Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 23

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Fredddie in topic Missing shield?
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

2016 goals?

Latest comment: 8 years ago45 comments11 people in discussion

Clear consensus for setting goals that are not limited by time. --Rschen7754 18:27, 3 January 2016 (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.

This is the time of year when we usually talk about the goals for next year.

Unfortunately, we've struggled to meet our goals for the last two years, due to decreased activity and increased real-life commitments. I'm not saying that anyone is at fault for this, or that anyone should be at fault for this, but it may mean that we need to rethink how we approach goals in general.

I've made some proposals below as to how we should address this, and others are free to add their own. As a FYI I'm headed out for the holidays, so I won't be able to reply further before the end of the year. --Rschen7754 19:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Come up with a traditional set of goals for 2016

We have a separate discussion about some possible goals for the next year, just like we have in the past. --Rschen7754 19:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Support The difference between a goal and a wish is that a goal has a deadline. Maybe the goals could be scaled back to be something more manageable for the short-to-medium term, though. This can tie in well with having longer-term goals too - see below. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not set any goals for 2016

We do nothing, and remove the goals page from WP:USRD and other places. --Rschen7754 19:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Set asynchronous goals

We set some goals, but we don't bind them to the calendar year. --Rschen7754 19:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Support. –Fredddie™ 19:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Second choice, it keeps us moving with the time that we have but is more flexible. --Rschen7754 19:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Support - While I would prefer us to do the traditional goals that we have for the past several years, this is no longer feasible with the decreased activity levels. We can keep a few goals such as wikiwork, stub reduction, getting GAs/FAs etc. that get met whenever we can get the time to complete it as opposed to December 31 of the year. Dough4872 21:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Support I think it would be a great idea to have some long-term goals that we can ultimately work towards, but have some shorter-term ones that are more manageable for the coming year. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Support This seems to be the way to go, to give some editing focus but also recognizing that off-wiki life exists. Perhaps in developing such goals, we can establish "target completion" timelines to give some impetus and hopefully not have these goals go stale. LJ ↗ 15:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Support as an editor with a couple main long-term goals that I don't intend on setting a deadline for, because that adds too much extra stress to what is supposed to be a fun hobby. TCN7JM 18:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Shift yearly goals to WP:HWY

We remove the goals page from WP:USRD and other places. However, we come up with a set of goals at WT:HWY and invite editors worldwide to participate. --Rschen7754 19:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I would give this my first choice, as there are plenty of editors out there that don't feel integrated, and the road articles outside the US need help badly. --Rschen7754 19:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
We can always make a to-do page for WP:HWY. –Fredddie™ 20:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we can give HWY its own goals, however I would prefer USRD to still get its own goals. Dough4872 21:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I can't support this at all, for two main reasons. Reason the first: USRD still needs a bunch of work. Sure, most road articles outside of the United States are in rough shape, but think of how many articles inside the United States are, too. More than half of the states – by my count, 32 – have a relative WikiWork above 4.500. That's better than most of the rest of the world, but it's still not what I'd consider good. Some whole regions of our country are still a hot mess, especially the Southeast and New England, because we don't have enough editors or sources to improve them. This brings me to reason the second: USRD's editing core most likely doesn't have enough volume or interest to shift our focus to HWY as a whole. Most of our editing core exists within our own little niches, which we generally don't leave (myself normally included). If we, collectively, don't even spend much time working on articles we don't care about within the United States, I highly doubt we'd want to start focusing on articles we don't care about without; I know I don't, callous as that may sound. I think that if we're going to set goals for USRD, they should be restricted to the improvement of needy articles in the United States. If we're so inclined, we can set goals for HWY as a whole as well, with assistance from editors outside the United States. TCN7JM 18:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
We have editors in this thread who are not willing to get out of their "comfort zone", so pushing our goals on HWY makes no sense. –Fredddie™ 18:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Goals

