to in text as "CSAH" or "County Road"? I've been seeing a lot of recent edits like this which have me wondering. "CSAH" ("see-saw"?) is not common vernacular and the vast majority of people would say simply "County Road x", so I'd lean towards using that outside of junction lists, but I know that specificity is sometimes preferred instead. Thoughts? -- Sable232 ( talk) 00:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirects Interstate 102, Interstate 106 (California), Interstate 109 and Interstate 113 have been nominated for deletion, the discussions are all listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 19. You are invited to leave your comments there. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 87 (New York)#Major Deegan merge Needforspeed888 ( talk) 00:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I've been monitoring
Category:U.S. road articles needing attention for some time and realized that it had become sort of a catch-all for articles that nobody wants to work on. Quite a few articles were in decent shape, so I made the
BOLD decision to empty the category and start over. I tried make the attention flags and categories more intuitive. I started by editing the banner to no longer sort pages needing attention by state or topic. I also placed some maintenance categories under the attention category. As it is now, the attention category lists categories with articles that need a pair of eyes to look at them. You can still add the attention flag to articles, but if possible, I would use the other parameters listed on {{
WikiProject U.S. Roads}}
first. –
Fredddie
™
03:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
US 70 routing changed last year in Beaufort, North Carolina and a business loop was signed. However, NCDOT documentation doesn't correlate with the business route signing. I contacted NCDOT and after a few weeks got a response that the business route was incorrectly signed and gave documentation of its correct SR designations.
So the question is how go about updating the article: do we remove it completely, leave as is, update as discontinued, update as proposed or other? -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 13:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I already posted this issue in the commons, but I really need a clear definition of all the types of street name signs used in some of the more specific sections of New York City in order to diffuse that category. The pre-1984 borough-specific colors would've been much easier to deal with by comparison. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 03:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania) has the previous route for the PA browse as PA 294; similar situations exist for "neighboring" routes. Having redlinks in browsing seems to defeat the purpose of browsing. What should be done here? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 01:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 69 in Indiana#Merger proposal Needforspeed888 ( talk) 00:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Talk:List of state highway loops in Texas (1–99)#Name change on whether the RCS lists of Texas state highway loops and spurs (pursuant to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 23#Texas loops and spurs) should be separated into separate loop and spur list series or combined into one series for both. - happy 5214 01:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Merge proposal being discussed at Talk:U.S. Route 44#Proposed merge with U.S. Route 44 in New York has been rumbling on for a year; any able to help finish it off? Klbrain ( talk) 05:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Where did the directional and "To" banners in the "Major intersections" and "Exit list" tables disappear to? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 06:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering. The Routelist templates have the capability to call the local street names for highways, using the "local" parameter. Should that be only for names that are on the entire path, like the "alternate_name" parameter in the infobox, or every single local name? With long highways, that could be a lot of names. Also, exactly how does that parameter get used? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Should the lead include the colloquial names of highways when it is just the last word of the full name? We see this for ones like the Garden State Parkway (the Parkway), the New Jersey Turnpike (the Turnpike) and the New York State Thruway (the Thruway). While these definitely are the colloquial names for these highways, is it worth including these in the lead? I'm sure the Pennsylvania and Ohio Turnpikes are referred to by locals as "the Turnpike" but it is not indicated in those articles, presumably because the writers figured those should be implied. Mentioning colloquial names that can't be assumed from the full name (e.g. the Mid-County Expressway as "the Blue Route" or Penn-Lincoln Parkway as "Parkway West/East") I fully understand. But as for the more obvious ones?... Needforspeed888 ( talk) 23:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if it is related to changes made by Fredddie (shown at the top of related changes) but Alabama State Route 14 is now broken showing "The time allocated for running scripts has expired" everywhere. Frietjes ( talk) 22:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
Mapframe}}
. There must have been a glitch in the Matrix because these just popped up recently. –
Fredddie
™
03:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I edited the Map Data files for AL 14 and US 20 (IL), the old file sizes were 88,613 bytes and 86,689 bytes respectively. Using QGIS to simplify the geometries of the files (converting the points into a KML then using a tolerance of 0.00013 under Vector>Geometry tools>Simplify), I got the files down to 13,506 and 36,336 respectively. Upon bringing back the old formatting of the interactive maps in the articles' infoboxes, the maps displayed normally. Maybe this is an issue of the Map Data file sizes? — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 17:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Please help give this whatever adornments it needs. Mapsax ( talk) 14:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been having numerous editing conflicts with another user in regards to tge major intersections tables on U.S. Route 70 in Arizona and U.S. Route 95 in Arizona. I put the mileage down in respects to the official posted mileposts along each highway and said user keeps removing those changes on the US 95 article to reflect the total mileage of US 95. I prefer the official mileposts as ADOT data and logs generally use those over mileage totals or make the mileposts dominant. Another issue on both articles is the other user keeps removing the Gila River crossings from the tables. The Gila River is a major tributary in Arizona, is a major geographic landmark and has historical significance in the form of serving as multiple geopolitical boundaries. Arguably, the Gila River is to southern Arizona what the Red River is to northern Louisiana. Another recurring issue is the constant removal of Imperial Dam Road from the US 95 major intersections table. That road serves as the main access road to the Yuma Proving Grounds, GM test track, is the main road across the Laguna Dam and is the Arizona continuation of CR S24 from California. Lastly, the largest issue is the removal of the concurrency northbound US 95 has with US 95 Truck in San Luis. ADOT GIS data, field signage and Google Street View clearly show US 95 northbound has been moved off Main Street south of Juan Sanchez Boulevard and onto US 95 Truck/William Brooks Avenue. US 95 Southbound now uses Archibald Street ajd Urtuzuastegui Street south of Juan Sanchez Boulevard. I'm tired of having these constant conflicts and would like to settle the matter. I would like to discuss this issue here so we may set or decide on a definitive standard for how the major intersections table should look on Arizona highways. — MatthewAnderson707 ( talk| sandbox) 07:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone made the Draft:Interstate 880 (Iowa) page. Can someone verify if this is a real proposal? I would have tagged it for deletion, but I wanted your input. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 23:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The article List of temporary Interstate Highways has been unsourced since creation in 2005 and hasn't gotten an iota of TLC. Some of these are so short-lived that they probably didn't even appear on any maps. What should be done with this list? Does anyone want to clean it up? Should it be deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A map was added to the Florida State Road 113 (SR 113) page. It's incorrect, however. The approximate 0.4 miles (0.64 km) at the southern end is not part of SR 113. It is actually part of SR 115. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 08:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I'll be adding this link to our resources section [7] It's a Federal Railroad Administration GIS data that features rail track owners and subdivisions. This information is more easily obtained from Open Street Map, but here's a reliable source that meets Wikipedia's standards for names of specific railroad tracks. This isn't perfect as it lists the subdivision of the line, not the line's name itself. Some subdivisions have articles (i.e. Lakeside Subdivision), some have redirects to the name of the line (i.e. Sharp Subdivision ) but most are still red links. But at least that's better than what many USRD articles do in their descriptions with generic descriptions like "the highway crosses the Union Pacific Railroad", which is about as helpful as saying "crosses a state route". Dave ( talk) 18:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Maryland roads, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maryland roads and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Portal:Maryland roads during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Guilherme Burn (
talk)
17:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Georgia guy turned the Interstate 335 disambiguation page into a redirect to Kansas Turnpike#Emporia to Topeka. I reverted his edit, but he reverted it back. I don't want to cause an edit war. What is the project's opinion on this? Interstate 335 (Minnesota) was a proposed highway, so there could be a disambiguation page. If not, put a hatnote on each page. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 11:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone here has any comments, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:County 15.png 2 and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:County 20.png 2. -- Sable232 ( talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The U.S. Route 422 article is showing an error message “The time allocated for running scripts has expired” all over the article in place of the infobox and major intersections. Dough 4872 02:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I know we use the auxiliary route parameter in the infobox for three-digit Interstate and US routes to indicate what route they are an auxiliary route of. For example, U.S. Route 113 indicates that it is an US 13 in the infobox. In Pennsylvania, there are several three-digit state routes that are auxiliary routes of two-digit state routes both past and present. For example, Pennsylvania Route 332 is related to Pennsylvania Route 32 and Pennsylvania Route 662 is related to the former Pennsylvania Route 62 (now Pennsylvania Route 100). Not all three-digit Pennsylvania state routes are related to a two-digit route. For example, Pennsylvania Route 863 was numbered to provide a connection to I-78 and is not related to Pennsylvania Route 63. Should we use the auxiliary route parameter for three-digit Pennsylvania state routes that are related to a two-digit route? Dough 4872 01:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors! I have requested a peer review for Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector, which is currently a good article. I hope to nominate it as a featured article once I get some feedback on the article. I would appreciate any comments for review! Thank you. – Dream out loud ( talk) 12:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I just removed what seemed like a grossly invalid CSD tag (the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant) from Glendora Curve given there is a clear place name notability claim; it's even linked from California State Route 57. I also improved the stub a bit while there...don't know much about roads, but I hope I did the right thing! Thanks, PK650 ( talk) 03:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I have restored List of highways bypassed by Interstate Highways to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/List of highways bypassed by Interstate Highways as requested by User:WikiWarrior9919 and suggested by others. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
After 8 months of no comments at ACR, Washington State Route 504 was then nominated at FAC and failed. It seems that our ACR process is failing because nobody is reviewing. Do we want an ACR process anymore? Forgive me for being blunt, but do we care? -- Rs chen 7754 21:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
As the Milestone and Highway location marker articles have evolved, they've taken on overlapping information. This appears mostly to have been influenced by the different countries involved. I've seen this issue before with other similar article pairings, such as those using MUTCD terms vs. Vienna Convention ones, but this example seems especially complicated. I'm not going so far as to make a merge request because I don't believe that either article needs to go away completely. What to do? Mapsax ( talk) 02:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The name of Category:Roads in Savannah, Georgia would seem to indicate that it contains roads only in Savannah itself, but the category has a "lead" that says that it is supposed to contain highways in the metropolitan area, including areas in South Carolina. However, all pages are on the Georgia side, and only in Savannah. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 17:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In Category:Jefferson Davis Highway, the pages there have differently-formatted names. What is the proper format of highway marker names? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 17:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Another editor claimed in an edit summary recently that using Google Maps for distances violates WP:OR. I've seen it in use across many articles (plus there's an entire template for it) so I've been using it to add mileages when official resources either do not exist or do not have data for a specific intersection/exit, and have been under the impression that this is acceptable. — C16SH ( speak up) 14:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it considered standard practice to add service, rest, and parking areas to mileage tables? I have seen them on some articles, but not others. HighwayTyper ( talk) 00:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Service areas; if multiple exist, limit those displayed to those of historical or other significance or notability.
Many times in the past year or so, the Garden State Parkway has been included as a major junction in the infoboxes for Interstate 87 (New York), Interstate 287, and the New York State Thruway. When I have seen this, I have generally removed it because, as we all know, the Garden State Parkway ends at the NJ-NY state line, where it becomes the Garden State Parkway Connector, which is a component of the Thruway. That said, we seem to have no problem including I-81 and I-99 in the infobox for the Pennsylvania Turnpike, even though the turnpike does not directly connect with those roadways, because, as @ Dough4872: pointed out, "even if connection is indirect, both are signed from the turnpike." Does this mean it's okay to include the GSP in the infoboxes for the three aforementioned roads, being that the signs say "Garden State Parkway"? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 22:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Category:Redirects from route numbers and Template:R from route number, which involve US roads, have been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how many of you are watching the Canada project, but the above article could cause Canada to lose a Good Topic if it is not brought to GA soon. -- Rs chen 7754 19:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Btphelps: started the California State Route 1 (Big Sur) page. This is not proper practice. Shouldn't it be merged into California State Route 1? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 08:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
That is the point, the Big Sur region of Highway 1 has a distinct identity. — btphelps ( talk to me) ( what I've done) 16:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
How about Pacific Coast Highway Big Sur as a title? — btphelps ( talk to me) ( what I've done) 05:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at the chart at WP:USRD/AASHTO to find when US-25 in Ohio and Michigan was eliminated by AASHTO and didn't see anything, so assuming an oversight I checked the minutes from 1972 to 1974 myself and saw nothing. The U.S. Route 25 in Michigan article uses a newspaper article as a reference, and U.S. Route 25 in Ohio uses the official map archive. Could it have been an agreement between Michigan and Ohio that slipped under AASHTO's radar? Did I just not look far enough in the archives because perhaps AASHTO had a delayed ruling? Mapsax ( talk) 02:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
See discussion above. -- Rs chen 7754 04:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I need some interjection here because I'm currently in a edit war with an IP address. At center is Interstate 40 in North Carolina; the IP address keeps adding a paragraph regarding the route changes for US 70, Business 85 and other routes that happen to overlap with I-40. I keep removing it because that is going off-topic as each route has their own article explains it, I do not see the value of the redundancy for a route not impacted. So who's right, who's wrong... can someone please weigh in on this? Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 19:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The MDSHA recently released the 2018 edition of the Highway Location Reference. The links for the 2018 edition of the HLR follow a different scheme than the 1999-2016 editions (see here for the links). Can someone who is good with templates please make changes to the {{ Maryland HLR}} template so it can call the links for the 2018 HLR properly? Dough 4872 15:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
Maryland HLR/sandbox}}
and see how it works? –
Fredddie
™
02:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
If someone wanted something to do, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/Visual aids needs some updating. The FA/A/GA route maps haven’t been updated since 2017 and the assessment maps haven’t been updated since 2017/2018. Dough 4872 02:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#County Routes (%county% County, New Jersey), these malformed redirects which really should be deleted exist due to limitations in Module:Road data/strings/USA/NJ and {{ routelist row}} that require links from them to display CR 524A, 527A, and 536A. Can someone please fix this so we can delete the redirects? Dough 4872 22:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
We have not published a Newsletter in three years and I don’t anticipate one being published soon. Does anyone else think we should just mark this as historical? Dough 4872 02:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Should at-grade intersections with ordinary streets be included in junction lists? I found these on New York State Route 895, I removed them, but they were added back. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 19:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree because the entire point of the Sheridan Boulevard project was to add those three intersections. It seems extremely misleading to not include them because it suggests that the Sheridan Expressway is still intact. Smith0124 ( talk) 00:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I know that {{ Infobox road}} has the ability to add multiple sections of a highway. Does {{ Infobox street}} have the same ability? If so, how do I do it? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 10:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm having a disagreement with another editor over the destinations that should be shown in road junction lists, with the edits occurring primarily in southern New England. I want to make sure that I'm interpreting the "Destinations" bullet in WP:RJL correctly. In my reading, we use the destinations that are shown on the signs in the field, and I interpret that to include what we can see on a Streetview-type application. It appears that the other editor wants to put in the ultimate destinations that the numbered highways lead to, often at the expense of what are actually signed. I've been attempting to engage with the editor about the guidelines, but with little success, and I haven't seen anyone else jump in. So, could someone take a look at the histories of some of the highway articles in question and offer some input? Examples abound; my most recent exchange with the editor is on Massachusetts Route 2A. I've invited the editor to join this discussion. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The original post and first reply above are mis-framing the situation a bit.
MOS:RJL says for the destinations column
Locations and roads as presented on guide signs for the junction. Other locations should not be listed unless that location is extremely notable and well known; an entry in the notes column such as "Serves Missouri State University" can be used. Routes not indicated on the guide signs may be included in parentheses.
Ken Gallager raised concerns with Oliver Wendell 2009 that the latter is not applying this standard in continuously changing the cities in the destinations columns of RJLs in New England articles. Wendell has not engaged in attempts to discuss this one-on-one. Gallager needs confirmation of the standard and support for a next step to resolve this situation amicably; notices that Wendell could be blocked have gone unheeded, and Gallagher can't issue any such block. Imzadi 1979 → 17:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Wendell should be discussing this situation. There may be details the support the edits. If so, why the radio silence at attempts to discuss? If the situation can't be resolved, we may have to appeal to the appropriate authority to use other tools for resolution, if the project feels that's warranted. Imzadi 1979 → 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
On {{ WikiProject U.S. Roads}}, we can use the "state=FL-CRTF" parameter for Florida's county roads. Is there any similar parameter(s) for other states with county highways, especially New Jersey and New York? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 11:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
|state=FL-CRTF
option should not be used in favor of |state=FL
and |type=CR
. The latter categorizes the page as part of the national County Road TF in addition to the state TF.
Imzadi 1979
→
13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
|state=XX
and |type=CR
for all articles that are assessed for county routes? Should the pages be changed now or later on? I have been correcting the assessment using the setup that Imzadi mentioned above. From now on, I plan to use the new setup, unless there are any objections.
Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (
talk)
07:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
|state=FL
or |state=FL-CRTF
makes no difference other than displaying a different graphic; both still assess the article for the Florida task force.
Imzadi 1979
→
12:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)I noticed an error in the infobox for Maryland Route 341 that may have been caused by recent edits to Module:Infobox. Is there a way these errors can be fixed? Dough 4872 23:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
On the Interstate 11 page's "Route description" and "Current status" sections, there is quite a bit of information that should be moved into a "Future" section instead. Also, the "Route description" section should actually describe the current route of the highway. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 11:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This is just a note that the final Texas spur listicle, List of state highway spurs in Texas (500–9999), was moved to the draft space due to a lack of content. This wasn't a problem with similar list templates previously (I'm too lazy to actually fill everything in), but if someone could fill out Draft:List of state highway spurs in Texas (500–9999) and get it back into the mainspace, that would be great. As it stands, the lone article merged into the list (Spur 502) now redirects to a redlink. - happy 5214 11:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
How in love with these are we as a project? I can do without them. I won't actively remove them, but I will intentionally not include them when I'm editing a junction list. Can someone explain to me how these don't fail WP:NOTTRAVEL? – Fredddie ™ 01:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Do we have some kind of consensus on creating road junction lists (RJLs) in Rockland County Scenario lists? I did not see anything in the project precedents, but maybe we have never had a discussion about this. I bring this up because some of the Kentucky lists of supplemental roads and rural secondary highways have RJLs (e.g., List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (600–699)) but others do not (e.g., List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (400–499)). V C 22:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
In my sandbox there is a draft article for Sonny Scott. In the 'Biography' section, at the end of the third paragraph, there is a referenced sentence (from AllMusic) about the location of "Highway No. 2". I have tried using Google Maps to find the modern day equivalent, and think it is here. This then means it is now possibly Alabama State Route 156, although location-wise, the Wikipedia article's description does not seem to quite fit the bill. Interestingly, vaguely, at the easternmost end of Route 156, it becomes Romulus Road which carries the Highway No. 2 designation. This research is perhaps bordering on the original, but if it does pan out, I thought I might insert in Scott's article something along the lines of ... "which possibly accords with the present day Alabama State Route 156". Are there any editors reasonably local to Choctaw County, Alabama, who could assist me ? I am English and hail from the East Riding of Yorkshire, so Alabama is a long, long way from me. Many thanks,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 13:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I've proposed the following properties to be added to Wikidata so that some of the information that's currently stored in individual infoboxes or Module:Road data/strings modules can be reused more easily:
Note that these properties assume that bare route numbers would be inserted into the format string or SVG image. Unfortunately, the road number (P1824) property tends to store the full abbreviation. Presumably the bare number can already be stored in series ordinal (P1545).