Now that we have that decided, what should the goals be? --Rschen7754 18:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I say that we set several goals based on different metrics of improving articles, which we can hash out in this discussion, Some of the goals we should look at is getting the project WikiWork down to a certain point (4.2 might be a good start or if we are ambitious for a long term goal maybe strive for 4.0), eliminating a certain number of stubs, getting a certain amount of articles to B-class, GA, or FA, destubbing a certain number of states (25 sounds realistic), and making sure the national-detail articles for our important Interstates (ending in 0 or 5) and U.S. routes (ending in 0 or 1, along with US 66) are improved to B-class. Dough4872 00:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Rschen was asking for specific targets, not a rehashing of the last five years' goals. We have some goals that are within sight of completion.
  1. There are 54 articles left in Category:U.S. Roads project articles with a hardcoded junction list. All of these just need to be put onto templates — that's it.
  2. Quite a few states have fewer than 20 KMLs left to create. It's ridiculously easy to create KMLs, so you really have no excuse.
  3. The Texas FM merging project is far from over.
The point is that we have some low-hanging fruit in terms of goals that look like bigger goals. We just have to chop them into bite-sized bits and knock them out. Even if it means editing out of your home region for a while. –Fredddie™ 01:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Those are all three good ideas for goals that we can set with no hard deadline. However, we should also have a general article improvement goal of some form, whether it be reaching a certain WikiWork, destubbing a certain number of articles or states, or improving a certain number of articles to a certain assessment class (B, GA, or FA). Dough4872 03:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we should have some overall article improvement goal, but also like the idea of addressing some simple goal(s) like tackling one of the maintenance category backlogs. For example, I've been slowly whittling away at Category:U.S. Roads project articles with a hardcoded junction list for the last year or two whenever I felt like editing but not researching—there was well over 300 articles in there when I started, and I'm fairly certain I'm the only one who has consciously and consistently worked on clearing that. LJ ↗ 17:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I have worked on it here and there, but nowhere near the degree you have been working on it, LJ. Nice work. I don't necessarily think that we should have a specific WikiWork target other than "not higher". What I mean is, while we're fixing up the maintenance categories, we're more likely to fix other things we see in articles. So class improvement becomes a byproduct of the maintenance categories instead of being the means to the end. –Fredddie™ 22:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think clearing out the maintenance categories should be our only goal. Improving the prose in articles should be a major part of what we do in the future and we should set goals to reflect that. Getting the WikiWork to a certain point or getting a certain number of articles destubbed or improved to a certain class is something we should have in addition to clearing out the maintenance categories. Dough4872 02:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a content writer, but I'm with Dough on this one. When I picture USRD goals, I think of tasks like WikiWork improvement, destubbing, or other prose improvements on articles. Even though the time limits are now out the window, I still think goals should remain primarily prose-oriented. The whole point of the objectives I devised was that they would serve as the non-time-bound, non-prose-oriented counterpart to the goals that were created at that time. The distinction is still there in my mind, even without the temporal component. As a side note, Wikidata should also be a USRD focus IMHO. -happy5214 06:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Noting that we did have a maintenance-related goal in 2012 (converting all the GAs and higher from hardcoded jctlists to the new at the time jctint/core). --Rschen7754 19:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Adding cities/destinations to as many junctions as possible
As Google Street View improves, we should be utilizing it to add control cities and destinations to as many junctions as we can. –Fredddie™ 23:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Support - I've been progressively doing this over the past couple years and can continue to do so. Dough4872 23:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - Perhaps this is colored by my bad experiences with random IPs and trolls in California, but I feel that this could lead to edit warring and adding in people's favorite destinations, that quickly turn into 5 destinations per junction. --Rschen7754 17:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily disapprove of listing 5 destinations so long as you can verify that they are on the signs. –Fredddie™ 22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Support - But, yeah, make sure it's verifiable. I also see this as a possible learning opportunity for newer editors. Remember back in 2012 when I was just starting out and I had no clue how junction lists worked, and kept adding intersections and control cities that were not major/verifiable? I feel like putting emphasis on this could help eliminate that. TCN7JM 22:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Provisional support - I'm happy to support it as long as it doesn't allow open slather on the RJL; i.e. junctions are with notable routes (see Florida State Road 997's history, for example) and all destinations can be verified - preferably cited. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Have we decided what are goals are going to be yet? We are already a month into the year and the 2016 goals on the project page is still a redlink. Dough4872 23:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I say more state-specific US routes should be a goal. I spent a bastard of an amount of time with the article on U.S. Route 301 in Georgia, and before I ripped that out of my sandbox I was ready to start one on U.S. Route 23 in Georgia. I'm even considering U.S. Route 129 in Georgia, and I think I should add more to that list. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
We can work on that, just need to make sure the articles are up to snuff though (B-class or better). Dough4872 17:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

To move things along, we have two suggestions for ideas for 2016 goals: Adding cities/destinations to as many junctions as possible and creating state-detail articles for U.S. Routes. Do you want to do these as our two goals? Or should we not just do any goals as no one else is suggesting ideas or taking initiative? Dough4872 01:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with those two goals. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose on this one. Oklahoma is so inconsistent on this (and likes to use destinations like "End of route") that I'd really prefer cities be left off OK junction lists altogether. As for other states, in general, I don't think anything having to do with RJLs is as high a priority as improving the actual prose in the article. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ambitious, hash-out-everything idea

To go off of Dough's first point, let's create a bunch of parallel goals based on the numerous ways we can measure content quality. Also, let's create separate lists for short-term and long-term goals.

For example, here are some short-term goals:

WikiWork
Get the USRD WikiWork down to 4.3
Get the US Highways WikiWork down to 4.0
Stubs
De-stub every state with 5 or fewer stubs (as of February 16, 2016)
Classes
Get to 1,000 Good Articles
Get to 3,000 C-Class articles

And here are some long-term goals:

WikiWork
Improve the USRD WikiWork to 4.0
Improve each state's WikiWork to at most 5.0
Stubs
De-stub the entire project
Classes
Have at least 100 A FA articles

Thoughts? -happy5214 02:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I like this logic of short-term and long-term goals. We can attempt to attain the short-term goals within a year (roughly) while the long-term goals can hopefully be attained further out, with no estimated date, as we can attain them when we have the time to. Also, when we attain a short-term goal, we can change it to another short-term goal. For example, once we get the USRD WikiWork down to 4.3, we can set another short-term goal to get it to 4.2, while working toward our long-term goal of getting it to 4.0. Also, I would add the goals of adding cities/destinations to as many junctions as possible and creating state-detail articles for U.S. Routes to the list of long-term goals, though we can also set short-term goals for these that would ultimately lead to our long-term goal. Dough4872 03:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, whatever. TCN7JM 03:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose – Is it really worth having goals? I'm sorry. but if we can't even finish them, why commit to them? Mitch32(I can have oodles of charm when I want to.) 04:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
These goals aren't going to have a hard deadline at the end of the year, like in the past. Rather, they will be completed when we have the time to. Dough4872 05:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
"but if we can't even finish them, why commit to them?" By that reasoning, we shouldn't even do Wikipedia, because our goal is to create a good encyclopedia, and it will never be finished. --Rschen7754 02:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I rebooted the planning department, which now includes several long-term content goals. Feel free to add goals as you see fit, and we'll derive some short-term goals from them. -happy5214 00:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

California State Route 78 at TFA

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

CA 78 will be the TFA on March 15, 2016. I wrote the article and it passed FA in 2009, so it is one of our older FAs. Subsequently, I rewrote the article in 2013 to modern standards. Could some editors take a look and catch anything that I missed? It was my goal to take it back through ACR at some point to make sure everything was good to go, but I suppose it's a bit late now... --Rschen7754 18:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate parameters in US Road articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

since you folks have been so good at cleaning these up in the past, here is a list of U.S. Road articles in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. you can see the errors if you open the article in edit mode, then press "show preview".