– Minh Nguyễn 💬 00:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There is an RM on New York State Route 99. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 14:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
It's becoming clear that while the portal still has value, it is not being updated as much as it used to be (especially since Dough retired). Any objections to removing the code in the portal to auto update the DYK, Selected article and selected picture on the 1st of the month? The problem is if no one has new content ready at least every 2 months, the portal breaks. If we go with static links, the portal will still display the most recent update. When someone updates teh content, time they can manually increment the dates on the portal page. Objections? Dave ( talk) 19:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
See the talk page of the former. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed a few additions to the history sections of road articles, such as Interstate 676, information regarding events that occurred on such roads, primary regarding the George Floyd protests. I feel like this info does not really belong, given that the history section is supposed to be for the road itself. Should I remove this info or is it acceptable? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 03:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
On the South Carolina Department of Transportation's Aiken County map (look at Sheet 6), there is a US 1 Connector shown just north of the Jefferson Davis Highway bridge over the Savannah River. However, Georgia Department of Transportation doesn't show the connector at all on any of its Richmond County maps. Is this highway real, is it current, and how do I find its exact route? Thank you. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 12:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to put in a request for new shields for the List of state highways in South Carolina page, but I need to verify what years each version of the shields belong to. For example, I was told that for Georgia, the highways from years 1920-1947 use the 1920-specific shield, those from years 1948-1959 use the 1948-specific shield, and those from years 1960-2000 use the 1960-specific shield. I'm still compiling a list of years for all of the former state highways I can find, so it may take a while for me to make my request. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 21:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Someone on AARoads was able to get access to the AASHTO document archive that contains a treasure trove of AASHTO route designation applications and relevant correspondence between AASHTO and the state highway departments. Lots of fun stuff in there—search for US-200, for instance...
Question is, what's the best way to cite this stuff? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Something else that just came to mind: let's refrain from creating crazy redirects to existing articles for numbers only ever proposed in correspondence to and from AASHO. According to one posting on AARoads, Colorado had an A25 designation in some correspondence for what became I-225. Many of these were placeholders in the early days of the Interstate System, and they don't merit mention in articles, let alone the creation of a redirect that no one will ever use. The same goes for typos. Imzadi 1979 → 01:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Something to note: the URLs aren't reusable. The links in the footnotes in U.S. Route 77#History all return 404 errors, meaning I'd have to search the archive all over again to find those documents to read them. So as useful as the archive is, it isn't very citable.
That said, when citing, we shouldn't credit AASHO/AASHTO as the publisher, per se on applications. We should credit the official signing the application as the author and his department as the publisher. AASHO/AASHTO could then be credited as the republisher using |via=
in the citation template. For now, I'd link to the archive search page in |url=
instead of trying to link to the specific document because those URLs will error out.
I'd love to propose uploading copies of these documents to Commons for the same copyright reasons that allowed me to upload the 1967–1988 AASHO/AASHTO SCURN minutes, but I'm feeling unsure if we can use that loophole for this. Imzadi 1979 → 01:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
There are some more of the minutes from the U.S. Route Numbering Committee in the archive. I'm uploading the ones from the late 1950s and the rest of the 1960s to commons: Category:Minutes from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in just a moment. I invite others to help update the table at WP:USRD/AASHTO. When I get some time, I'll start transcribing them to Wikisource and describing them on Wikidata, but they should all be listed in {{ AASHTO minutes}} soon. Imzadi 1979 → 06:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone help? The SC 1948-Alt and SC 1948-Bus "banners" for two-digit highways are not centered above the highway shield. Also, some of the current special route "banners" don't quite look centered to me, like maybe a pixel or two (or so) off. Thanks. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'm a new editor to USRD who's mainly been doing counter-vandalism in recent months. I seem to be confused on maps and KML files for articles. Does an article need both a map and KML file, or one or the other? From what I understand now, a map is just a graphic, so if a KML file is present, that can be used for an interactive route map without the need for a map graphic. Of course, I could be completely wrong, so please correct me if I am. One other thing – I'm not sure if this can go here or if it needs to be at WP:PR once in mainspace, but I would greatly appreciate if someone could take a look at my userspace draft for my first WP article, let alone my first USRD article. I would just appreciate if someone makes sure that there are no obvious USRD-specific issues (minus the map/KML) before I move it to mainspace for a NPP review. Thank you in advance! PlanetJuice ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector is currently an A-Class article and I am looking to have it promoted to FA after improvements made within the last year and a half. A peer review took place last year in December. I am looking for input and feedback on the article, and would greatly appreciate any help getting it ready for FAC. Thanks. – Dream out loud ( talk) 19:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
While reviewing K-156 (Kansas highway) for Good Article status, I thought I was fixing a style error by converting most links piped to "US-55" or similar to "US 55" (no space), per WP:USRD/STDS, until 420Traveler told me that was the style used in articles in Kansas. I noticed that KDOT does not do this now in their own communications. As someone unfamiliar with this surprise, is there a particular reason Kansas has this hyphenation thing going on that's not mentioned in the US road standards? (Is it to match, say, "K-156" or "I-70"?) Raymie ( t • c) 07:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
AP Stylebook also uses a spaced version, not a hyphenated version. Most states use the spaced abbreviation, so taking that with the two style guides, I think we should standardize the same way, regardless of state. Imzadi 1979 → 23:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)US Route 41 (or US 41)
Interstate 90 (or I-90),
Illinois Route 50 (or Illinois 50; IL 50); Route 50
The current article on Kentucky Route 8 is outdated. In 2018, it was rerouted in Campbell County due to infrastructure issues along a more rural portion (see this link for more details). 3 things happened: 1. The routing was changed to follow US 27 from Newport (York Street) to Cold Spring (Pooles Creek Road/Industrial Road). At that point, it turns north over Industrial Road (formerly part of Kentucky Route 1998) to the river and continues its normal route from there. 2. The section from York Street in Newport to Dodd Street in Dayton was changed to Kentucky Route 8 Business. 3. The remaining section was split into two - from Dodd Drive to River Road, it was changed to Kentucky 6365. From River Road to Industrial, route 445 was extended.
I have updated the articles for US 27 and KY 445, but am not quite sure how to handle the concurrency over US 27 in Newport because part of it follows a section of US 27 that's one-way south (York between 3rd and 11th, then 11th between York and Monmouth), which is listed separately in the milepoint log (Eastbound 8 follows southbound 27). I can add the section about the business route as well. Oldiesmann ( talk) 02:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I messed up something when I edited the Module:Road data/strings/USA/SC page. The current South Carolina Highway shields appear. Could someone tell me what I did wrong? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 17:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
That sucks. Believe me, revamping most of the state routes in Georgia, using only the state maps was a long and tedious task. I thank you for your help. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 03:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Morriswa: @ Washuotaku: Been browsing this site, I've been out of the loop for quite a while! Just been busy with other non-Wikipedia projects. A suggestion? Would using a DeLorme® Atlas & Gazetteer help any? The company publishes one for each US State. I use one for my travels around Florida; it is VERY detailed, showing just about every road and highway in the State, including most county roads. I am including a link at Amazon for the South Carolina Gazetteer in case you want to take a look ( https://www.amazon.com/DeLorme%C2%AE-Carolina-Gazetteer-Delorme-Gazeteer/dp/1946494070). The latest version appears to be 2017. They are generally updated every two to three years as necessary. I hope this will be a good source of information for you. Something to consider, anyway. Erzahler ( talk) 06:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This article recently got split away from Gerald Desmond Bridge (1968-2020), and it has no ratings from this group. Can someone here please rate it, because I don't know how to mark it so it can be rated. Because of this split, Gerald Desmond Bridge (1968-2020) may need to be reassessed. Thank you. Interstate 11 ( talk) 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the map recently added to U.S. Route 10 Alternate (Washington–Montana) actually valid? Or is it a violation of some kind? I don't know how to add the interactive maps, so I will have to leave that for someone else. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 01:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Someone made the U.S. Route 12 Business in Wisconsin page. Should that page be redirected to the Draft:Special routes of U.S. Route 12 draft page? Or should it be renamed "Business routes of U.S. Route 12 in Wisconsin"? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 03:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Checking the project watchlist, I noticed a disagreement between a couple editors on
U.S. Route 601.
Morriswa added some junction lists to a related route section and
Washuotaku commented them out. I think this would be a good time to hash out some best practices for
WP:USRD/RCS and/or related route sections. Personally, I don't like the RCS entries on US 601 at all. As a reader, they really don't tell me anything besides "the highway went from Point A to Point B and became US 601 in Year X." The same thing can be accomplished more efficiently by creating a {{
Routelist row}}
entry on the
List of state highways in South Carolina. I think an RCS entry should explain to the reader why the RCS section is relevant to the main article. –
Fredddie
™
16:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I added U.S. Route 17 Alternate Truck (Summerville, South Carolina) to the List of U.S. Highways in South Carolina page, but it produced an error. Could someone correct it for me? Thanks. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 09:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
While browsing this morning, I decided to post about an inconsistency I've noticed for some time now. Our "Special routes of U.S. Route X" articles/listicles seem to use a few different organizational formats across the project:
A random sampling of pages seems to suggest that the Existing/Former model may be the most prevalent format. The same issue arises with our "Business routes of Interstate X" articles, although my random sampling indicates the By Route or By State methods are most commonly used for these.
Similar "Rockland County Scenario" listicles for the various state and county route systems seem to almost always use the By Route method (if not condensed down to just a table). But it's pretty inconsistent on the national articles, except that the routes are almost always presented in west-to-east or south-to-north order as appropriate. Surprisingly, USRD doesn't appear to have a standard on this. Should there be, and if so, what organizational method should be used? LJ ↗ 19:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has recently made the first move in breaking-up U.S. Route 1A by moving out one of the two North Carolina US 1A routes into its own article. I don't support this move because it will become a domino effect of eventually transforming the article into a disambiguation page. Now I could be wrong and other editors may feel it is time to break-up the article once and for all, so please share your opinions at Talk:U.S. Route 1A#U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina) Merge Request. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 09:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I've seen both popping up on numerous New Jersey articles, and was wondering if there was consensus on whether to use
US 1 /
US 9 or
US 1-9. I personally prefer the latter, but before I change all of the US 1/US 9's to US 1-9's I would like to know which is the one that should be used.
Mattx8y (
talk); idiot from planet earf
14:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
As a New Jerseyan, I often see the second signage. It's what is signed near the Newark Airport, Pulaski Skyway, Tonnelle Circle (new signage), and elsewhere. The
US 1 /
US 9 is outdated, and NJDOT replace them with
US 1-9 on the Tonnelle Circle interchange. Thus, I suggest using the second one. ~
Destroyer
🌀
🌀
00:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion has started on possible merging of state level I-73 pages to the parent I-73 pages. At moment it is for just Talk:Interstate 73 in North Carolina, but I would assume any merger would also incorporate existing Virginia and South Carolina too. Please provide feedback on the proposal, thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 21:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas all! I noticed that the infoboxes in articles for many parkways in the NYC area use "|type=Parkway" as opposed to "|type=Pkwy", with the former producing a green color scheme and the latter producing a brown color scheme. I changed several of the Parkways to Pkwys to produce the brown color, which seems standard for parkways, but I figured I better discuss before I change any more of them. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 18:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Dough4872, Fredddie, and Imzadi1979: Would you happen to know when we are supposed to use type=parkway as opposed to type=pkwy in infoboxes? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 06:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
|header_type=
and adding Pkwy would get remove the article from a tracking category that I monitor. Generally speaking though, if guide signs on the highway are green, the infobox headers are green. –
Fredddie
™
07:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Hey everyone. I have been working on a potential breakout article for U.S. Route 17-1 on my page User:Ncchild/US 17-1. I usually edit for North Carolina, and I have been able to find both county and statewide maps to support US 17-1 in North Carolina. However, I cannot really find many for Virginia. I have been able to get by with some limited resources (VARoads, some extended portions of NC maps) but not much on its own. I checked the University of Alabama page but really didn't find anything in the 1930ish timeframe that would support a coherent route description. Does anyone have any ideas of websites I should check to find these maps. I know they exist because VARoads has pictures of them.-- Ncchild ( talk) 03:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
When used for an Alternate or Business U.S. route in Texas, the {{
jct}}
template seems to be generate extra periods in the link target, creating broken hyperlinks in junction lists. For example,
presently link to U.S. Route 90 Alternate .. (Texas) and U.S. Route 87 Business .. (Texas), respectively, rather than to the correct U.S. Route 90 Alternate (Texas) and U.S. Route 87 Business (Texas), respectively. I haven't dug deeper and am not certain if this is the case for any other class of route or for any state other than Texas. I'd rather not mess with the template directly, so if someone who is more savvy can take a look, it would be appreciated. -- Kinu t/ c 05:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed an odd issue with some of the pages on highways that are broken into sections by state. For some strange reason, the Infobox links for the terminus of several roads goes to the page for the entire route, not for the route section in Illinois, and only Illinois. I've fiddled with the formatting a few different ways and nothing seems to work. Look for instance on the pages for US Route 14 in Wisconsin or US Route 20 in Indiana and you'll see what I mean. I'm rather perplexed. Anybody have any ideas? Kalmbach ( talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. While looking something up just now, I'm seeing that links for Interstate business routes in Nevada created using {{
jct}} and {{
routelist row}} are redlinked where they weren't before. For example, {{jct|state=NV|BL|80|dab1=Reno–Sparks}} is producing:
I-80 BL – it appears the state is not being appended to the disambiguator. The same issue appears with the links in the second table on
List of Interstate Highways in Nevada. I'm seeing this both on an old desktop and my phone. I'm not savvy enough with the module coding to know if something has changed, so I'd appreciate if someone could take a look. Thanks!
LJ
↗
08:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that! LJ ↗ 06:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've started an article about the Ohio Manual of [sic] Uniform Traffic Control Devices that hopefully contains enough state-specific content to stand on its own. It would be neat to see a series of articles about each of the ten state editions of the MUTCD (but probably not for the other states' supplements). – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't edit in your area but noticed some of your articles have no table of contents.
insource:NOTOC intitle:highways currently gives 69 results. A few have a custom TOC or aren't in your project but some of them are long lists. I think there should be TOC's. {{
Horizontal TOC|limit=2}}
will take up less space.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
00:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed some road articles such as New Jersey Route 87, New Jersey Route 187, and Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector are using color-coded shading for destinations in the junction lists to mimic the color-coded wayfinding system for sections of Atlantic City, New Jersey. Should our junction lists really be using this color-coded shading or should it be removed? Dough 4872 23:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Interstate 70 in Colorado is a possible WP:TFA for March, but the "Future" section is not current. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you create 6087. Thank you TheGs2007 ( talk) 01:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects#Misnested tags, missing end tags, stripped tags and continue discussion there. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Howdy, there have been a recent spat of IP editors messing with the junction lists (and future sections) for several articles in the greater Phoenix area, probably about 6-10 affected articles. Most of these are related to the planned extension of Arizona State Route 303 to connect to Interstate 8 somewhere in the vicinity of Gila Bend, Arizona. I'm familiar with the area, but haven't been that way in years. I can vouch that the conversion of AZ-303 from a rural 2 lane road to a freeway belt route and bypass around the west side of the Phoenix Metro Area has been in the works since the 1990s, but plans have changed many times. In fact when I first saw the plans for AZ-303 they more resembled what AZ-202 now looks like with it's most recent addition. So clearly the specifics have changed. But someone is adding to the exit list with specific exit numbers and mile locations, implying the route has been finalized. Furthermore ADOT's website is shockingly empty on the expansion plans for AZ-303, in fact at the current projects, the only thing mentioned as ongoing is the conversion some at-grade intersections into interchanges on the opposite corner of the Phoenix metro area [11]. There's a couple of us that have been reverting these additions as we seen them on the grounds of unsourced or speculative. But can anybody who follows the news in Arizona comment if we are doing the right thing? Or in fact have the plans for AZ-303 been finalized to the point it is safe to start making these additions? Dave ( talk) 21:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
In the U.S. Bicycle Route 66 article, the OSM map of Missouri is showing, but nothing is highlighted. What's going on with it?-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The article U.S. Route 340 looks very messy, with a bunch of script errors. Can someone better than me at Wikipedia please help fix this? Thanks! -- Rockin ( Talk) 16:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I simplified the JSON file from 80k bytes to about 20k and I believe this fixed it. — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 01:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Errors like these are happening with a lot more frequency than they did in months past. We need to migrate our map data to Commons and Wikidata. For one, it's going to make our mapping available to other Wikipedias. It's also going to prevent errors like these from happening in the future. It's most important to get the national or auxiliary Interstate and U.S. Highways migrated first before we worry about state highways. I've already started working on Interstates a few months ago, but I never really made it public. I'll keep going on it and if you know how to create maps on Commons, I urge you to do the same. If you don't know how, but would like to, you can either ping me or talk to me on WP:DISCORD. – Fredddie ™ 04:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
This is in response to this reversion of my edit by User:Imzadi1979. Why is it the standard to use the parent interstate shield on Business routes of Interstate 84 and the other general business interstate highways articles? If I was a casual reader, I would be expecting the business loop shield and "Business" in the name header. Like I would with any other US highway article. I'm I missing something? Zzyzx11 ( talk) 00:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Location | |
---|---|
Country | United States |
Highway system | |
|type=BLBS
in Infobox road to get both shields. It should work with or without a state. –
Fredddie
™
18:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I propose changing the "Route description" header to "Route" across all the articles. Besides the unnecessary extra word, quite often people capitalize Description, which is a violation of MOS. -- Rs chen 7754 02:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to get rid of the row of articles called "State highway lists" and open up the supplemental road and rural secondary highway lists to all routes. Viridiscalculus did a great job of making the SU/RS and I think the RCS format is best suited for Kentucky. The state highway lists don't have a consistent format, nor do they seem to be useful to our readers. There is no article that explains Kentucky's state highway system, so that could be improved as well. Currently, between Starts and Stubs, there are 541 Kentucky highway articles that could potentially be merged into the lists. Also, the Kentucky articles that have been created recently seem to flaunt a 'loophole' that since they're not rural secondary or supplemental roads they are inherently notable for an article. – Fredddie ™ 20:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I thought about proposing this on {{
Infobox road}}
but I thought better to leave other WP/TFs to decide for themselves (lol), but I'd like to propose eliminating major intersections altogether from the infobox and just leave the two endpoints. As seen
above, there is some support already for this, but I want to get an opinion from everyone who sees this. We can also hash out details like what to call the section, or if we just merge it into Route information, and what to do with beltways. –
Fredddie
™
04:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Interstate 80 in Iowa | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I don't see any of this edit warring on anything in my watchlist, so I'm not familiar with the details of the problem. What articles have had this trouble recently? I'm wondering if there is a more-targeted way that this could be resolved. -- Sable232 ( talk) 22:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Can we have 10 more junctions for every highway in the US and rename it to the "20-Junction Limit" for each Highway in the US? Because some junctions are major and they are omitted from the major intersection box.