  1. Belt Line Road (Texas)
  2. Florida State Road 30
  3. Florida State Road 404
  4. Florida State Road 580
  5. Georgia State Route 24
  6. Georgia State Route 28
  7. Georgia State Route 36
  8. Georgia State Route 62
  9. Georgia State Route 109
  10. Georgia State Route 168
  11. Georgia State Route 190
  12. Georgia State Route 204
  13. George Parks Highway
  14. Illinois Route 4
  15. Indiana State Road 10
  16. Indiana State Road 28
  17. Indiana State Road 68
  18. Indiana State Road 129
  19. Indiana State Road 237
  20. Interstate 20 in South Carolina
  21. Interstate 40 in Oklahoma
  22. Interstate 77 in Ohio
  23. Interstate 79
  24. Interstate 90 in Ohio
  25. Interstate 664
  26. Louisiana Highway 104
  27. M-123 (Michigan highway)
  28. M-68 (Michigan highway)
  29. M-91 (Michigan highway)
  30. Maryland Route 346
  31. Maryland Route 646
  32. Massachusetts Route 32
  33. Missouri Route 21
  34. New York State Route 35
  35. North Carolina Highway 742
  36. Oregon Route 99
  37. Route 83 (Connecticut–Massachusetts)
  38. South Carolina Highway 51
  39. South Carolina Highway 183
  40. Tennessee State Route 31
  41. Tennessee State Route 55
  42. Tennessee State Route 93
  43. Tennessee State Route 128
  44. Tennessee State Route 184
  45. Texas State Highway 16
  46. U.S. Route 2 in Maine
  47. U.S. Route 3
  48. U.S. Route 6 in Colorado
  49. U.S. Route 6 in Utah
  50. U.S. Route 19 in Florida
  51. U.S. Route 20 in Oregon
  52. U.S. Route 23 in Virginia
  53. U.S. Route 24 in Illinois
  54. U.S. Route 25E
  55. U.S. Route 27 in Florida
  56. U.S. Route 29 in South Carolina
  57. U.S. Route 36 in Missouri
  58. U.S. Route 50 in Ohio
  59. U.S. Route 52 in Minnesota
  60. U.S. Route 60 in Virginia
  61. U.S. Route 61 Business (St. Francisville, Louisiana)
  62. U.S. Route 180 in Texas
  63. U.S. Route 189
  64. U.S. Route 202 in Connecticut
  65. U.S. Route 278 in Alabama
  66. U.S. Route 601
  67. Vermont Route 108

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed several already. Imzadi 1979 → 16:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed a few the rest of them. SounderBruce 21:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Noticed some jct entries on the Georgia articles were using "city2" for the first city, thus causing the cities to not show up on the live page. SounderBruce 21:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Imzadi1979 and SounderBruce, thank you very much. just one more to re-fix this should probably be city3? Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
TenPoundHammer, can you fix the duplicate name1 you introduced in U.S. Route 20 in Ohio? Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Future of the project

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I think we need to have a discussion regarding the future of this project. Over the past couple of years, most of our editors have gotten less active due to real-life commitments. I understand this gets priority, and I'm not gonna get upset at people for this. However, this has significantly affected the operations of our project and I feel we may need to adjust things to account for the decreased activity levels. Here are the points I would like to bring up:

  1. WP:HWY/ACR has ground to a halt. It takes months or even upwards of a year for articles to get through the venue, which hinders the editors who nominate the articles there.
  2. USRD articles have been sitting for months at WP:GAN (though this is somewhat beyond our control)
  3. We struggle to get the quarterly newsletters out on time, and I feel we do not have enough people or content to write a newsletter on a quarterly basis.
  4. We rarely get suggestions for content at P:USRD, which usually results in me having to dig up stuff at the end of every month for the next month.
  5. Discussions at the talk page sometimes get little or no response and/or quickly get stale, with no action taken.
  6. We still have not decided on 2016 goals, even though we are already more than a month into the year.

With these points mentioned, I think we to evaluate modifying or shutting down aspects that are too much to maintain or need to otherwise operate differently with the reduced activity levels. Any suggestions or thoughts would be appreciated. Dough4872 04:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I personally think that activity has slightly increased over the last few months, though there has been a shift in priorities. I do think that we could get better at integrating newer editors, which is key for the project continuing though. As for myself, I've been doing most of my editing at our projects on Commons and Wikidata; I do plan to shift back here once some projects out there are done. --Rschen7754 19:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
A good chunk of my activity lately has been of the RVV variety, but I am seeing new editors starting up and older tasks nearing completion. –Fredddie™ 19:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the project inactive based on edits to USRD articles, as they seem to be getting attention still. The main concern here is that project venues such as ACR, newsletter, portal, and the talk page have become less active and stuff is not progressing. Based on this concern, I think we might need to streamline our venues to run more efficiently. Dough4872 01:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
This discussion is becoming indicative of the problem it's intended to address. What better an outcome for this discussion on project inactivity than inactivity? Do something! -happy5214 02:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
PLEASE reflect national history and topography in discussion of roads. Hi, I have not formally joined the project, but am regularly improving roads articles that I come across in two primary ways: 1) ensuring they reflect the history of development (for instance, many older roads/highways were built from east to west following settlement patterns from colonial era forward; and 2) ensure they reflect topography and geography. That is, rivers do NOT parallel roads, but roads and highways may parallel rivers. Please remember the rivers came first, and were the primary transportation corridors before trails/paths were improved and roads were built. Help people understand how pathways are developed - along the lowlands of river valleys, for instance.Parkwells (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Map tracking on {{USRD}}

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've been making maps lately, and I was wondering if {{USRD}} should utilize the Wikidata road map property to track maps instead of |needs-map=. It would work a lot like KML checking works, where the parameter is largely irrelevant except for when |needs-kml=NA is used. Plus it would help clear out Category:Infobox road maps for Wikidata migration.

I'm not exactly sure how it would be handled, especially since the banner is on the talk page and the map displays on the article. @Happy5214 and WOSlinker: any thoughts? –Fredddie™ 01:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a function to get a wikidata value for the subject page when on the talk page, {{#property:P15|from={{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}}} but it's not enabled on the wiki. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

NBI

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

It appears that the NBI database website has been updated for 2014. However, all the URLs appear to be broken as it appears they changed them. Is there a way we can get {{NBI}} fixed so the links can work? Dough4872 04:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is a way, but you have to demonstrate how it needs to be fixed. The simplest way is to give an example of how the template creates links and then give us the same example with the new link. Asking us to figure it out for you is a good way to get your request ignored. –Fredddie™ 11:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The template formats the reference like this: http://nationalbridges.com/index.php?task=showResults&query=8&lqm_id={{{datakey|<span class=error>Error! No datakey provided!</span>}}} Using an example, the link nationalbridges.com/index.php?task=showResults&query=8&lqm_id=534473 is now found at http://nationalbridges.com/index.php?option=com_lqm&5341fe3655383bc882170cf793487df0=1&task=showResults&query=8&lqm_id=461649&&format=raw&&Itemid=2. Also, it looks like the ID for the bridge has changed. Dough4872 02:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Should we consider deprecating this template? I am not opposed to linking to a third-party website that organizes government information, but this website has been reconstructed twice in the past 5 years. I think both reconstructions have required us to rebuild either our referencing scheme or the template by updating each reference instead of just the template. Part of that is I did not design the template very well, but I do not know how we can improve it much. More importantly, the search functionality of this database has gone to crap, so I do not know how useful the template would be even if it were implemented better.

There are only 191 transclusions of this template, but many of the articles in which it is transcluded have multiple instances. We should try to replace as many instances as possible with alternate sources, either for the date of the bridge or the date the highway that includes the bridge was constructed. We can also disable the link to the website to avoid sending people to the wrong bridge information; the bridge number should be a uniquely identifying piece of information.  VC  17:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah at this point we may be better off hardcoding the reference or keeping the template but disabling the link. Dough4872 18:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Or just linking to the nationalbridges.com frontpage and letting the user do the search themselves. --Rschen7754 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate state in jct

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since you folks are so good at fixing these, here are some more:

  1. California Department of Food and Agriculture
  2. Interstate 55 in Missouri
  3. New Hampshire Route 10
  4. New Hampshire Route 12

you can see the duplicate parameter error in preview mode. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done -happy5214 22:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