I was thinking is this was OK that if we can expand the major junction limit up to 20 and rename it to "The 20-Junction Limit"? And after that, the USRD allows the doubling more junctions to be listed to further these goals and no more than 20 junctions. The junction list is limited ONLY to Interstates, US Highways and major state-routes. It will say | on every highway in the US.
BenjaminTheTrainGuy ( talk) 04:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Benjamin Lew
What happened to all the route shields in the infoboxes and junction charts associated with New York State Route articles? They've all turned into "Invalid type:" redlinks. Even roads that begin and end at the New York State Line like New Jersey State Route 17 have this problem. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 15:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
On some states (the only one I can remember right now being Montana), when you use {{jct|state=MT|US-Byp|87|dab1=Lewistown}}, it produces the redlink:
US 87 Byp.. You have to add the state name (i.e., {{jct|state=MT|US-Byp|87|dab1=Lewistown}}) to produce the correct link:
US 87 Byp.. The other special route types need to be checked as well. Please, feel free to tweak the proper wiki markup for this section.
Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (
talk)
16:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
[Reposting this to make sure everyone is aware]
The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-roads has been shut down due to the situation with Freenode. Many other Wikimedia-related channels are going to be migrated other places. While most Wikimedia channels are going to another IRC server, most of the road editors have migrated to WP:DISCORD instead. -- Rs chen 7754 07:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm kinda shocked to find no list-article of Indian route (United States) roads, and no category for them either. I would like to link to coverage somewhere of " Indian Route 9" from article Black River Bridge (Carrizo, Arizona) (about the NRHP-listed deck truss bridge in Gila County, Arizona, coming to mainspace soon from Draft:Black River Bridge (Carrizo, Arizona)). And the road shows as "R-9" in Google maps, but there is no mention of it at R-9 or R9 disambiguation page, nor is it mentioned in List of highways numbered 9. What gives, wp:ROADsters? :) There does exist an Indian Reservation Roads Inventory linked from the Indian Reservation Roads Program article, which might provide the raw data needed, but it has counties numbered rather than named and is otherwise gibberish to me. Maybe there are IRR numbered roadss and BIA numbered roads? Or maybe everything about "IRR" needs to be updated to be "Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP)" instead, per this 2017 guide? WP:NRHP editors and others need for you to provide this kind of stuff! Please! -- Doncram ( talk) 15:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
For the last several months, an IP vandal has been vandalizing articles about Connecticut state highways by changing the endpoints. A typical set of edits has obvious vandalism, followed by a null edit to make vandalism detection harder. On a number of articles, they've made multiple rounds of vandalism. They tend to hop between IPs (see below), which has made getting them blocked rather difficult. I would greatly appreciate additional eyes on these articles to help control the vandalism. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
IPs used
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sorted 2 IPv4 addresses:
Sorted 6 IPv6 addresses:
|
And meanwhile WMF thinks this is a good idea. -- Rs chen 7754 05:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey everyone,
In my GA review of U.S. Route 117 the reviewer has brought up the redundancy of some of the special routes. These are routes that are formerly US 117A or US 117 Alternate routes but in 1960, NCDOT decided to switch many of them to business routes. The question was whether or not they should be consolidated into one special route under the present banner instead of keeping two for essentially the same route. I know this is something frequent across North Carolina but I'm not really sure what the policy is. Should they be split or combined with a mention to the former name in the "history paragraph".
Also, I apologize for bringing something relatively North Carolina-centric up in the main talk thread, but I felt like it could have larger implications so I wanted to consult with everyone. -- Ncchild ( talk) 19:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox road small}}
under the current iteration's heading. A sentence about why the designation changed would also be beneficial. –
Fredddie
™
03:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Popular pages-- Coin945 ( talk) 06:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
An editor has proposed removing the parentless three-digit U.S. Highways from {{
U.S. Routes}}
. Your input is welcomed. –
Fredddie
™
17:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:USRD has 11,036 Mid-importance articles and 2,236 Low-importance articles, according to the data table. On the ground, there are significantly more highways that have absolutely no national importance than highways with at least a little national importance, whereas the Wikipedia importance data suggests the opposite. As it is, the Mid category runs the gamut between transcontinental Interstate highways and 3-mile rural state highways that serve boat ramps. So I suggest we revisit our guidelines for importance. The last comprehensive change appears to have been in 2007, shortly after the system was set up. I propose we come up with a delineation between Mid and Low. Then we can gradually shift articles between categories. This will inform our efforts to reduce the number of stubs, which has remained around 1,500 since 2014. V C 22:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Crickets, so I am going to lay out a proposal for a Low–Mid importance split. There will be further discussion about the Mid–High split and some kind of split of the Low category. V C 00:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to why having most articles fall under Mid-importance is a problem. Granted, major national highways should be of higher importance, but logically there should be a lot of articles that "fill in more minor details" and/or are "only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area." But if that assessment system has been in place since 2007, before all the state-level projects were merged into USRD, would some articles be rated higher than would be expected as an artifact of having been assessed for a state project?
We should keep in mind that the purpose of importance assessment is to evaluate how critical the information in the article is relative to the rest of the topic, mostly for purposes of prioritizing work. The general guidelines for that (and the alternate version) don't quite fit with the structure of USRD but are worth noting.
I'd hesitate to add another importance class. I don't think it's necessary, don't think it would help us as editors, and don't think the project would be well served by assessing something as "Subject has no real significance to the project" - one would question the need for the article at all at that point.
The rating system should be reasonably simple and straightforward - too many caveats and if/then items will make it unwieldy and could cause confusion for some editors. I would propose a simpler system:
I admit, this will likely miss some special cases, but I'd rather err on the side of simplicity. I'm unsure on how state-level articles for High-importance U.S. highways should be assessed - I'm leaning towards High but would like to see other input. -- Sable232 ( talk) 15:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
What seems imperative to me is that the importance levels are defined in relation to the overall scope of the project and it's articles. Our current project scope really just says we maintain articles related to the highways and major roads of the U.S. Given the above discussion, perhaps the scope might be further refined as "maintaining articles of national, regional, local and historical significance to road and highway travel in the United States." With that in mind, here's my thoughts on an importance system:
I'm not married to this—I'm largely indifferent to reclassification of importance. But I'd agree with Sable232 that a simpler system is better, and wouldn't want to see a bunch of caveats that make things overly complex for some editors to interpret. And I realize some of the definitions and classifications at the mid and low levels might be a bit subjective too, but it's a starting point in the context of national importance... Such a classification scheme would likely move a lot of Nevada state highway articles from mid to low or bottom. -- LJ ↗ 21:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. In the sub-articles section of the notability guidelines, it says "do not create sub-articles for jurisdictions with short and/or unnotable spans without good reason." I understand that the argument could be made that not every state segment of a highway is notable enough to have its own article, but I think at least every U.S. Route should have such articles, because if the most in-depth the reader can go is only by reading the parent page that covers the whole highway rather than state-by-state, than the reader does not have access to things such as road junction lists or infoboxes.
For example, U.S. Route 191 does not have a separate page for the segment of US 191 in Wyoming, which denies the reader the ability to look at a road junction list for this section of US 191. This is because U.S. Routes come in one of two forms on Wikipedia:
One might notice that in order for all miles of the U.S. Highway system to be accounted for in terms of having road junction lists, it must be ensured that each U.S. Route is either the first type or the second type listed above, rather than a mix of each, as seen in the aforementioned U.S. Route 191 article, which along with its sub-articles, only provides road junction lists for U.S. Route 191 in Arizona, Utah, and Montana, but not Wyoming. If U.S. Route 191 only existed in Wyoming, said segment would surely have these details, but since it is longer, it doesn't get them? Also, state highways that are both shorter and less relevant than these types of U.S. Route segments always get articles with these details, but since a road is only a segment, despite being more important (U.S. Routes > State Highways), one has to defer to the less detailed parent page? An example is when I recently attempted to create the U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire page, but it was reverted to a redirect. At first, I figured that a rural 35 mile stretch of highway probably isn't relevant to have its own page, but then I realized that there are numerous articles for nearby New Hampshire state routes that are, again, shorter and less relevant, such as New Hampshire Route 110 and even New Hampshire Route 115A! Think about that, under the notability guidelines set up for highways, New Hampshire Route 115A has a road junction list on Wikipedia, but a reader searching for a road junction list for longer and more important U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire has to settle for a measly "major intersections list", a.k.a. glorified bullet points! This seems very unuseful and backward and was the main reason that I created the U.S. Route 191 in Arizona page about a year ago, which I guess has been deemed relevant due to it not being deleted for more than a year, proving that these guidelines can cause relevant such information to be left out.
To solve these problems, I propose that the notability guidelines for sub-articles be changed, specifically in the introduction to the sub-articles section that says "However, just because a highway spans multiple jurisdictions does not justify multiple articles... Similarly, just because one jurisdiction has a sub-article does not mean all jurisdictions are entitled to have sub-articles" could be changed by removing the part about how not every jurisdiction is entitled to have sub-articles. This would keep the part about how multi-state routes don't always need to be split up (e.g. while Interstate 66 passes through Virginia and DC, a page titled "Interstate 66 in the District of Columbia" would be very silly), while removing the part that causes the problems I have written about here.
Additionally, the second bullet point in the sub-article guidelines ("do not create sub-articles for jurisdictions with short and/or unnotable spans without good reason") could possibly be removed, and to combat the then theoretically-allowed creation of articles for multi-state Interstate Business Routes, it could be specified that you still shouldn't create sub-articles for those types of things, only that it's all or nothing when splitting up a U.S. Route or an Interstate (either you split a U.S. Route into ALL the states it passes through, or you leave it as one article, but either way, the reader should have access to the same level of detail, including road junction lists, for the entire highway).
I apologize if any of this sounded confrontational or rude, but with all due respect, I was upset that a page I spent hours working on ( U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire) was promptly deleted due to it not being notable enough, while if it was a page about an obscure state highway in the same state, it would somehow be more notable. Thank you. Azmjc02 ( talk) 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I made a big update to {{
Infobox road small}}
starting very early this morning. About 860 pages needed to be updated because they used |subtype=
. Now, syntax for special routes is the same as {{
Jct}}
. There may be a bug here or there that pops up, but I think everything's working how we want it to be working. Some of you have already let me know of a few problems and those have all been resolved. –
Fredddie
™
23:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox road}}
has not changed. You still need to use |subtype=
for special routes with the big infobox. –
Fredddie
™
23:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
Jct}}
. CR, CR-Alt, CR-Byp, CR-Old, etc. –
Fredddie
™
05:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
Jct}}
, and I didn't see that there. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
14:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to start this conversation to complain that everyone should stop adding I-94 to the I-35 junction list. The reason is because I-35 as a whole does not interact I-94 in the Minneapolis Multiplex. Just like how I 35 as a whole does not intersect interstate 20 and Interstate 30 in the Dallas-Fort Worth multiplex. I-35E and I-35W are treated as two different highways, even though they’re basically parts of I-35, but we don’t count interstate 94 and the junction of I-35 because it’s only intersected by I-35E and I-35W. We can always find a tenth junction of the Highway, but for now this doesn’t count. I tried to edit it like how I want to by being BOLD but a week later someone change the edit and now I feel like it’s necessary to create this talk page. Christopher Thompson ( talk) 15:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be some issues with the {{ maplink-road}} template as of late where only a blank map of the world is showing up as an article's infobox interactive map. It seems to be only affecting random articles with no readily apparent rhyme or reason behind why some work and others don't; examples are NJ 27 (not working) and NJ 28 (working). Are there any updates to what is going on with this or things we should do in the meantime (at least maybe when editing articles for other reasons, not solely to fix the map)? — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 21:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
Maplink-road}}
without checking to see if it was going to work. I've already fixed these two examples. Blank instances of that template rely on OSM data, which I don't consider to be very accurate. I've seen far too many examples of roads that don't line up with the maps at all. Anyway, you can add |raw=
or |from=
to {{
Maplink-road}}
just like you can to {{
Maplink}}
and it will work just fine. –
Fredddie
™
16:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Oklahoma went ahead and added numbers to the remainder of their unnumbered turnpikes this morning. I've already changed the text and uploaded new shields where appropriate, but could someone update the {{ infobox road}}/{{ jct}} machinery to display the numeric designations? We may also want to update the main infobox shields to display the appropriate meat cleavers, since they seem to have completely replaced the OTA-logo shields, on the Creek Turnpike and Muskogee Turnpike at least. I would {{ sofixit}} myself, but it's been long enough since I tinkered with infobox road that I forget how it works, and there's featured articles involved... — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Location | Oklahoma |
---|
Route information | |
---|---|
Maintained by Oklahoma Turnpike Authority | |
Location | |
Country | United States |
State | Oklahoma |
Highway system | |
|
|I|44
before the turnpike. An A/JWB run would take care of the rest however we want to do it. –
Fredddie
™
01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)So I recently noticed on Interstate 87 (North Carolina) that the historic I-495 section is now sporting the VA-MD Capital Beltway sign along with it. This appears to be an internal coding error that hopefully someone can fix. Thank you! -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 03:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The
I-85 article used to read While most interstates that end in a "5" are cross-country routes, I-85 is mainly a regional route, serving five southeastern states.
with no citation. I requested a citation by adding the CN tag, but it was removed. The statement was then revised to read I-85 serves five southeastern states:
Virginia,
North Carolina,
South Carolina,
Georgia, and
Alabama.
This is still a violation of OR because there should be a RS to be able to state that those states are indeed in a "Southeastern" region. Regions in the US are subjective, plus even the US Census' region designation does not use the name "Southeastern" for a region.
The immediately preceding statement is also OR: It is nominally north–south hence the number is odd, but it is physically oriented northeast–southwest and covers a larger east-west span than north-south.
I tagged it as CN also, but that tag was also removed.
It should be noted that Wikipedia does not have any provision that allows "obvious" statements to remain uncited. ( WP:DOCITEBLUE)
17:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
When I was messing around with {{
Infobox road small}}
last week, I edited a lot of truck routes. For a lot of them, particularly with the double-bannered types in Pennsylvania, the text was a boilerplate. To paraphrase, "Route X Alternate Truck was designated when Y Bridge over Z Creek along Route X was posted with a weight limit in Year A. The bridge was replaced in Year B and Route X Alternate Truck was decommissioned." Is that notable enough for a related route entry? –
Fredddie
™
01:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
My original concern with Dough's reply is that there is no such thing as a permanent truck route; long-term maybe, but not permanent. As we saw with the alternate truck routes, it just takes removing the restriction (by fixing a bridge) to remove a truck route. If PennDOT were to rebuild an overpass or reroute a highway around a town, those events would likely result in removing the truck route because the restriction was removed. There is no difference. – Fredddie ™ 05:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Dough4872, Viridiscalculus, and Fredddie: Sorry to bring an old topic to attention, but while I agree it would be awkward to leave truck routes out, there might be a way to mention some special routes that aren't sanctioned by AASHTO, yet are verifiably signed. Perhaps in the lede sections of these articles, or even under the "current routes" headings, there could be a single sentence stating "In addition to the officially-sanctioned routes below, an alternate truck route is posted in the community of x in order to bypass a weight-restricted bridge(reference)." That would acknowledge they exist while not treating them the same as the routes that are posted for a more permanent purpose or actual state highways.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
All three special routes of North Dakota Highway 23 have their own articles. I get that they're all state-maintained, but do each of these really have enough independent coverage to justify not covering them in a list?-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I added | map =
to an infobox for
Shoal Creek, Austin, Texas, which corresponds to
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Shoal_Creek_(Central_Texas).map BUT it's not showing up in the article. It shows up just fine on commons but not when embedded in the wikipedia article. It even shows up just fine on wikipedia when I edit the article and then preview the edit. It just doesn't show up when the wikipedia article is published. I don't understand!
TerraFrost (
talk)
21:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
{{maplink-road|from=Shoal Creek (Central Texas).map}}
I've created a draft at Draft:Special routes of U.S. Route 51. I'm wondering how I should interpret the major intersections of the route through Wausau since the northbound and southbound routes scatter across a bunch of one-way streets, and the northbound route is probably 1/2 mile longer than the southbound route. Any tips or publicly-accessible route logs?-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
There are missing shield files at List of state highways in North Carolina and List of suffixed Arkansas state highways. I poked around a couple of modules but did not find an easy way to make them appear. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
"The time allocated for running scripts has expired" has resurfaced to mess up intersection lists again. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 11:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I am about ready to deploy a Lua module for browselinks (you know, the Interstate Highway system links, state highway links, etc). If you could help me out by spot checking some articles by replacing {{
Infobox road}}
with {{
Infobox road/sandbox}}
(but not saving!) and then reporting back if you see anything strange, I would really appreciate it. –
Fredddie
™
06:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, so here's a question, I recently contacted NCDOT in regards of I-587 and what will happen with US 264. I got a response today that they plan to submit to the AASHTO Fall meeting a rerouting of US 264 and elimination a part of US 264 Alt; and they were even kind enough to provide me the draft files they intend to use in the submission. They hope to have this all done in 2022. So, how do I update this insider information on the article that meets referencing guidelines, should I upload the drafts someplace or would you all suggest another method? -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 02:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Your input is requested to resolve a disagreement. – Fredddie ™ 02:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This coming Friday afternoon, I'll be giving an online workshop at WikiConference North America on how to draw a basic SVG road sign diagram. The workshop will not be recorded, but I'll try to make some of the materials accessible on Commons for those who can't make it. Registration is free; please spread the word. Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Recently BMACS1002 ( talk · contribs) has made new maps for many highways. 100s of them are broken, such as: New York State Route 29, New York State Route 28A, New York State Route 10, New York State Route 5, New York State Route 7, etc. What should be done? - 420Traveler ( talk) 17:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox road}}
and {{
Maplink-road}}
from each state. –
Fredddie
™
00:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Other reference threads from December 2016, April 2021, Aug.-Sept. 2021 (WP:Graphics Lab)
Can we in the community decide on what type of maps to use as the interactive map to be displayed on roads' infoboxes? BMACS1002 ( talk · contribs) is keen on using OpenStreetMap (OSM) data for these articles but I feel that there have been lots of issues in the past, mostly with linework not displaying at seemingly random times. I have concerns about using an external source for direct displaying of Wikipedia data since OSM's editing/sourcing standards may be different than the WP:RS standards here. When the maps do work, the linework tends to be more blocky, often includes random segments (e.g. interchange ramps, potential old alignments), and often include divided highway segments when not necessarily needed. The main disadvantages of the Commons data from what I see is that it's not dynamic if new segment(s) of a route opens/gets decommissioned, also that once a map is initially added, the map doesn't appear for about an hour, which may confuse editors. BMACS cites a statement on their userpage about Kartographer (but provides no link to a WP-level page here) and includes a concern about redundancy/size of having both Commons and OSM data. Considering in the end the linework is just ones and zeros, with some reasonable manipulation of the data (reducing decimal precision to 5 places and/or generalization of the line itself), the data files can be brought down a couple thousand bytes ( I-90's .map file is 52,000 bytes for a 3000-mile-long route). — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 17:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
|defaultFrom="Example.map"
. Or would that be too much...? Also, can we agree on a color to label these roads? Maplink-road defaults to #ff0000, but I've been seeing a trend where people are liking a darker color. I don't care either way, but some consensus there would be nice. Looking forward to y'alls' thoughts!
BMACS1002 (
talk)
02:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Edited 2021-11-10 With the Opportunity Corridor opening a week from Friday (12) and the ribbon cutting just having happened, the article needs to be rewritten. I was going to start, but there are some issues to be addressed and I wanted to share them here first before I did any work on it.
Mapsax ( talk) 22:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
This uses the phrases "the new Opportunity Corridor Blvd.", "the Opportunity Corridor Blvd.", and "Opportunity Corridor Blvd.", no "the". It's still a bit vague but I guess that this is enough evidence to be able to use the last of the three, as I just have in the infobox.
I'd like to use this as a ref (primary source, I know) but perhaps I should use one from tomorrow or later that says it already opened.
Also, the infobox says "Maintained by ODOT". If this goes the way of other like roads in Ohio, it will be a road built by ODOT on the ODOT system but maintained by the city of Cleveland, so that line should probably be removed.
Mapsax ( talk) 00:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I say merge it Ronncoll ( talk) 02:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, Central Florida Expressway Authority, Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, and Kansas Turnpike Authority, among others, have long been marked as within USRD scope, but @ Fredddie: recently de-marked New York State Thruway Authority on the basis that it is out of scope. So are toll road authorities within USRD scope or are they not. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It's been a few weeks since I-182 was nominated, and reviews would be appreciated! I'm hoping to tie this into a featured topic about Interstate 82 (currently a Good topic candidate), so anything would help. Sounder Bruce 11:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
What does the group think about doing an interactive edit-a-thon where a group of us collaborate on Discord to work on an article. Voice chat, sharing screens, and good ole text chat are some of ways we can communicate. If it's successful, we could schedule an evening once a month or more often.
US 66 is the idea I had for the first article. – Fredddie ™ 07:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Official highway maps are available from the Minnesota Digital Library. Anyone want to have a crack at creating a template to cite them like Template:Cite WisDOT map?-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a parameter to the junction template like Jct|state=MO|US-AOTS|61 to {{ Jct}} in order to display the Avenue of the Saints graphic over the US 61 graphic for Missouri intersections? A parameter would be needed for Route 27 if U.S. Route 61 in Missouri and U.S. Route 136 in Missouri ever get their own articles as well.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Jct|state=MO|AOTS|27|AOTS|61}}
{{Jct|state=IA|AOTS||AOTS|27}}
Under what circumstances, if any, is it acceptable to have an "In popular culture" section in a road article? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
It's finally posted, [16]. -- Rs chen 7754 22:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Another heads up: this FLC for List of Interstate Highways in Washington needs a source review and another prose review or two. It'd be great to have a new FL for the project to start the year. Sounder Bruce 07:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Not a project member, but I was sifting through some of the GA-level North Carolina-related highway articles and I can't help but notice that most are built in their near-entirety off of maps, which are basically WP:PRIMARY sources, and are woven together via WP:SYNTH. Examples:
I am not disputing the factual accuracy of these articles per se, I am suggesting that they rely too heavily on primary sources that have to be woven together. There is a difference between having a newspaper article which directly says "In 1955 the highway was extended one mile" and having a map of the road in 1954 and another map from 1955 from which a Wikipedia editor calculates the difference in route length. Please remember WP:OR and WP:Verifiability, not truth. I hope my breakdown of the U.S. Route 76 article explains my points. Lots of assumptions are being made here, and even if they are good ones, they are still just assumptions and interpretations. - Indy beetle ( talk) 05:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California)#Requested move 17 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. It has been proposed to move Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) to Route 110 (California), as well as the similarly titled 238 and 710 articles to Route 238 (California) and Route 710 (California), respectively. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 08:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI, it may be time to start the Interstate 42 article. Two sections of the future route have been formally accepted into the system, though signage is not yet installed. See Here. -- Jayron 32 12:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Interstate 84 (Pennsylvania–Massachusetts) § Distribution link.
Treyhazard2001 (
talk)
06:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Today is the day, and while I am still working on the route description, the rewrite of the article is mostly complete and could really use some proof reading and any corrections before going live. The reason I'm posting here is because I want Interstate 40 Business (North Carolina) (and its talk page) into the history of the new Salem Parkway, currently in sandbox. I'm not good at moving articles, so after you all are comfortable with it, if you could go ahead and do that for me that would be great. Recent editors: @ Vchimpanzee:, @ Beejayhelper:, @ GretaLint: and @ Roadsguy:, please also share input. Thank you! -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
If no one else objects I won't either, but I still say if the name change was official all the sources would be saying "Salem Parkway is closed" rather than "Business 40 is closed".— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please fix Template:Infobox road/shield/USA so that 3-digit US routes in New York call "File:US X (NY).svg" as the shield since that style is used by the state? Dough 4872 03:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there has been a suggestion to split US 74 Bypass (Monroe Expressway) from Special routes of U.S. Route 74. Please consider sharing your opinion on the matter. Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 03:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I recently came across South Metro Express Lanes and my first response was "why does this even exist?" My opinion is that managed lanes should be incorporated in the main route article; but my opinion isn't gospel so what do other editors think about managed lanes, do they deserve their own articles? -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 15:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I recently created the article Washuotaku is so concerned about. I created it because there are other pages that are similar to it within the state. We are in a bit of a disagreement because they believe it is against this projects notability standards for the article to exist, while I obviously disagree, having spent some hours doing research on the page and creating it. I believe that the page meets the notability of Wikipedia per Wikipedia:PAGEDECIDE. Opinions aside, I think we need to decide if the notability standards of this project conflict with those of Wikipedia at large. Why do we have pages on interchanges? Why do we have pages on bridges? The managed lane projects are similar in scope to these pieces of engineering. Philosophy aside, if they are deemed to not conflict with the standards, then we should make sure and get rid of all managed lane pages to avoid further confusion. Best, Mccunicano ( talk) 09:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
One concern I have with the title of South Metro Express Lanes is that it doesn't tell us very much. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says that titles of articles should make the subject recognizable to someone who isn't familiar with the subject. Personally, I would move the article to South Metro Atlanta Express Lanes. "Metro Atlanta" seems like the most natural way to say it. – Fredddie ™ 14:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a proposed article renaming at Talk:New Jersey Route 179#Proposed rename: Route 179 (New Jersey – Pennsylvania). Dough 4872 18:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion taking place at Talk:Interstate 285 that people here may be interested in following. – Fredddie ™ 03:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added Category:Interstate 70 to the Interstate 470 disambiguation page. However, another editor keeps removing it. What is the project's stance on such circumstances? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 14:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I was out of town on Saturday. On my way back, I took US 1/ SR 4 from Tobacco Road to Barton Chapel Road. The entire path was also signed as SR 540, the highway number for the Fall Line Freeway, of which US 1/SR 4 from Wrens, Georgia to Augusta, Georgia is part. I looked online and found a news story that SR 540 is being signed in Columbus, Georgia. I did a Google search and found a picture of a SR 24 shield (didn't see where it was at) that had an SR 540 shield added alongside it. Does anyone know more about this? I tried finding the information on the Georgia Department of Transportation's website, but I couldn't find anything. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, there has been a suggestion to split the proposed I-885 from North Carolina Highway 147 to its own page. Please consider sharing your opinion on the matter. Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 06:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
A while back I tried to address the issue of material from Interstate 80 in Wyoming#Business routes being moved to Business routes of Interstate 80#Wyoming. I swiped most of the info from that segment in hidden text to each segment on the Business route article, but nobody else has taken the issue in the slightest consideration. So why has this been overlooked? --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 14:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on expanding History sections for Minnesota highway articles and referencing them to official or direct sources, as part of eventually improving them to B-class and beyond. Before I go much further, I'd like some feedback on what I've written thus far. It's difficult to tell whilst in the process of researching and writing how much is too much or too little (although the intricacy of each highway's history dictates much of that anyway).
The articles I've done so far are:
The last one I also expanded the route description as much as it could be. Any feedback on prose quality, if there's too much detail or not enough, or anything else would be appreciated. Thanks! -- Sable232 ( talk) 23:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that some of the List of special state routes in Georgia (U.S. state) have year-specific shields. However, if I try to change the type parameter to show them, I get a Lua error. What is the correct way to display these shields? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 01:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Can anybody think of the proper temporary commons category for "Snow Emergency Route" signs? For those who aren't from north of the Carolinas these are the types of signs I'm talking about. --
I'm just testing the waters with this one, but should we have some guidelines for |maint=
in {{
Infobox road}}
with regards to how many agencies should be listed? I was looking at
Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania), which has four maintaining agencies listed. I feel like 4 is excessive. –
Fredddie
™
22:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Could an uninvolved editor please close this ACR? Thanks. -- Rs chen 7754 22:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
As per WP:USRD/STDS#Major intersections, the major intersections section of the infobox should not list more than 10 intersections. However, I noticed in some of the California road articles recently, someone appears to bypassing this rule by combining all the major intersections in each city onto one line.
For example, currently on Interstate 5 in California, [1] there is the line on the infobox:
even though they are actually three separate interchanges. The East Los Angeles Interchange is only I-10, US 101 and SR 60, while SR 110 and SR 2 are each separate junctions.
Similarly on U.S. Route 101 in California, [2] there currently is in the infobox:
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/I-80_%281957%29.svg/24px-I-80_%281957%29.svg.png)
I-80 /
SR 1 in
San Francisco
even though I-80 never even meets with SR 1.
And currently on the infobox of California State Route 1, [3], there is
even though the are also actually separate interchanges.
So basically instead of literally listing 10 junctions, it really lists 10 cities with major junctions. Is this allowed, or should they be reverted? Zzyzx11 ( talk) 05:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Some editors keep added "to" entries to junctions in the infobox on the Interstate 87 (New York) page. I have been reverting them, since it is not procedure. Can some consensus from the project be reached about this? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 00:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Figured I'd post this here to reach more people and get their opinions on this. I think the current title is long and redundant; the new one would be shorter and simpler. Main discussion here: Talk:State highways deleted by the Utah State Legislature in 1969#Requested move 5 January 2019. Roadguy2 ( talk) 03:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I have been using the routelist templates on my sandbox to be able to add the special routes to the List of U.S. Highways in Georgia page. I have some problems. One, I want to be able to use year-specific shields. Two, I can't correctly add a temporary route. Could someone please fix the code so these work? Thank you. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 09:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
abbr = MI["US-Byp"].abbr,
" where MI
is used instead of GA
.
Johnuniq (
talk)
08:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Do it like this [4] and it will work. – Fredddie ™ 00:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
US 1926-Temp
is overkill. –
Fredddie
™
00:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
|country=USA
instead of |state=GA
for that one row. There's a different Lua module for national-level items, and it wouldn't have all of the fancy vintage stuff in it.
Imzadi 1979
→
17:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
There are three highways where I have recently seen back-and-forth editing and discussion in the talk pages about which cities should be listed in the intro:
Do we have a project-wide guideline for how many cities should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph of the article? I know there was discussion about the major cities box of the infobox, but I can't find anything about the introduction.
There seems to be a range of possibilities, since I-25 seems to include some smaller cities. Should it be just the biggest of the big? The ones with the most significant junctions? The ones with the largest population? One representative city per state? Obviously, there will be some variation—I mean, the I-90 intro is going to look vastly different from the I-97 one—but I'd like to get a reasonable degree of consistency in the articles—or at least get more eyes on the trouble spots I listed above. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I took a stab at a better concept: expanding the state and city listing in the lead of the I-75 article into a narrative summary of the RD]. There's still room for a bit of expansion there, just so long as people remember that the lead is a summary, not a replacement for the body of the article. As a side note, you can list more cities naturally in such text without turning it into a sentence that will not end. Imzadi 1979 → 15:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
And another such edit: [6] -- Rs chen 7754 06:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Hraines46: please join us in this conversation here and please revert your recent edits pushing extra cities into those long, listy sentences in the batch of articles you edited within the last 24 hours. Wikipedia operates on a consensus model, and because this situation applies to more than just one article, we're discussing it in a centralized place. You may not have seen direct replies at the individual article talk pages, but I know C.Fred mentioned on Talk:Interstate 75 that he was going to discuss the situation here. Imzadi 1979 → 14:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello? What is it? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hraines46 (
talk •
contribs)
16:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, you should take a look at WP:OVERLINK; we don't repeatedly link things in close proximity. For I-90, since "Seattle" is linked when it is first mentioned as a terminus, we wouldn't link any additional mentions of it in the lead.
On a side note, it would help a lot if you could do two things to follow proper talk page etiquette. First, indent your replies underneath others. My previous comments were preceded by three colons (:::
), each one adding an indentation. Your reply should have been preceded by four colons (::::
). You'll notice that my current reply has five (:::::
), so if you reply to this, you should use six (::::::
) colons to start your comments. Second, please end your comments with four tildes (~~~~
). This code will be replaced by your signature. This is important so that we know who is saying what. After your last comment, a bot had to insert a signature for you, but then you edited your comments and removed that, so I had to add it back. As noted on your talk page, you should always sign your posts on talk pages. These are two simple, but very important things to do with any discussion on a talk page.
Thank you, Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hraines46 (
talk •
contribs)
17:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
We are having an issue at Interstate 80 in New Jersey where an editor keeps adding cities to exit lists that are not on signs, which violates MOS:RJL. This editor has been constantly reverting me ( See history) by adding the cities that are not on signs. Can someone please take care of this issue? I do not want to revert again. Dough 4872 01:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Is there any way to add multiple "extra" parameters (such as "extra=airport") to a {{ Jct}} entry? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 00:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
{{jct|state=TX|extra=airport}}{{jct|state=TX|SH|151|extra=hospital}}
|extra=
look tacky, especially all the hospitals. Instead of trying to shoehorn the template to fit your needs, why not review what you're trying to convey to our readers? –
Fredddie
™
02:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor that is not a usual USRD editor removed Category:Proposed Interstate Highways from the Interstate 165 (Indiana) because it is no longer proposed. What I was wondering is this: Should the above category and the Category:Proposed U.S. Highways category be used on highways that were previously proposed but were later cancelled? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 00:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
After a discussion at Talk:U.S. Route 301 in Maryland, I noticed we never noted last exits before tolls in junction lists before, as in what is the last exit one would have to get off at before a toll road begins or before coming to a toll bridge or toll tunnel. In some states they note this on the green guide signs, usually in yellow on the bottom. I was wondering if we should start noting the last exit before tolls in junction lists in USRD articles. Dough 4872 04:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, A helpee in IRC help channel suggested that the information on tolls on articles: Florida State Road 408, Florida State Road 417, Florida State Road 429 are very old and need to be updated. Since I am unfamiliar with the information about tolls, could any of you guys have a look? Thanks! ‐‐ 1997kB ( talk) 12:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Some concerns over the neutrality of the above article were raised on my talk page here (I'll leave it when I archive on Friday). The OP's concerns appear, at least to my uninformed eye, to have some merit. I'm asking that any of you with interest or knowledge that would be pertinent to maybe look there with an eye to help. The OP was going to start a talk thread there, but doesn't seem to have done so yet. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 01:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
As of today, I-165 signs are being placed on the Natcher Parkway in Kentucky. [1] I just started updating relevant pages. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 01:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Just an fyi, my watchlist is getting pretty clogged, I'm going to gradually start unfollowing non-ohio highways and such. Cards84664 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
While browsing through the Glossary of road transport terms, (which I added a few terms to), I noticed that we don't currently have an article for Turn-off-to-stay-on (TOTSO), those scenarios where you have to exit to stay on the same highway. I think this would be a great addition to this Wikiproject, as we have a lot of examples here in the US. What do you all think? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 19:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
So, I haven't made a KML file in years, and after reading that you could seemingly easily create great quality KML files from Google Maps, I was interested in helping again. I made one for a small-ish route, Kentucky Route 399, at Template:Attached KML/Kentucky Route 399. In the article, the OSM map looks fine, but the template itself looks like a complete disaster, at least compared to other KML templates I made years prior, like Template:Attached KML/U.S. Virgin Islands Highway 38. Did I do something wrong? -- AmaryllisGardener talk 01:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Since Google and Bing removed their ability to show KMLs on their map platforms, I would suggest in addition to creating and placing the KML files to create the "interactive map" for these articles as well. Pennsylvania Route 155 is an article where I created one recently with the code for it located at Wikipedia:Map data/Wikipedia KML/Pennsylvania Route 155. You can almost take the code from there, swap out the new coordinates (making sure each point has enclosed brackets "[x, y], ...") and name and post. The centroid coordinates of the route can easily be found from clicking for WikiMiniAtlas in the top right corner, hitting the fullscreen button, and getting the lat/long from the URL of the popup window. This would then help reduce our maps backlog too. — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 13:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
How do we disambiguate locations in the {{ Jcttop}} template (and sub templates)? Some of the newly-made Kansas highway articles, using {{ KSinttop}}, are entirely within Grand River Township, Sedgwick County, Kansas, but the template links to Grand River Township, Kansas (which doesn't exist). Thank you. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 00:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to make this clear. The intro paragraph and the infobox imply the mainline ends at the GWB, and the RD says the mainline runs to Ridgefield Park where it "continues as I-95". The RD of Interstate 95 in New Jersey is split into "New Jersey Turnpike", covering up to US 46, and "George Wahsington Bridge Approach", continuing from there. I would definitely argue that the road from US 46 to the GWB is part of the turnpike, but is it part of the mainline, or just an extension (like the Pearl Harbor or Newark Bay extensions)? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 14:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:U.S. Route 50 in Maryland#Merger with Interstate 595 (Maryland). Dough 4872 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Can someone please fix the infobox shown here so that the banner shows? (May wanna do this for all banner types for the old SC shields). Dough 4872 03:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
In Minnesota State Highway 7, Wooddale Avenue in St. Louis Park is listed as a "major" intersection, but Texas Avenue is omitted, as is Louisiana Avenue. Texas seems more "major" than Wooddale by common-sense standards. Are there some standards to determine which ones are "major"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I created {{ Cite NDOT map}} earlier tonight to simplify the addition of Nevada's historic highway maps as citations in articles. Please feel free to start using it as appropriate. In the future, the citation information contained within the template can be updated to add missing details, such as the OCLC numbers for each map, and deploying the template to articles now means they'll be updated as details within the template are updated. Imzadi 1979 → 01:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I created a draft earlier this month that combines all of the state-detail articles related to U.S. Route 522 into one article. The entire route is just over 300 miles, so the result isn't that long. I was hoping some people would see the merger request and comment, but that hasn't been the case. – Fredddie ™ 04:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey, the ongoing AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state trunkline highways in Michigan serving parks is a trainwreck going towards "delete" decision against my own view. If there are any ROADS enthusiasts who wish to pile on and crush the opposition (me) with some bureaucratic push, I guess you are welcome to do so. Perhaps this posting will just get me slammed harder, faster, oh well. :(
However, I happen to think that "highways built to serve parks" is a valid type of topic (and hence list-article). If you could possibly be open to understanding that purpose and type of Wikipedia work, I would surely welcome your participation in the AFD.
And whether the AFD succeeds or not in destroying coverage of the topic for the state of Michigan, I would welcome further discussion and development of the general topic nation-wide. I am not a certified member of WikiProject U.S. Roads, but I think I have some common sense and some general knowledge that is relevant (see the AFD), and IMHO it does seem useful for Wikipedia to cover the general topic area of highways co-evolved with parks. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
{Note: I am not posting this at
the Shields Page because it isn't exactly a request for shields; but, if it's more appropriate there, feel free to move it - thx.}
So, editors of Puerto Rico road articles have identified 2 problems that merit attention:
[1] There are shields stored in Commons here that would never be shields seen on a Puerto Rico road because they don't derive from the the PR Government official documents ( this one (pp. 1,2) and this one p. 1-2, section 1-03.01) that establish the guidelines for route numbering in PR. A sampling of some such "invalid" shields (there are many, many others) are:
This creates the problem that editors, having access to using files from Commons, post such invalid shields in Puerto Rico road articles even though such shields don't actually exist in real life, and create road articles that do not inform, but instead confuse, readers.
Proposal: While a temporary solution to this would be to delete all such invalid shields from Commons, a more permanent, more robust approach is needed so that such invalid shields will not be re-created in the future in the first place. We think the best solution is to either (a) for the USRD team to implement internal procedures whereby requests for such shields aren't honored in the future or (b) to integrate logic into the bot ( here) that currently aids in the shield-creation process so that it will not allow for the creation of such invalid shields any longer. Then, also, to delete all the invalid shields from Commons. Of course, we are open to your suggestions and advise as to alternate solutions.
[2] Well-intended editors make changes to the Infobox road's "type" field turning what was a correct shield display into an incorrect one. We have traced the culprit in this problem to be the lack of restrictions (i.e., lack of controls) in the Infobox road "type" field. When we say "lack of restrictions" we mean that, in spite of whichever route number is specified in the "route=" field (remember, there is a govt-established correlation between route number and shield design) editors can still enter into the Infobox's "type" field whichever of the 5 road network options that have been defined ("Pri", "Sec", Ter", "Urban" or "PR" [this last one, displays shields for all 4 networks -- which is fine since, in Puerto Rico, a route may change networks and preserve its route number, for example, PR-1]). As long as the shield(s) exist(s) in Commons (again, here), the Infobox will display it (them).
To illustrate, PR-100 is a Secondary Network route, yet it has this primary shield in the Puerto Rico Commons categories, here. This invalid shield exists in the Commons categories even though PR-100 is not a Primary Network route number, but a Secondary Network route number. Now, if were to populate the "type" field for PR-100 with "PR" (the code to display all shields with that route number on it, regardless of their design), the (invalid) Primary Network shield for route 100 would appear next to the valid secondary Network shield, this one. Such display would be incorrect because PR-100 doesn't belong to the primary network, but to the Secondary Network only. To illustrate further, PR-511 is a tertiary Network road, but it has a secondary shield stored in Commons. If we were to populate the "type" field with "PR", the (invalid) Secondary Network shield for route 511 would appear next to the valid tertiary network shield, this one. Again, such display would be incorrect because PR-511 is not part of the Secondary Network, but part of the Tertiary Network.
This creates the problem that editors create Puerto Rico road articles where there is disagreement between the route number and the Road Network shield type.
Proposal: We believe the solution to this second problem is to introduce logic into the Infobox road for cases where state=PR to enforce the following restrictions:
Thanks, Mercy11 ( talk) 00:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the first proposal as well if the bot can be programmed that way, although I don't know how anyone could be prevented from creating one manually. I know it's nearly impossible to get anything deleted from Commons no matter how unusable it is, so that problem might persist indefinitely. -- Sable232 ( talk) 01:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
|state=PR
|type=Sec
|route=107
is set, the template will look for
File:PR secondary 107.svg. The categorization does not matter. The rest of your post above does not apply. The template coding only looks at the file name and doesn't know about any categorization scheme. It also doesn't matter if the file is on Commons or hosted here locally; if it exists and matches what the template expects, it will display it.
Imzadi 1979
→
02:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
|type=PR
for everything when we really didn't need to. –
Fredddie
™
02:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I have a couple ideas that could work.
Extended content
|
---|
|type=PR
. We would create
Template:Infobox road/shieldmain/USA/PR which would facilitate this. One difficulty with this was is that we'd have to know what classification each highway falls into. –
Fredddie
™
16:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)| marker_image = [[Urban shield filename here]]
to manually add the Urban primary signs, as needed, into the infobox so the urban will display. Will that work?
Mercy11 (
talk)
22:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Yarfpr, I had a math vacuum moment!
IAE, above, you also said,
"On the other hand, the PDF shared by Mercy11 would imply the following: P or PU for roads between 1 and 99, S or SU for roads between 100 and 299, and T or TU for roads between 300 and 9999, [as opposed to P, PS, PT, PU, PST, PSU, PTU and PSTU for roads between 1 and 99; S, ST, SU and STU for roads between 100 and 299, and T, U, and TU for for roads between 300 and 9999]. At this moment I don't know which one option should be the best."
I wanted to make it clear that I do support the Option that allows editors to display, for example, for
PR-3, shields from the set of {P, PS, PT, PU, PST, PSU, PTU and PSTU} and not just the shield from the set {P}. IMO, that is the best option. That is, I support the idea that whatever change or enhancement is requested of the Template editors that it will allow us to continue to display for PR-3 this:
, and not just this:
. I think this way the system accommodates itself to what is a stated government fact in Puerto Rico road design (and a PR road reality) that "a route can change networks and still maintain its route number."
Anyway, I had suggested above that we could submit an Infobox road Template edit request here (which, btw, already has code specific to some other regions, like Canada, Australia, and Mexico), to introduce logic into the Infobox road template for cases where state=PR to enforce the following 4 Restrictions (the last 2 aren't really restrictions, but are there for completeness purposes):
Extended content
|
---|
But this added logic is different from Fredddie's/Yamil's New List of 11 new types (the first 4 below are the ones already existing, but the last 11 (7+3+1) are the new ones proposed by Freddie and Yamil):
which is equivalent to Fredddie's proposal above, namely this one (I've added Yarfpr's "11th" observation so as to include all 11 cases):
|
Point begin, whereas the first set (let's call it Mercy's 4-piece set, for now) enforces a set of Restrictions (which is, I believe, what's really needed in this Puerto Rico road shields "wild, wild West"), the second set of logic (let's call it Fredddie's/Yamil's 11-piece set, for now) doesn't enforce anything; the second set instead states what you want the infobox to display and, as such, the problem of displaying Invalid Shields would continue to be perpetuated. This would be the case because F/Y's approach is only asking for the addition of more types so that an editor (informed or vandal) can control what gets displayed more easily, that is, can control what gets displayed by tweaking the template "type" field as opposed to "playing" the add/remove shields games from the Commons depository. This happens because F/Y's suggestion when implemented would continue to be driven by what is to be available in Commons. Notice that under F/Y's approach the editor (whether the well-intended or the vandal) is still in control by playing around with the 15 types, whereas with the Restrictions approach that I am proposing, much of the ability of the editor has been taken away ("restricted") to what the Govt has said what the look of the shields should be based on the route#. (BTW, we shouldn't confuse this with "Oh, so now PR-1 will only display 1 shield, not 4". That's concept isn't touched at all by the Restrictions. The Restrictions say "for type=P, display the Primary Network road shield only if there is a number 1-99 in the 'route=' field". The Restrictions Do Not say "for type=P, display only the Primary Network road shield existing in Commons that corresponds to the number in the 'route=' field". What to display isn't the job of the Restrictions; that will continue to be the job of the type field. In other words, the type field with the new 15 total shield/shield combo types allow for the display of specified shields, whereas the Restrictions keep Invalid Shields from being displayed (e.g., with Restrictions, the Infobox will not display a Primary shield for PR-500, if an (uninformed or vandal) editor specified type=P for route=500).
That is, Mercy's 4-piece Restriction logic set tells the template to "display from this such-and-such subset only (i.e., the subset "filtered in" by the Restrictions) out of the entire PR road shields universe", but Fredddie's/Yamil's 11-piece logic set tells the template to "display from the entire PR road shields universe, but only the one(s) in the type(s) being specified".
So, under F/Y's approach, if the editor has the parameters populated as follows,
state=PR
route=503
type=ST,
The result would still be the undesirable secondary shield
and the desired tertiary
.
This is because these are all Puerto Rico shields available in Commons with those route numbers, and this logic just says what to display, and not what not to display. So note there is a Secondary shield bc it was present in Commons, perpetuating the presence of Invalid Shields (Routes 300 thru 9999, like Rt 503 are tertiary, not secondary) in the Infoboxes.
Yet, under Mercy's suggested approach, if an editor has populated the template with the same options as before:
state=PR
route=503
type=ST,
The result would be the tertiary
(as desired)
because there would already be logic hardwired into the template to filter out (i.e., to ignore) all Primary shields (bc route#502 isn't in {0<Rt#<100}) and all the Secondary shields (bc the route# isn't in {0<Rt#<300}). Note that there is no Secondary shield displayed even though the type was specified as "ST" (by a uninformed editor or vandal, obviously), bc the Restrictions filtered out the Secondary shield. This means, imo, that if we implement the Restrictions, we can populate Commons with all 9,999 x 4 shields, to include shields for all possible roads 1-9999 for each of the four networks, and then, use only Restrictions and only the current types (Pri, Sec, Ter, Urban, and PR), and by specifying "PR" for any route number and, because Restrictions are in place, roads numbered 1-99 will automatically display all 4 shields (P, S, T, U), roads 100-299 will display 3 shields (Sec, Ter, Urban), roads 300-9999 will display 2 shields (Ter and Urban). Of course, we would still need the availability of P, S, T, and Urban types to account for real-life exceptions (like
PR-52 which is only a primary network road in all its length.)
So it seems that what we should really ask for is both, for the addition of the 4 Restrictions and for the addition of the 11 new types. Mercy11 ( talk) 04:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
{{Infobox road/shieldmain/USA/PR|route=1}}
→
{{Infobox road/shieldmain/USA/PR|route=100}}
→
{{Infobox road/shieldmain/USA/PR|route=300}}
→
OK last question before I can feel confident about my coding. Are there any highways that do not fall into the range that they should fall into? For example, it seems PR-9919 is only urban primary. – Fredddie ™ 19:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
One more. In what order should the shields be? PSTU? PUST? – Fredddie ™ 19:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
|type=PR
is using this code. –
Fredddie
™
00:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, the ongoing AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state trunkline highways in Michigan serving parks is a trainwreck going towards "delete" decision against my own view. If there are any ROADS enthusiasts who wish to pile on and crush the opposition (me) with some bureaucratic push, I guess you are welcome to do so. Perhaps this posting will just get me slammed harder, faster, oh well. :(
However, I happen to think that "highways built to serve parks" is a valid type of topic (and hence list-article). If you could possibly be open to understanding that purpose and type of Wikipedia work, I would surely welcome your participation in the AFD.
And whether the AFD succeeds or not in destroying coverage of the topic for the state of Michigan, I would welcome further discussion and development of the general topic nation-wide. I am not a certified member of WikiProject U.S. Roads, but I think I have some common sense and some general knowledge that is relevant (see the AFD), and IMHO it does seem useful for Wikipedia to cover the general topic area of highways co-evolved with parks. -- Doncram ( talk) 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you guys have standards as to the ordering of "major junctions" section of the Template road? That is, do they flow (from top to bottom on the web page) from N->S or from S->N? From W->E or from E->W? If the flow is circular, Clockwise/CCW from N to S, or CW/CCW from S to N? Or you have no such standards? Mercy11 ( talk) 01:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
|direction_a=
and |direction_b=
blank and it'll say From: Point A; To: Point B. –
Fredddie
™
03:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Just a reminder that we do have 2 open A-Class reviews. Our A-Class review helps to prepare an article for the featured article process. With the shortage of nominations from our project recently, we will run out of articles that can be run on the Main Page in about 2 years. -- Rs chen 7754 16:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
This is pretty straightforward for highways like Interstate 287, where we call the terminus at the NJTP the "South end", being geographically south of the other terminus. Likewise, the terminus in NY is called the "East end", which is in fact east of the other terminus. But Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania) is not as straightforward. The "West end" is geographically east of the "South end". Is there any guideline for naming the termini of highways that change cardinal directions along the route? One highway, Arizona State Route 101 uses "CW" (clockwise) and "CCW" (counterclockwise). I'm not sure where the guideline specifying that is, but it somehow stuck. On the other hand, Interstate 295 (Virginia) labels the terminus at I-64 as the "North end", despite the segment geographically west of I-95 not being signed with cardinal directions. What is the best way to go about all of these scenarios? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 21:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
|terminus_a=
and |terminus_b=
, respectively. –
Fredddie
™
22:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)The "2019 Spring Meeting Report to the Council on Highways and Streets" by the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering at AASHTO has been located online. They approved 33 items, and we've got them listed at WP:USRD/AASHTO. The report has been added to {{ AASHTO minutes}}, but they haven't published the report on their website; it is still being hosted through the auspices of a third-party conference website at the moment.
Also, I'd like to remind editors that we could use some eyes over on Wikisource to complete validation of the transcriptions of old AASHO/AASHTO minutes. If you look at {{ AASHTO minutes/testcases}}, any of the citations up to 1988 [a] that link to a PDF on Commons still need validation on Wikisource so that we can switch the citation over.
Validation is easy. I've written up a set of instructions here. If you have any questions, please let me know. Imzadi 1979 → 19:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
References
FYI, see Talk:Puerto_Rico_Highway_103. -- The Eloquent Peasant ( talk) 04:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you remember the last time we had an assessment audit? Hint: it was early in this decade. So it's time that we do it again. I'm not saying we should drop everything and go audit-crazy like we did back then, but I think it's a good idea to shine a light on some of the states that don't (or didn't) have a regular editor. – Fredddie ™ 02:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the old AASHO/AASHTO minutes, we have a small handful of other documents that need validations.
Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Moabdave and Highway 89 and any other Utah editors I missed:
I created a draft to replace List of state highways serving Utah state parks and institutions and I wanted your opinions before I take it live. I replaced the table with WP:USRD/RCS entries and then added a routelist table to the top in order to keep the sorting that the previous table had. – Fredddie ™ 02:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't recall this having been discussed before, and if it was it probably wasn't recently. In any case, it's Minnesota-specific.
Should county state-aid highways be referred to in text as "CSAH" or "County Road"? I've been seeing a lot of recent edits like this which have me wondering. "CSAH" ("see-saw"?) is not common vernacular and the vast majority of people would say simply "County Road x", so I'd lean towards using that outside of junction lists, but I know that specificity is sometimes preferred instead. Thoughts? -- Sable232 ( talk) 00:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Redirects Interstate 102, Interstate 106 (California), Interstate 109 and Interstate 113 have been nominated for deletion, the discussions are all listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 19. You are invited to leave your comments there. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 87 (New York)#Major Deegan merge Needforspeed888 ( talk) 00:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I've been monitoring
Category:U.S. road articles needing attention for some time and realized that it had become sort of a catch-all for articles that nobody wants to work on. Quite a few articles were in decent shape, so I made the
BOLD decision to empty the category and start over. I tried make the attention flags and categories more intuitive. I started by editing the banner to no longer sort pages needing attention by state or topic. I also placed some maintenance categories under the attention category. As it is now, the attention category lists categories with articles that need a pair of eyes to look at them. You can still add the attention flag to articles, but if possible, I would use the other parameters listed on {{
WikiProject U.S. Roads}}
first. –
Fredddie
™
03:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
US 70 routing changed last year in Beaufort, North Carolina and a business loop was signed. However, NCDOT documentation doesn't correlate with the business route signing. I contacted NCDOT and after a few weeks got a response that the business route was incorrectly signed and gave documentation of its correct SR designations.
So the question is how go about updating the article: do we remove it completely, leave as is, update as discontinued, update as proposed or other? -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 13:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I already posted this issue in the commons, but I really need a clear definition of all the types of street name signs used in some of the more specific sections of New York City in order to diffuse that category. The pre-1984 borough-specific colors would've been much easier to deal with by comparison. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 03:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania) has the previous route for the PA browse as PA 294; similar situations exist for "neighboring" routes. Having redlinks in browsing seems to defeat the purpose of browsing. What should be done here? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 01:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Interstate 69 in Indiana#Merger proposal Needforspeed888 ( talk) 00:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is ongoing at Talk:List of state highway loops in Texas (1–99)#Name change on whether the RCS lists of Texas state highway loops and spurs (pursuant to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 23#Texas loops and spurs) should be separated into separate loop and spur list series or combined into one series for both. - happy 5214 01:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Merge proposal being discussed at Talk:U.S. Route 44#Proposed merge with U.S. Route 44 in New York has been rumbling on for a year; any able to help finish it off? Klbrain ( talk) 05:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Where did the directional and "To" banners in the "Major intersections" and "Exit list" tables disappear to? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 06:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering. The Routelist templates have the capability to call the local street names for highways, using the "local" parameter. Should that be only for names that are on the entire path, like the "alternate_name" parameter in the infobox, or every single local name? With long highways, that could be a lot of names. Also, exactly how does that parameter get used? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Should the lead include the colloquial names of highways when it is just the last word of the full name? We see this for ones like the Garden State Parkway (the Parkway), the New Jersey Turnpike (the Turnpike) and the New York State Thruway (the Thruway). While these definitely are the colloquial names for these highways, is it worth including these in the lead? I'm sure the Pennsylvania and Ohio Turnpikes are referred to by locals as "the Turnpike" but it is not indicated in those articles, presumably because the writers figured those should be implied. Mentioning colloquial names that can't be assumed from the full name (e.g. the Mid-County Expressway as "the Blue Route" or Penn-Lincoln Parkway as "Parkway West/East") I fully understand. But as for the more obvious ones?... Needforspeed888 ( talk) 23:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if it is related to changes made by Fredddie (shown at the top of related changes) but Alabama State Route 14 is now broken showing "The time allocated for running scripts has expired" everywhere. Frietjes ( talk) 22:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
Mapframe}}
. There must have been a glitch in the Matrix because these just popped up recently. –
Fredddie
™
03:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I edited the Map Data files for AL 14 and US 20 (IL), the old file sizes were 88,613 bytes and 86,689 bytes respectively. Using QGIS to simplify the geometries of the files (converting the points into a KML then using a tolerance of 0.00013 under Vector>Geometry tools>Simplify), I got the files down to 13,506 and 36,336 respectively. Upon bringing back the old formatting of the interactive maps in the articles' infoboxes, the maps displayed normally. Maybe this is an issue of the Map Data file sizes? — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 17:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Please help give this whatever adornments it needs. Mapsax ( talk) 14:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been having numerous editing conflicts with another user in regards to tge major intersections tables on U.S. Route 70 in Arizona and U.S. Route 95 in Arizona. I put the mileage down in respects to the official posted mileposts along each highway and said user keeps removing those changes on the US 95 article to reflect the total mileage of US 95. I prefer the official mileposts as ADOT data and logs generally use those over mileage totals or make the mileposts dominant. Another issue on both articles is the other user keeps removing the Gila River crossings from the tables. The Gila River is a major tributary in Arizona, is a major geographic landmark and has historical significance in the form of serving as multiple geopolitical boundaries. Arguably, the Gila River is to southern Arizona what the Red River is to northern Louisiana. Another recurring issue is the constant removal of Imperial Dam Road from the US 95 major intersections table. That road serves as the main access road to the Yuma Proving Grounds, GM test track, is the main road across the Laguna Dam and is the Arizona continuation of CR S24 from California. Lastly, the largest issue is the removal of the concurrency northbound US 95 has with US 95 Truck in San Luis. ADOT GIS data, field signage and Google Street View clearly show US 95 northbound has been moved off Main Street south of Juan Sanchez Boulevard and onto US 95 Truck/William Brooks Avenue. US 95 Southbound now uses Archibald Street ajd Urtuzuastegui Street south of Juan Sanchez Boulevard. I'm tired of having these constant conflicts and would like to settle the matter. I would like to discuss this issue here so we may set or decide on a definitive standard for how the major intersections table should look on Arizona highways. — MatthewAnderson707 ( talk| sandbox) 07:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone made the Draft:Interstate 880 (Iowa) page. Can someone verify if this is a real proposal? I would have tagged it for deletion, but I wanted your input. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 23:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The article List of temporary Interstate Highways has been unsourced since creation in 2005 and hasn't gotten an iota of TLC. Some of these are so short-lived that they probably didn't even appear on any maps. What should be done with this list? Does anyone want to clean it up? Should it be deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 18:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
A map was added to the Florida State Road 113 (SR 113) page. It's incorrect, however. The approximate 0.4 miles (0.64 km) at the southern end is not part of SR 113. It is actually part of SR 115. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 08:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I'll be adding this link to our resources section [7] It's a Federal Railroad Administration GIS data that features rail track owners and subdivisions. This information is more easily obtained from Open Street Map, but here's a reliable source that meets Wikipedia's standards for names of specific railroad tracks. This isn't perfect as it lists the subdivision of the line, not the line's name itself. Some subdivisions have articles (i.e. Lakeside Subdivision), some have redirects to the name of the line (i.e. Sharp Subdivision ) but most are still red links. But at least that's better than what many USRD articles do in their descriptions with generic descriptions like "the highway crosses the Union Pacific Railroad", which is about as helpful as saying "crosses a state route". Dave ( talk) 18:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Portal:Maryland roads, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Maryland roads and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Portal:Maryland roads during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Guilherme Burn (
talk)
17:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Georgia guy turned the Interstate 335 disambiguation page into a redirect to Kansas Turnpike#Emporia to Topeka. I reverted his edit, but he reverted it back. I don't want to cause an edit war. What is the project's opinion on this? Interstate 335 (Minnesota) was a proposed highway, so there could be a disambiguation page. If not, put a hatnote on each page. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 11:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
In case anyone here has any comments, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:County 15.png 2 and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:County 20.png 2. -- Sable232 ( talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The U.S. Route 422 article is showing an error message “The time allocated for running scripts has expired” all over the article in place of the infobox and major intersections. Dough 4872 02:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I know we use the auxiliary route parameter in the infobox for three-digit Interstate and US routes to indicate what route they are an auxiliary route of. For example, U.S. Route 113 indicates that it is an US 13 in the infobox. In Pennsylvania, there are several three-digit state routes that are auxiliary routes of two-digit state routes both past and present. For example, Pennsylvania Route 332 is related to Pennsylvania Route 32 and Pennsylvania Route 662 is related to the former Pennsylvania Route 62 (now Pennsylvania Route 100). Not all three-digit Pennsylvania state routes are related to a two-digit route. For example, Pennsylvania Route 863 was numbered to provide a connection to I-78 and is not related to Pennsylvania Route 63. Should we use the auxiliary route parameter for three-digit Pennsylvania state routes that are related to a two-digit route? Dough 4872 01:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow editors! I have requested a peer review for Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector, which is currently a good article. I hope to nominate it as a featured article once I get some feedback on the article. I would appreciate any comments for review! Thank you. – Dream out loud ( talk) 12:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I just removed what seemed like a grossly invalid CSD tag (the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant) from Glendora Curve given there is a clear place name notability claim; it's even linked from California State Route 57. I also improved the stub a bit while there...don't know much about roads, but I hope I did the right thing! Thanks, PK650 ( talk) 03:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I have restored List of highways bypassed by Interstate Highways to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/List of highways bypassed by Interstate Highways as requested by User:WikiWarrior9919 and suggested by others. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
After 8 months of no comments at ACR, Washington State Route 504 was then nominated at FAC and failed. It seems that our ACR process is failing because nobody is reviewing. Do we want an ACR process anymore? Forgive me for being blunt, but do we care? -- Rs chen 7754 21:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
As the Milestone and Highway location marker articles have evolved, they've taken on overlapping information. This appears mostly to have been influenced by the different countries involved. I've seen this issue before with other similar article pairings, such as those using MUTCD terms vs. Vienna Convention ones, but this example seems especially complicated. I'm not going so far as to make a merge request because I don't believe that either article needs to go away completely. What to do? Mapsax ( talk) 02:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The name of Category:Roads in Savannah, Georgia would seem to indicate that it contains roads only in Savannah itself, but the category has a "lead" that says that it is supposed to contain highways in the metropolitan area, including areas in South Carolina. However, all pages are on the Georgia side, and only in Savannah. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 17:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In Category:Jefferson Davis Highway, the pages there have differently-formatted names. What is the proper format of highway marker names? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 17:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Another editor claimed in an edit summary recently that using Google Maps for distances violates WP:OR. I've seen it in use across many articles (plus there's an entire template for it) so I've been using it to add mileages when official resources either do not exist or do not have data for a specific intersection/exit, and have been under the impression that this is acceptable. — C16SH ( speak up) 14:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Is it considered standard practice to add service, rest, and parking areas to mileage tables? I have seen them on some articles, but not others. HighwayTyper ( talk) 00:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Service areas; if multiple exist, limit those displayed to those of historical or other significance or notability.
Many times in the past year or so, the Garden State Parkway has been included as a major junction in the infoboxes for Interstate 87 (New York), Interstate 287, and the New York State Thruway. When I have seen this, I have generally removed it because, as we all know, the Garden State Parkway ends at the NJ-NY state line, where it becomes the Garden State Parkway Connector, which is a component of the Thruway. That said, we seem to have no problem including I-81 and I-99 in the infobox for the Pennsylvania Turnpike, even though the turnpike does not directly connect with those roadways, because, as @ Dough4872: pointed out, "even if connection is indirect, both are signed from the turnpike." Does this mean it's okay to include the GSP in the infoboxes for the three aforementioned roads, being that the signs say "Garden State Parkway"? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 22:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Category:Redirects from route numbers and Template:R from route number, which involve US roads, have been nominated for possible deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure how many of you are watching the Canada project, but the above article could cause Canada to lose a Good Topic if it is not brought to GA soon. -- Rs chen 7754 19:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Btphelps: started the California State Route 1 (Big Sur) page. This is not proper practice. Shouldn't it be merged into California State Route 1? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 08:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
That is the point, the Big Sur region of Highway 1 has a distinct identity. — btphelps ( talk to me) ( what I've done) 16:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
How about Pacific Coast Highway Big Sur as a title? — btphelps ( talk to me) ( what I've done) 05:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at the chart at WP:USRD/AASHTO to find when US-25 in Ohio and Michigan was eliminated by AASHTO and didn't see anything, so assuming an oversight I checked the minutes from 1972 to 1974 myself and saw nothing. The U.S. Route 25 in Michigan article uses a newspaper article as a reference, and U.S. Route 25 in Ohio uses the official map archive. Could it have been an agreement between Michigan and Ohio that slipped under AASHTO's radar? Did I just not look far enough in the archives because perhaps AASHTO had a delayed ruling? Mapsax ( talk) 02:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
See discussion above. -- Rs chen 7754 04:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I need some interjection here because I'm currently in a edit war with an IP address. At center is Interstate 40 in North Carolina; the IP address keeps adding a paragraph regarding the route changes for US 70, Business 85 and other routes that happen to overlap with I-40. I keep removing it because that is going off-topic as each route has their own article explains it, I do not see the value of the redundancy for a route not impacted. So who's right, who's wrong... can someone please weigh in on this? Thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 19:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
The MDSHA recently released the 2018 edition of the Highway Location Reference. The links for the 2018 edition of the HLR follow a different scheme than the 1999-2016 editions (see here for the links). Can someone who is good with templates please make changes to the {{ Maryland HLR}} template so it can call the links for the 2018 HLR properly? Dough 4872 15:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
Maryland HLR/sandbox}}
and see how it works? –
Fredddie
™
02:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
If someone wanted something to do, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/Visual aids needs some updating. The FA/A/GA route maps haven’t been updated since 2017 and the assessment maps haven’t been updated since 2017/2018. Dough 4872 02:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 3#County Routes (%county% County, New Jersey), these malformed redirects which really should be deleted exist due to limitations in Module:Road data/strings/USA/NJ and {{ routelist row}} that require links from them to display CR 524A, 527A, and 536A. Can someone please fix this so we can delete the redirects? Dough 4872 22:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
We have not published a Newsletter in three years and I don’t anticipate one being published soon. Does anyone else think we should just mark this as historical? Dough 4872 02:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Should at-grade intersections with ordinary streets be included in junction lists? I found these on New York State Route 895, I removed them, but they were added back. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 19:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I disagree because the entire point of the Sheridan Boulevard project was to add those three intersections. It seems extremely misleading to not include them because it suggests that the Sheridan Expressway is still intact. Smith0124 ( talk) 00:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I know that {{ Infobox road}} has the ability to add multiple sections of a highway. Does {{ Infobox street}} have the same ability? If so, how do I do it? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 10:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm having a disagreement with another editor over the destinations that should be shown in road junction lists, with the edits occurring primarily in southern New England. I want to make sure that I'm interpreting the "Destinations" bullet in WP:RJL correctly. In my reading, we use the destinations that are shown on the signs in the field, and I interpret that to include what we can see on a Streetview-type application. It appears that the other editor wants to put in the ultimate destinations that the numbered highways lead to, often at the expense of what are actually signed. I've been attempting to engage with the editor about the guidelines, but with little success, and I haven't seen anyone else jump in. So, could someone take a look at the histories of some of the highway articles in question and offer some input? Examples abound; my most recent exchange with the editor is on Massachusetts Route 2A. I've invited the editor to join this discussion. -- Ken Gallager ( talk) 12:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The original post and first reply above are mis-framing the situation a bit.
MOS:RJL says for the destinations column
Locations and roads as presented on guide signs for the junction. Other locations should not be listed unless that location is extremely notable and well known; an entry in the notes column such as "Serves Missouri State University" can be used. Routes not indicated on the guide signs may be included in parentheses.
Ken Gallager raised concerns with Oliver Wendell 2009 that the latter is not applying this standard in continuously changing the cities in the destinations columns of RJLs in New England articles. Wendell has not engaged in attempts to discuss this one-on-one. Gallager needs confirmation of the standard and support for a next step to resolve this situation amicably; notices that Wendell could be blocked have gone unheeded, and Gallagher can't issue any such block. Imzadi 1979 → 17:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Wendell should be discussing this situation. There may be details the support the edits. If so, why the radio silence at attempts to discuss? If the situation can't be resolved, we may have to appeal to the appropriate authority to use other tools for resolution, if the project feels that's warranted. Imzadi 1979 → 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
On {{ WikiProject U.S. Roads}}, we can use the "state=FL-CRTF" parameter for Florida's county roads. Is there any similar parameter(s) for other states with county highways, especially New Jersey and New York? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 11:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
|state=FL-CRTF
option should not be used in favor of |state=FL
and |type=CR
. The latter categorizes the page as part of the national County Road TF in addition to the state TF.
Imzadi 1979
→
13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
|state=XX
and |type=CR
for all articles that are assessed for county routes? Should the pages be changed now or later on? I have been correcting the assessment using the setup that Imzadi mentioned above. From now on, I plan to use the new setup, unless there are any objections.
Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (
talk)
07:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
|state=FL
or |state=FL-CRTF
makes no difference other than displaying a different graphic; both still assess the article for the Florida task force.
Imzadi 1979
→
12:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)I noticed an error in the infobox for Maryland Route 341 that may have been caused by recent edits to Module:Infobox. Is there a way these errors can be fixed? Dough 4872 23:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
On the Interstate 11 page's "Route description" and "Current status" sections, there is quite a bit of information that should be moved into a "Future" section instead. Also, the "Route description" section should actually describe the current route of the highway. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 11:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
This is just a note that the final Texas spur listicle, List of state highway spurs in Texas (500–9999), was moved to the draft space due to a lack of content. This wasn't a problem with similar list templates previously (I'm too lazy to actually fill everything in), but if someone could fill out Draft:List of state highway spurs in Texas (500–9999) and get it back into the mainspace, that would be great. As it stands, the lone article merged into the list (Spur 502) now redirects to a redlink. - happy 5214 11:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
How in love with these are we as a project? I can do without them. I won't actively remove them, but I will intentionally not include them when I'm editing a junction list. Can someone explain to me how these don't fail WP:NOTTRAVEL? – Fredddie ™ 01:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Do we have some kind of consensus on creating road junction lists (RJLs) in Rockland County Scenario lists? I did not see anything in the project precedents, but maybe we have never had a discussion about this. I bring this up because some of the Kentucky lists of supplemental roads and rural secondary highways have RJLs (e.g., List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (600–699)) but others do not (e.g., List of Kentucky supplemental roads and rural secondary highways (400–499)). V C 22:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
In my sandbox there is a draft article for Sonny Scott. In the 'Biography' section, at the end of the third paragraph, there is a referenced sentence (from AllMusic) about the location of "Highway No. 2". I have tried using Google Maps to find the modern day equivalent, and think it is here. This then means it is now possibly Alabama State Route 156, although location-wise, the Wikipedia article's description does not seem to quite fit the bill. Interestingly, vaguely, at the easternmost end of Route 156, it becomes Romulus Road which carries the Highway No. 2 designation. This research is perhaps bordering on the original, but if it does pan out, I thought I might insert in Scott's article something along the lines of ... "which possibly accords with the present day Alabama State Route 156". Are there any editors reasonably local to Choctaw County, Alabama, who could assist me ? I am English and hail from the East Riding of Yorkshire, so Alabama is a long, long way from me. Many thanks,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 13:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I've proposed the following properties to be added to Wikidata so that some of the information that's currently stored in individual infoboxes or Module:Road data/strings modules can be reused more easily:
Note that these properties assume that bare route numbers would be inserted into the format string or SVG image. Unfortunately, the road number (P1824) property tends to store the full abbreviation. Presumably the bare number can already be stored in series ordinal (P1545).
– Minh Nguyễn 💬 00:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
There is an RM on New York State Route 99. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 14:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
It's becoming clear that while the portal still has value, it is not being updated as much as it used to be (especially since Dough retired). Any objections to removing the code in the portal to auto update the DYK, Selected article and selected picture on the 1st of the month? The problem is if no one has new content ready at least every 2 months, the portal breaks. If we go with static links, the portal will still display the most recent update. When someone updates teh content, time they can manually increment the dates on the portal page. Objections? Dave ( talk) 19:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
See the talk page of the former. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed a few additions to the history sections of road articles, such as Interstate 676, information regarding events that occurred on such roads, primary regarding the George Floyd protests. I feel like this info does not really belong, given that the history section is supposed to be for the road itself. Should I remove this info or is it acceptable? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 03:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
On the South Carolina Department of Transportation's Aiken County map (look at Sheet 6), there is a US 1 Connector shown just north of the Jefferson Davis Highway bridge over the Savannah River. However, Georgia Department of Transportation doesn't show the connector at all on any of its Richmond County maps. Is this highway real, is it current, and how do I find its exact route? Thank you. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 12:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to put in a request for new shields for the List of state highways in South Carolina page, but I need to verify what years each version of the shields belong to. For example, I was told that for Georgia, the highways from years 1920-1947 use the 1920-specific shield, those from years 1948-1959 use the 1948-specific shield, and those from years 1960-2000 use the 1960-specific shield. I'm still compiling a list of years for all of the former state highways I can find, so it may take a while for me to make my request. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 21:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Someone on AARoads was able to get access to the AASHTO document archive that contains a treasure trove of AASHTO route designation applications and relevant correspondence between AASHTO and the state highway departments. Lots of fun stuff in there—search for US-200, for instance...
Question is, what's the best way to cite this stuff? — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Something else that just came to mind: let's refrain from creating crazy redirects to existing articles for numbers only ever proposed in correspondence to and from AASHO. According to one posting on AARoads, Colorado had an A25 designation in some correspondence for what became I-225. Many of these were placeholders in the early days of the Interstate System, and they don't merit mention in articles, let alone the creation of a redirect that no one will ever use. The same goes for typos. Imzadi 1979 → 01:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Something to note: the URLs aren't reusable. The links in the footnotes in U.S. Route 77#History all return 404 errors, meaning I'd have to search the archive all over again to find those documents to read them. So as useful as the archive is, it isn't very citable.
That said, when citing, we shouldn't credit AASHO/AASHTO as the publisher, per se on applications. We should credit the official signing the application as the author and his department as the publisher. AASHO/AASHTO could then be credited as the republisher using |via=
in the citation template. For now, I'd link to the archive search page in |url=
instead of trying to link to the specific document because those URLs will error out.
I'd love to propose uploading copies of these documents to Commons for the same copyright reasons that allowed me to upload the 1967–1988 AASHO/AASHTO SCURN minutes, but I'm feeling unsure if we can use that loophole for this. Imzadi 1979 → 01:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
There are some more of the minutes from the U.S. Route Numbering Committee in the archive. I'm uploading the ones from the late 1950s and the rest of the 1960s to commons: Category:Minutes from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in just a moment. I invite others to help update the table at WP:USRD/AASHTO. When I get some time, I'll start transcribing them to Wikisource and describing them on Wikidata, but they should all be listed in {{ AASHTO minutes}} soon. Imzadi 1979 → 06:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone help? The SC 1948-Alt and SC 1948-Bus "banners" for two-digit highways are not centered above the highway shield. Also, some of the current special route "banners" don't quite look centered to me, like maybe a pixel or two (or so) off. Thanks. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello! I'm a new editor to USRD who's mainly been doing counter-vandalism in recent months. I seem to be confused on maps and KML files for articles. Does an article need both a map and KML file, or one or the other? From what I understand now, a map is just a graphic, so if a KML file is present, that can be used for an interactive route map without the need for a map graphic. Of course, I could be completely wrong, so please correct me if I am. One other thing – I'm not sure if this can go here or if it needs to be at WP:PR once in mainspace, but I would greatly appreciate if someone could take a look at my userspace draft for my first WP article, let alone my first USRD article. I would just appreciate if someone makes sure that there are no obvious USRD-specific issues (minus the map/KML) before I move it to mainspace for a NPP review. Thank you in advance! PlanetJuice ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector is currently an A-Class article and I am looking to have it promoted to FA after improvements made within the last year and a half. A peer review took place last year in December. I am looking for input and feedback on the article, and would greatly appreciate any help getting it ready for FAC. Thanks. – Dream out loud ( talk) 19:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
While reviewing K-156 (Kansas highway) for Good Article status, I thought I was fixing a style error by converting most links piped to "US-55" or similar to "US 55" (no space), per WP:USRD/STDS, until 420Traveler told me that was the style used in articles in Kansas. I noticed that KDOT does not do this now in their own communications. As someone unfamiliar with this surprise, is there a particular reason Kansas has this hyphenation thing going on that's not mentioned in the US road standards? (Is it to match, say, "K-156" or "I-70"?) Raymie ( t • c) 07:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
AP Stylebook also uses a spaced version, not a hyphenated version. Most states use the spaced abbreviation, so taking that with the two style guides, I think we should standardize the same way, regardless of state. Imzadi 1979 → 23:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)US Route 41 (or US 41)
Interstate 90 (or I-90),
Illinois Route 50 (or Illinois 50; IL 50); Route 50
The current article on Kentucky Route 8 is outdated. In 2018, it was rerouted in Campbell County due to infrastructure issues along a more rural portion (see this link for more details). 3 things happened: 1. The routing was changed to follow US 27 from Newport (York Street) to Cold Spring (Pooles Creek Road/Industrial Road). At that point, it turns north over Industrial Road (formerly part of Kentucky Route 1998) to the river and continues its normal route from there. 2. The section from York Street in Newport to Dodd Street in Dayton was changed to Kentucky Route 8 Business. 3. The remaining section was split into two - from Dodd Drive to River Road, it was changed to Kentucky 6365. From River Road to Industrial, route 445 was extended.
I have updated the articles for US 27 and KY 445, but am not quite sure how to handle the concurrency over US 27 in Newport because part of it follows a section of US 27 that's one-way south (York between 3rd and 11th, then 11th between York and Monmouth), which is listed separately in the milepoint log (Eastbound 8 follows southbound 27). I can add the section about the business route as well. Oldiesmann ( talk) 02:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I think I messed up something when I edited the Module:Road data/strings/USA/SC page. The current South Carolina Highway shields appear. Could someone tell me what I did wrong? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 17:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
That sucks. Believe me, revamping most of the state routes in Georgia, using only the state maps was a long and tedious task. I thank you for your help. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 03:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Morriswa: @ Washuotaku: Been browsing this site, I've been out of the loop for quite a while! Just been busy with other non-Wikipedia projects. A suggestion? Would using a DeLorme® Atlas & Gazetteer help any? The company publishes one for each US State. I use one for my travels around Florida; it is VERY detailed, showing just about every road and highway in the State, including most county roads. I am including a link at Amazon for the South Carolina Gazetteer in case you want to take a look ( https://www.amazon.com/DeLorme%C2%AE-Carolina-Gazetteer-Delorme-Gazeteer/dp/1946494070). The latest version appears to be 2017. They are generally updated every two to three years as necessary. I hope this will be a good source of information for you. Something to consider, anyway. Erzahler ( talk) 06:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This article recently got split away from Gerald Desmond Bridge (1968-2020), and it has no ratings from this group. Can someone here please rate it, because I don't know how to mark it so it can be rated. Because of this split, Gerald Desmond Bridge (1968-2020) may need to be reassessed. Thank you. Interstate 11 ( talk) 19:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the map recently added to U.S. Route 10 Alternate (Washington–Montana) actually valid? Or is it a violation of some kind? I don't know how to add the interactive maps, so I will have to leave that for someone else. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 01:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Someone made the U.S. Route 12 Business in Wisconsin page. Should that page be redirected to the Draft:Special routes of U.S. Route 12 draft page? Or should it be renamed "Business routes of U.S. Route 12 in Wisconsin"? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 03:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Checking the project watchlist, I noticed a disagreement between a couple editors on
U.S. Route 601.
Morriswa added some junction lists to a related route section and
Washuotaku commented them out. I think this would be a good time to hash out some best practices for
WP:USRD/RCS and/or related route sections. Personally, I don't like the RCS entries on US 601 at all. As a reader, they really don't tell me anything besides "the highway went from Point A to Point B and became US 601 in Year X." The same thing can be accomplished more efficiently by creating a {{
Routelist row}}
entry on the
List of state highways in South Carolina. I think an RCS entry should explain to the reader why the RCS section is relevant to the main article. –
Fredddie
™
16:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
I added U.S. Route 17 Alternate Truck (Summerville, South Carolina) to the List of U.S. Highways in South Carolina page, but it produced an error. Could someone correct it for me? Thanks. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) ( talk) 09:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
While browsing this morning, I decided to post about an inconsistency I've noticed for some time now. Our "Special routes of U.S. Route X" articles/listicles seem to use a few different organizational formats across the project:
A random sampling of pages seems to suggest that the Existing/Former model may be the most prevalent format. The same issue arises with our "Business routes of Interstate X" articles, although my random sampling indicates the By Route or By State methods are most commonly used for these.
Similar "Rockland County Scenario" listicles for the various state and county route systems seem to almost always use the By Route method (if not condensed down to just a table). But it's pretty inconsistent on the national articles, except that the routes are almost always presented in west-to-east or south-to-north order as appropriate. Surprisingly, USRD doesn't appear to have a standard on this. Should there be, and if so, what organizational method should be used? LJ ↗ 19:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has recently made the first move in breaking-up U.S. Route 1A by moving out one of the two North Carolina US 1A routes into its own article. I don't support this move because it will become a domino effect of eventually transforming the article into a disambiguation page. Now I could be wrong and other editors may feel it is time to break-up the article once and for all, so please share your opinions at Talk:U.S. Route 1A#U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina) Merge Request. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 09:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I've seen both popping up on numerous New Jersey articles, and was wondering if there was consensus on whether to use
US 1 /
US 9 or
US 1-9. I personally prefer the latter, but before I change all of the US 1/US 9's to US 1-9's I would like to know which is the one that should be used.
Mattx8y (
talk); idiot from planet earf
14:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
As a New Jerseyan, I often see the second signage. It's what is signed near the Newark Airport, Pulaski Skyway, Tonnelle Circle (new signage), and elsewhere. The
US 1 /
US 9 is outdated, and NJDOT replace them with
US 1-9 on the Tonnelle Circle interchange. Thus, I suggest using the second one. ~
Destroyer
🌀
🌀
00:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Discussion has started on possible merging of state level I-73 pages to the parent I-73 pages. At moment it is for just Talk:Interstate 73 in North Carolina, but I would assume any merger would also incorporate existing Virginia and South Carolina too. Please provide feedback on the proposal, thank you. -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 21:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Merry Christmas all! I noticed that the infoboxes in articles for many parkways in the NYC area use "|type=Parkway" as opposed to "|type=Pkwy", with the former producing a green color scheme and the latter producing a brown color scheme. I changed several of the Parkways to Pkwys to produce the brown color, which seems standard for parkways, but I figured I better discuss before I change any more of them. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 18:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Dough4872, Fredddie, and Imzadi1979: Would you happen to know when we are supposed to use type=parkway as opposed to type=pkwy in infoboxes? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 06:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
|header_type=
and adding Pkwy would get remove the article from a tracking category that I monitor. Generally speaking though, if guide signs on the highway are green, the infobox headers are green. –
Fredddie
™
07:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Hey everyone. I have been working on a potential breakout article for U.S. Route 17-1 on my page User:Ncchild/US 17-1. I usually edit for North Carolina, and I have been able to find both county and statewide maps to support US 17-1 in North Carolina. However, I cannot really find many for Virginia. I have been able to get by with some limited resources (VARoads, some extended portions of NC maps) but not much on its own. I checked the University of Alabama page but really didn't find anything in the 1930ish timeframe that would support a coherent route description. Does anyone have any ideas of websites I should check to find these maps. I know they exist because VARoads has pictures of them.-- Ncchild ( talk) 03:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
When used for an Alternate or Business U.S. route in Texas, the {{
jct}}
template seems to be generate extra periods in the link target, creating broken hyperlinks in junction lists. For example,
presently link to U.S. Route 90 Alternate .. (Texas) and U.S. Route 87 Business .. (Texas), respectively, rather than to the correct U.S. Route 90 Alternate (Texas) and U.S. Route 87 Business (Texas), respectively. I haven't dug deeper and am not certain if this is the case for any other class of route or for any state other than Texas. I'd rather not mess with the template directly, so if someone who is more savvy can take a look, it would be appreciated. -- Kinu t/ c 05:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed an odd issue with some of the pages on highways that are broken into sections by state. For some strange reason, the Infobox links for the terminus of several roads goes to the page for the entire route, not for the route section in Illinois, and only Illinois. I've fiddled with the formatting a few different ways and nothing seems to work. Look for instance on the pages for US Route 14 in Wisconsin or US Route 20 in Indiana and you'll see what I mean. I'm rather perplexed. Anybody have any ideas? Kalmbach ( talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. While looking something up just now, I'm seeing that links for Interstate business routes in Nevada created using {{
jct}} and {{
routelist row}} are redlinked where they weren't before. For example, {{jct|state=NV|BL|80|dab1=Reno–Sparks}} is producing:
I-80 BL – it appears the state is not being appended to the disambiguator. The same issue appears with the links in the second table on
List of Interstate Highways in Nevada. I'm seeing this both on an old desktop and my phone. I'm not savvy enough with the module coding to know if something has changed, so I'd appreciate if someone could take a look. Thanks!
LJ
↗
08:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that! LJ ↗ 06:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I've started an article about the Ohio Manual of [sic] Uniform Traffic Control Devices that hopefully contains enough state-specific content to stand on its own. It would be neat to see a series of articles about each of the ten state editions of the MUTCD (but probably not for the other states' supplements). – Minh Nguyễn 💬 22:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't edit in your area but noticed some of your articles have no table of contents.
insource:NOTOC intitle:highways currently gives 69 results. A few have a custom TOC or aren't in your project but some of them are long lists. I think there should be TOC's. {{
Horizontal TOC|limit=2}}
will take up less space.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
00:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I noticed some road articles such as New Jersey Route 87, New Jersey Route 187, and Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector are using color-coded shading for destinations in the junction lists to mimic the color-coded wayfinding system for sections of Atlantic City, New Jersey. Should our junction lists really be using this color-coded shading or should it be removed? Dough 4872 23:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Interstate 70 in Colorado is a possible WP:TFA for March, but the "Future" section is not current. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you create 6087. Thank you TheGs2007 ( talk) 01:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects#Misnested tags, missing end tags, stripped tags and continue discussion there. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 19:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Howdy, there have been a recent spat of IP editors messing with the junction lists (and future sections) for several articles in the greater Phoenix area, probably about 6-10 affected articles. Most of these are related to the planned extension of Arizona State Route 303 to connect to Interstate 8 somewhere in the vicinity of Gila Bend, Arizona. I'm familiar with the area, but haven't been that way in years. I can vouch that the conversion of AZ-303 from a rural 2 lane road to a freeway belt route and bypass around the west side of the Phoenix Metro Area has been in the works since the 1990s, but plans have changed many times. In fact when I first saw the plans for AZ-303 they more resembled what AZ-202 now looks like with it's most recent addition. So clearly the specifics have changed. But someone is adding to the exit list with specific exit numbers and mile locations, implying the route has been finalized. Furthermore ADOT's website is shockingly empty on the expansion plans for AZ-303, in fact at the current projects, the only thing mentioned as ongoing is the conversion some at-grade intersections into interchanges on the opposite corner of the Phoenix metro area [11]. There's a couple of us that have been reverting these additions as we seen them on the grounds of unsourced or speculative. But can anybody who follows the news in Arizona comment if we are doing the right thing? Or in fact have the plans for AZ-303 been finalized to the point it is safe to start making these additions? Dave ( talk) 21:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
In the U.S. Bicycle Route 66 article, the OSM map of Missouri is showing, but nothing is highlighted. What's going on with it?-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 01:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The article U.S. Route 340 looks very messy, with a bunch of script errors. Can someone better than me at Wikipedia please help fix this? Thanks! -- Rockin ( Talk) 16:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I simplified the JSON file from 80k bytes to about 20k and I believe this fixed it. — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 01:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Errors like these are happening with a lot more frequency than they did in months past. We need to migrate our map data to Commons and Wikidata. For one, it's going to make our mapping available to other Wikipedias. It's also going to prevent errors like these from happening in the future. It's most important to get the national or auxiliary Interstate and U.S. Highways migrated first before we worry about state highways. I've already started working on Interstates a few months ago, but I never really made it public. I'll keep going on it and if you know how to create maps on Commons, I urge you to do the same. If you don't know how, but would like to, you can either ping me or talk to me on WP:DISCORD. – Fredddie ™ 04:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
This is in response to this reversion of my edit by User:Imzadi1979. Why is it the standard to use the parent interstate shield on Business routes of Interstate 84 and the other general business interstate highways articles? If I was a casual reader, I would be expecting the business loop shield and "Business" in the name header. Like I would with any other US highway article. I'm I missing something? Zzyzx11 ( talk) 00:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Location | |
---|---|
Country | United States |
Highway system | |
|type=BLBS
in Infobox road to get both shields. It should work with or without a state. –
Fredddie
™
18:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I propose changing the "Route description" header to "Route" across all the articles. Besides the unnecessary extra word, quite often people capitalize Description, which is a violation of MOS. -- Rs chen 7754 02:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I would like to get rid of the row of articles called "State highway lists" and open up the supplemental road and rural secondary highway lists to all routes. Viridiscalculus did a great job of making the SU/RS and I think the RCS format is best suited for Kentucky. The state highway lists don't have a consistent format, nor do they seem to be useful to our readers. There is no article that explains Kentucky's state highway system, so that could be improved as well. Currently, between Starts and Stubs, there are 541 Kentucky highway articles that could potentially be merged into the lists. Also, the Kentucky articles that have been created recently seem to flaunt a 'loophole' that since they're not rural secondary or supplemental roads they are inherently notable for an article. – Fredddie ™ 20:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I thought about proposing this on {{
Infobox road}}
but I thought better to leave other WP/TFs to decide for themselves (lol), but I'd like to propose eliminating major intersections altogether from the infobox and just leave the two endpoints. As seen
above, there is some support already for this, but I want to get an opinion from everyone who sees this. We can also hash out details like what to call the section, or if we just merge it into Route information, and what to do with beltways. –
Fredddie
™
04:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Interstate 80 in Iowa | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I don't see any of this edit warring on anything in my watchlist, so I'm not familiar with the details of the problem. What articles have had this trouble recently? I'm wondering if there is a more-targeted way that this could be resolved. -- Sable232 ( talk) 22:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Can we have 10 more junctions for every highway in the US and rename it to the "20-Junction Limit" for each Highway in the US? Because some junctions are major and they are omitted from the major intersection box.
I was thinking is this was OK that if we can expand the major junction limit up to 20 and rename it to "The 20-Junction Limit"? And after that, the USRD allows the doubling more junctions to be listed to further these goals and no more than 20 junctions. The junction list is limited ONLY to Interstates, US Highways and major state-routes. It will say | on every highway in the US.
BenjaminTheTrainGuy ( talk) 04:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Benjamin Lew
What happened to all the route shields in the infoboxes and junction charts associated with New York State Route articles? They've all turned into "Invalid type:" redlinks. Even roads that begin and end at the New York State Line like New Jersey State Route 17 have this problem. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 15:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
On some states (the only one I can remember right now being Montana), when you use {{jct|state=MT|US-Byp|87|dab1=Lewistown}}, it produces the redlink:
US 87 Byp.. You have to add the state name (i.e., {{jct|state=MT|US-Byp|87|dab1=Lewistown}}) to produce the correct link:
US 87 Byp.. The other special route types need to be checked as well. Please, feel free to tweak the proper wiki markup for this section.
Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (
talk)
16:34, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
[Reposting this to make sure everyone is aware]
The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-roads has been shut down due to the situation with Freenode. Many other Wikimedia-related channels are going to be migrated other places. While most Wikimedia channels are going to another IRC server, most of the road editors have migrated to WP:DISCORD instead. -- Rs chen 7754 07:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm kinda shocked to find no list-article of Indian route (United States) roads, and no category for them either. I would like to link to coverage somewhere of " Indian Route 9" from article Black River Bridge (Carrizo, Arizona) (about the NRHP-listed deck truss bridge in Gila County, Arizona, coming to mainspace soon from Draft:Black River Bridge (Carrizo, Arizona)). And the road shows as "R-9" in Google maps, but there is no mention of it at R-9 or R9 disambiguation page, nor is it mentioned in List of highways numbered 9. What gives, wp:ROADsters? :) There does exist an Indian Reservation Roads Inventory linked from the Indian Reservation Roads Program article, which might provide the raw data needed, but it has counties numbered rather than named and is otherwise gibberish to me. Maybe there are IRR numbered roadss and BIA numbered roads? Or maybe everything about "IRR" needs to be updated to be "Tribal Transportation Improvement Program (TTIP)" instead, per this 2017 guide? WP:NRHP editors and others need for you to provide this kind of stuff! Please! -- Doncram ( talk) 15:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
For the last several months, an IP vandal has been vandalizing articles about Connecticut state highways by changing the endpoints. A typical set of edits has obvious vandalism, followed by a null edit to make vandalism detection harder. On a number of articles, they've made multiple rounds of vandalism. They tend to hop between IPs (see below), which has made getting them blocked rather difficult. I would greatly appreciate additional eyes on these articles to help control the vandalism. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
IPs used
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sorted 2 IPv4 addresses:
Sorted 6 IPv6 addresses:
|
And meanwhile WMF thinks this is a good idea. -- Rs chen 7754 05:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey everyone,
In my GA review of U.S. Route 117 the reviewer has brought up the redundancy of some of the special routes. These are routes that are formerly US 117A or US 117 Alternate routes but in 1960, NCDOT decided to switch many of them to business routes. The question was whether or not they should be consolidated into one special route under the present banner instead of keeping two for essentially the same route. I know this is something frequent across North Carolina but I'm not really sure what the policy is. Should they be split or combined with a mention to the former name in the "history paragraph".
Also, I apologize for bringing something relatively North Carolina-centric up in the main talk thread, but I felt like it could have larger implications so I wanted to consult with everyone. -- Ncchild ( talk) 19:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox road small}}
under the current iteration's heading. A sentence about why the designation changed would also be beneficial. –
Fredddie
™
03:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Popular pages-- Coin945 ( talk) 06:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
An editor has proposed removing the parentless three-digit U.S. Highways from {{
U.S. Routes}}
. Your input is welcomed. –
Fredddie
™
17:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
WP:USRD has 11,036 Mid-importance articles and 2,236 Low-importance articles, according to the data table. On the ground, there are significantly more highways that have absolutely no national importance than highways with at least a little national importance, whereas the Wikipedia importance data suggests the opposite. As it is, the Mid category runs the gamut between transcontinental Interstate highways and 3-mile rural state highways that serve boat ramps. So I suggest we revisit our guidelines for importance. The last comprehensive change appears to have been in 2007, shortly after the system was set up. I propose we come up with a delineation between Mid and Low. Then we can gradually shift articles between categories. This will inform our efforts to reduce the number of stubs, which has remained around 1,500 since 2014. V C 22:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Crickets, so I am going to lay out a proposal for a Low–Mid importance split. There will be further discussion about the Mid–High split and some kind of split of the Low category. V C 00:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to why having most articles fall under Mid-importance is a problem. Granted, major national highways should be of higher importance, but logically there should be a lot of articles that "fill in more minor details" and/or are "only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area." But if that assessment system has been in place since 2007, before all the state-level projects were merged into USRD, would some articles be rated higher than would be expected as an artifact of having been assessed for a state project?
We should keep in mind that the purpose of importance assessment is to evaluate how critical the information in the article is relative to the rest of the topic, mostly for purposes of prioritizing work. The general guidelines for that (and the alternate version) don't quite fit with the structure of USRD but are worth noting.
I'd hesitate to add another importance class. I don't think it's necessary, don't think it would help us as editors, and don't think the project would be well served by assessing something as "Subject has no real significance to the project" - one would question the need for the article at all at that point.
The rating system should be reasonably simple and straightforward - too many caveats and if/then items will make it unwieldy and could cause confusion for some editors. I would propose a simpler system:
I admit, this will likely miss some special cases, but I'd rather err on the side of simplicity. I'm unsure on how state-level articles for High-importance U.S. highways should be assessed - I'm leaning towards High but would like to see other input. -- Sable232 ( talk) 15:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
What seems imperative to me is that the importance levels are defined in relation to the overall scope of the project and it's articles. Our current project scope really just says we maintain articles related to the highways and major roads of the U.S. Given the above discussion, perhaps the scope might be further refined as "maintaining articles of national, regional, local and historical significance to road and highway travel in the United States." With that in mind, here's my thoughts on an importance system:
I'm not married to this—I'm largely indifferent to reclassification of importance. But I'd agree with Sable232 that a simpler system is better, and wouldn't want to see a bunch of caveats that make things overly complex for some editors to interpret. And I realize some of the definitions and classifications at the mid and low levels might be a bit subjective too, but it's a starting point in the context of national importance... Such a classification scheme would likely move a lot of Nevada state highway articles from mid to low or bottom. -- LJ ↗ 21:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. In the sub-articles section of the notability guidelines, it says "do not create sub-articles for jurisdictions with short and/or unnotable spans without good reason." I understand that the argument could be made that not every state segment of a highway is notable enough to have its own article, but I think at least every U.S. Route should have such articles, because if the most in-depth the reader can go is only by reading the parent page that covers the whole highway rather than state-by-state, than the reader does not have access to things such as road junction lists or infoboxes.
For example, U.S. Route 191 does not have a separate page for the segment of US 191 in Wyoming, which denies the reader the ability to look at a road junction list for this section of US 191. This is because U.S. Routes come in one of two forms on Wikipedia:
One might notice that in order for all miles of the U.S. Highway system to be accounted for in terms of having road junction lists, it must be ensured that each U.S. Route is either the first type or the second type listed above, rather than a mix of each, as seen in the aforementioned U.S. Route 191 article, which along with its sub-articles, only provides road junction lists for U.S. Route 191 in Arizona, Utah, and Montana, but not Wyoming. If U.S. Route 191 only existed in Wyoming, said segment would surely have these details, but since it is longer, it doesn't get them? Also, state highways that are both shorter and less relevant than these types of U.S. Route segments always get articles with these details, but since a road is only a segment, despite being more important (U.S. Routes > State Highways), one has to defer to the less detailed parent page? An example is when I recently attempted to create the U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire page, but it was reverted to a redirect. At first, I figured that a rural 35 mile stretch of highway probably isn't relevant to have its own page, but then I realized that there are numerous articles for nearby New Hampshire state routes that are, again, shorter and less relevant, such as New Hampshire Route 110 and even New Hampshire Route 115A! Think about that, under the notability guidelines set up for highways, New Hampshire Route 115A has a road junction list on Wikipedia, but a reader searching for a road junction list for longer and more important U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire has to settle for a measly "major intersections list", a.k.a. glorified bullet points! This seems very unuseful and backward and was the main reason that I created the U.S. Route 191 in Arizona page about a year ago, which I guess has been deemed relevant due to it not being deleted for more than a year, proving that these guidelines can cause relevant such information to be left out.
To solve these problems, I propose that the notability guidelines for sub-articles be changed, specifically in the introduction to the sub-articles section that says "However, just because a highway spans multiple jurisdictions does not justify multiple articles... Similarly, just because one jurisdiction has a sub-article does not mean all jurisdictions are entitled to have sub-articles" could be changed by removing the part about how not every jurisdiction is entitled to have sub-articles. This would keep the part about how multi-state routes don't always need to be split up (e.g. while Interstate 66 passes through Virginia and DC, a page titled "Interstate 66 in the District of Columbia" would be very silly), while removing the part that causes the problems I have written about here.
Additionally, the second bullet point in the sub-article guidelines ("do not create sub-articles for jurisdictions with short and/or unnotable spans without good reason") could possibly be removed, and to combat the then theoretically-allowed creation of articles for multi-state Interstate Business Routes, it could be specified that you still shouldn't create sub-articles for those types of things, only that it's all or nothing when splitting up a U.S. Route or an Interstate (either you split a U.S. Route into ALL the states it passes through, or you leave it as one article, but either way, the reader should have access to the same level of detail, including road junction lists, for the entire highway).
I apologize if any of this sounded confrontational or rude, but with all due respect, I was upset that a page I spent hours working on ( U.S. Route 2 in New Hampshire) was promptly deleted due to it not being notable enough, while if it was a page about an obscure state highway in the same state, it would somehow be more notable. Thank you. Azmjc02 ( talk) 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I made a big update to {{
Infobox road small}}
starting very early this morning. About 860 pages needed to be updated because they used |subtype=
. Now, syntax for special routes is the same as {{
Jct}}
. There may be a bug here or there that pops up, but I think everything's working how we want it to be working. Some of you have already let me know of a few problems and those have all been resolved. –
Fredddie
™
23:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox road}}
has not changed. You still need to use |subtype=
for special routes with the big infobox. –
Fredddie
™
23:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
Jct}}
. CR, CR-Alt, CR-Byp, CR-Old, etc. –
Fredddie
™
05:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
Jct}}
, and I didn't see that there. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
14:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to start this conversation to complain that everyone should stop adding I-94 to the I-35 junction list. The reason is because I-35 as a whole does not interact I-94 in the Minneapolis Multiplex. Just like how I 35 as a whole does not intersect interstate 20 and Interstate 30 in the Dallas-Fort Worth multiplex. I-35E and I-35W are treated as two different highways, even though they’re basically parts of I-35, but we don’t count interstate 94 and the junction of I-35 because it’s only intersected by I-35E and I-35W. We can always find a tenth junction of the Highway, but for now this doesn’t count. I tried to edit it like how I want to by being BOLD but a week later someone change the edit and now I feel like it’s necessary to create this talk page. Christopher Thompson ( talk) 15:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be some issues with the {{ maplink-road}} template as of late where only a blank map of the world is showing up as an article's infobox interactive map. It seems to be only affecting random articles with no readily apparent rhyme or reason behind why some work and others don't; examples are NJ 27 (not working) and NJ 28 (working). Are there any updates to what is going on with this or things we should do in the meantime (at least maybe when editing articles for other reasons, not solely to fix the map)? — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 21:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
Maplink-road}}
without checking to see if it was going to work. I've already fixed these two examples. Blank instances of that template rely on OSM data, which I don't consider to be very accurate. I've seen far too many examples of roads that don't line up with the maps at all. Anyway, you can add |raw=
or |from=
to {{
Maplink-road}}
just like you can to {{
Maplink}}
and it will work just fine. –
Fredddie
™
16:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Oklahoma went ahead and added numbers to the remainder of their unnumbered turnpikes this morning. I've already changed the text and uploaded new shields where appropriate, but could someone update the {{ infobox road}}/{{ jct}} machinery to display the numeric designations? We may also want to update the main infobox shields to display the appropriate meat cleavers, since they seem to have completely replaced the OTA-logo shields, on the Creek Turnpike and Muskogee Turnpike at least. I would {{ sofixit}} myself, but it's been long enough since I tinkered with infobox road that I forget how it works, and there's featured articles involved... — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Location | Oklahoma |
---|
Route information | |
---|---|
Maintained by Oklahoma Turnpike Authority | |
Location | |
Country | United States |
State | Oklahoma |
Highway system | |
|
|I|44
before the turnpike. An A/JWB run would take care of the rest however we want to do it. –
Fredddie
™
01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)So I recently noticed on Interstate 87 (North Carolina) that the historic I-495 section is now sporting the VA-MD Capital Beltway sign along with it. This appears to be an internal coding error that hopefully someone can fix. Thank you! -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 03:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The
I-85 article used to read While most interstates that end in a "5" are cross-country routes, I-85 is mainly a regional route, serving five southeastern states.
with no citation. I requested a citation by adding the CN tag, but it was removed. The statement was then revised to read I-85 serves five southeastern states:
Virginia,
North Carolina,
South Carolina,
Georgia, and
Alabama.
This is still a violation of OR because there should be a RS to be able to state that those states are indeed in a "Southeastern" region. Regions in the US are subjective, plus even the US Census' region designation does not use the name "Southeastern" for a region.
The immediately preceding statement is also OR: It is nominally north–south hence the number is odd, but it is physically oriented northeast–southwest and covers a larger east-west span than north-south.
I tagged it as CN also, but that tag was also removed.
It should be noted that Wikipedia does not have any provision that allows "obvious" statements to remain uncited. ( WP:DOCITEBLUE)
17:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
When I was messing around with {{
Infobox road small}}
last week, I edited a lot of truck routes. For a lot of them, particularly with the double-bannered types in Pennsylvania, the text was a boilerplate. To paraphrase, "Route X Alternate Truck was designated when Y Bridge over Z Creek along Route X was posted with a weight limit in Year A. The bridge was replaced in Year B and Route X Alternate Truck was decommissioned." Is that notable enough for a related route entry? –
Fredddie
™
01:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
My original concern with Dough's reply is that there is no such thing as a permanent truck route; long-term maybe, but not permanent. As we saw with the alternate truck routes, it just takes removing the restriction (by fixing a bridge) to remove a truck route. If PennDOT were to rebuild an overpass or reroute a highway around a town, those events would likely result in removing the truck route because the restriction was removed. There is no difference. – Fredddie ™ 05:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Dough4872, Viridiscalculus, and Fredddie: Sorry to bring an old topic to attention, but while I agree it would be awkward to leave truck routes out, there might be a way to mention some special routes that aren't sanctioned by AASHTO, yet are verifiably signed. Perhaps in the lede sections of these articles, or even under the "current routes" headings, there could be a single sentence stating "In addition to the officially-sanctioned routes below, an alternate truck route is posted in the community of x in order to bypass a weight-restricted bridge(reference)." That would acknowledge they exist while not treating them the same as the routes that are posted for a more permanent purpose or actual state highways.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
All three special routes of North Dakota Highway 23 have their own articles. I get that they're all state-maintained, but do each of these really have enough independent coverage to justify not covering them in a list?-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I added | map =
to an infobox for
Shoal Creek, Austin, Texas, which corresponds to
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Shoal_Creek_(Central_Texas).map BUT it's not showing up in the article. It shows up just fine on commons but not when embedded in the wikipedia article. It even shows up just fine on wikipedia when I edit the article and then preview the edit. It just doesn't show up when the wikipedia article is published. I don't understand!
TerraFrost (
talk)
21:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
{{maplink-road|from=Shoal Creek (Central Texas).map}}
I've created a draft at Draft:Special routes of U.S. Route 51. I'm wondering how I should interpret the major intersections of the route through Wausau since the northbound and southbound routes scatter across a bunch of one-way streets, and the northbound route is probably 1/2 mile longer than the southbound route. Any tips or publicly-accessible route logs?-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
There are missing shield files at List of state highways in North Carolina and List of suffixed Arkansas state highways. I poked around a couple of modules but did not find an easy way to make them appear. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 17:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
"The time allocated for running scripts has expired" has resurfaced to mess up intersection lists again. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 11:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I am about ready to deploy a Lua module for browselinks (you know, the Interstate Highway system links, state highway links, etc). If you could help me out by spot checking some articles by replacing {{
Infobox road}}
with {{
Infobox road/sandbox}}
(but not saving!) and then reporting back if you see anything strange, I would really appreciate it. –
Fredddie
™
06:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, so here's a question, I recently contacted NCDOT in regards of I-587 and what will happen with US 264. I got a response today that they plan to submit to the AASHTO Fall meeting a rerouting of US 264 and elimination a part of US 264 Alt; and they were even kind enough to provide me the draft files they intend to use in the submission. They hope to have this all done in 2022. So, how do I update this insider information on the article that meets referencing guidelines, should I upload the drafts someplace or would you all suggest another method? -- WashuOtaku ( talk) 02:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Your input is requested to resolve a disagreement. – Fredddie ™ 02:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This coming Friday afternoon, I'll be giving an online workshop at WikiConference North America on how to draw a basic SVG road sign diagram. The workshop will not be recorded, but I'll try to make some of the materials accessible on Commons for those who can't make it. Registration is free; please spread the word. Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Recently BMACS1002 ( talk · contribs) has made new maps for many highways. 100s of them are broken, such as: New York State Route 29, New York State Route 28A, New York State Route 10, New York State Route 5, New York State Route 7, etc. What should be done? - 420Traveler ( talk) 17:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
Infobox road}}
and {{
Maplink-road}}
from each state. –
Fredddie
™
00:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Other reference threads from December 2016, April 2021, Aug.-Sept. 2021 (WP:Graphics Lab)
Can we in the community decide on what type of maps to use as the interactive map to be displayed on roads' infoboxes? BMACS1002 ( talk · contribs) is keen on using OpenStreetMap (OSM) data for these articles but I feel that there have been lots of issues in the past, mostly with linework not displaying at seemingly random times. I have concerns about using an external source for direct displaying of Wikipedia data since OSM's editing/sourcing standards may be different than the WP:RS standards here. When the maps do work, the linework tends to be more blocky, often includes random segments (e.g. interchange ramps, potential old alignments), and often include divided highway segments when not necessarily needed. The main disadvantages of the Commons data from what I see is that it's not dynamic if new segment(s) of a route opens/gets decommissioned, also that once a map is initially added, the map doesn't appear for about an hour, which may confuse editors. BMACS cites a statement on their userpage about Kartographer (but provides no link to a WP-level page here) and includes a concern about redundancy/size of having both Commons and OSM data. Considering in the end the linework is just ones and zeros, with some reasonable manipulation of the data (reducing decimal precision to 5 places and/or generalization of the line itself), the data files can be brought down a couple thousand bytes ( I-90's .map file is 52,000 bytes for a 3000-mile-long route). — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 17:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
|defaultFrom="Example.map"
. Or would that be too much...? Also, can we agree on a color to label these roads? Maplink-road defaults to #ff0000, but I've been seeing a trend where people are liking a darker color. I don't care either way, but some consensus there would be nice. Looking forward to y'alls' thoughts!
BMACS1002 (
talk)
02:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Edited 2021-11-10 With the Opportunity Corridor opening a week from Friday (12) and the ribbon cutting just having happened, the article needs to be rewritten. I was going to start, but there are some issues to be addressed and I wanted to share them here first before I did any work on it.
Mapsax ( talk) 22:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
This uses the phrases "the new Opportunity Corridor Blvd.", "the Opportunity Corridor Blvd.", and "Opportunity Corridor Blvd.", no "the". It's still a bit vague but I guess that this is enough evidence to be able to use the last of the three, as I just have in the infobox.
I'd like to use this as a ref (primary source, I know) but perhaps I should use one from tomorrow or later that says it already opened.
Also, the infobox says "Maintained by ODOT". If this goes the way of other like roads in Ohio, it will be a road built by ODOT on the ODOT system but maintained by the city of Cleveland, so that line should probably be removed.
Mapsax ( talk) 00:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I say merge it Ronncoll ( talk) 02:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
New Jersey Turnpike Authority, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, Central Florida Expressway Authority, Miami-Dade Expressway Authority, and Kansas Turnpike Authority, among others, have long been marked as within USRD scope, but @ Fredddie: recently de-marked New York State Thruway Authority on the basis that it is out of scope. So are toll road authorities within USRD scope or are they not. Needforspeed888 ( talk) 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
It's been a few weeks since I-182 was nominated, and reviews would be appreciated! I'm hoping to tie this into a featured topic about Interstate 82 (currently a Good topic candidate), so anything would help. Sounder Bruce 11:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
What does the group think about doing an interactive edit-a-thon where a group of us collaborate on Discord to work on an article. Voice chat, sharing screens, and good ole text chat are some of ways we can communicate. If it's successful, we could schedule an evening once a month or more often.
US 66 is the idea I had for the first article. – Fredddie ™ 07:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Official highway maps are available from the Minnesota Digital Library. Anyone want to have a crack at creating a template to cite them like Template:Cite WisDOT map?-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add a parameter to the junction template like Jct|state=MO|US-AOTS|61 to {{ Jct}} in order to display the Avenue of the Saints graphic over the US 61 graphic for Missouri intersections? A parameter would be needed for Route 27 if U.S. Route 61 in Missouri and U.S. Route 136 in Missouri ever get their own articles as well.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
{{Jct|state=MO|AOTS|27|AOTS|61}}
{{Jct|state=IA|AOTS||AOTS|27}}
Under what circumstances, if any, is it acceptable to have an "In popular culture" section in a road article? Needforspeed888 ( talk) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
It's finally posted, [16]. -- Rs chen 7754 22:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Another heads up: this FLC for List of Interstate Highways in Washington needs a source review and another prose review or two. It'd be great to have a new FL for the project to start the year. Sounder Bruce 07:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Not a project member, but I was sifting through some of the GA-level North Carolina-related highway articles and I can't help but notice that most are built in their near-entirety off of maps, which are basically WP:PRIMARY sources, and are woven together via WP:SYNTH. Examples:
I am not disputing the factual accuracy of these articles per se, I am suggesting that they rely too heavily on primary sources that have to be woven together. There is a difference between having a newspaper article which directly says "In 1955 the highway was extended one mile" and having a map of the road in 1954 and another map from 1955 from which a Wikipedia editor calculates the difference in route length. Please remember WP:OR and WP:Verifiability, not truth. I hope my breakdown of the U.S. Route 76 article explains my points. Lots of assumptions are being made here, and even if they are good ones, they are still just assumptions and interpretations. - Indy beetle ( talk) 05:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California)#Requested move 17 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. It has been proposed to move Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) to Route 110 (California), as well as the similarly titled 238 and 710 articles to Route 238 (California) and Route 710 (California), respectively. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 08:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI, it may be time to start the Interstate 42 article. Two sections of the future route have been formally accepted into the system, though signage is not yet installed. See Here. -- Jayron 32 12:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Interstate 84 (Pennsylvania–Massachusetts) § Distribution link.
Treyhazard2001 (
talk)
06:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)