South Carolina truck routes

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I used the {{Jct}} template for a South Carolina highway truck route (South Carolina Highway 19 Truck), but it didn't work correctly. Can someone add truck routes for SC to the template? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a sign that truck routes should remain off junction lists as they are not official routes. ;) --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This is not just a South Carolina issue but an issue with other states too. Most truck routes are not listed in route logs or shown are route maps and can only be verified through photos or Google Street View. I know Pennsylvania recently signed a bunch of truck and "alternate truck" routes around weight-restricted bridges and its a pain trying to verify them through Google Street View as no other source shows them. I have left these routes out of junction lists but still include a subsection in the parent article when I can verify the routing. Other states like Maryland have truck routes like Maryland Route 222 Truck and the former Maryland Route 274 Truck that too can only be verified through Google Street View and photos from roadgeek sites, which makes finding historical information from reliable sources nearly impossible. I think we may need to have a cutoff line for whether we should cover all truck routes. The vast majority of them can only be verified through photos, maybe we should only include truck routes that appear on maps, route logs, and/or AASHTO documents. This is not as much an issue for other bannered routes like alternate, business, and bypass as they are more likely to appear on maps, route logs, and/or AASHTO documents. Dough4872 23:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
One of the things I considered was establish a state specific Truck page that lists all known truck routes with information regarding truck rules and stuff (similar to scenic route pages). Check out here User:Washuotaku/sandbox2. Granted, NCDOT has more control regarding truck routes compared to other states. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That could be a thought, but finding sources for the existence and history of the truck routes would still be hard to find. In Pennsylvania, for example, Google Street View is the only way to verify these routes existence as they are not shown on maps or in route logs. PennDOT does have a list of the weight-restricted bridges that shows the weight limits in affect but does not verify the truck routes other than a detour length. Coupling this with Google Street View is the only real way to verify these truck routes. Dough4872 04:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we should treat truck routes like other bannered routes and require reliable sources for them to write articles about them or make reference to them in articles. One thing to consider is to talk about "a truck route that follows Route X" instead of "Route X Truck." We will likely find it easier to support with reliable sources that Route X has a truck route that takes it elsewhere versus there being a route designation called Route X Truck.  VC  12:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

County road list article links

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

I've noticed that the newer county road list articles in Minnesota don't have links on the "Major Intersections" section in a road's article, but older ones (particularly ones created more than one year ago,) do. However, redirects to county road list articles do have links in the Major Intersections section. Does anyone know how to link to the newer articles? Vcap36 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vcap36: examples, please? Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: Anoka County, Chisago County, and Dakota County, to name a few. Vcap36 (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Vcap36: those pages do not have Major intersections sections. Start over with a specific example of a missing link in a specific article, and please tell us how it should be it be linked and to where. Imzadi 1979 → 19:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: Oh, I thought you were talking about the newer county road lists. Here's an example: Interstate 35W has missing links to several county roads in Anoka County. The ones that do have links are redirects. Vcap36 (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
That's your answer, Vcap36: {{jct}} is set to only link CRs for MN where a link exists. For example:
The template's module tests to see if a link exists, and if it doesn't, it suppresses the link rather than have it appear red. This is an intentional behavior. To get the others to link, you'll need to create the missing redirects to the list.
As a side note, most of those CR lists should be converted over to tables, and the redirects can point to exactly the right row of the table. For example, A-2 (Michigan county highway) points to the A-2 row of the table on List of County-Designated Highways in Michigan. {{Routelist row}} creates an anchor for every row of the table, following the formula: <sortkey> (if supplied) or else <type code><number>. The <number> has zeros added to make it a four-digit number. If the redirects are created for MN, the CRs in the table will link, so you'll need to add |nolink=yes to shut off a link that redirects back to the same spot in the table, aka a useless link. Imzadi 1979 → 01:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Side note: About converting the articles to tables; what if the road is a major county route in the county but isn't notable enough to merit its own article, but has additional information that would be useful in the article? Vcap36 (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You need to decide what is really needed for "additional information", and then concisely add it to the notes column of the table. Remember that we're writing a generalist encyclopedia for a wide audience, and not an encyclopedia for Anoka County, or even the state of Minnesota. The tables don't need turn-by-turn descriptions of the routing of these roads, for instance. The minutia of historical changes can also be glossed over in many cases; glossed, not omitted. Imzadi 1979 → 02:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, on the Interstate 35W article I noticed a link for Hennepin County Road 1 that wasn't a redirect. Is there some list of counties in the template? Vcap36 (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vcap36: Module:Road data/strings/USA/MN look first for County Road 1 (Hennepin County, Minnesota), but doesn't find it, so then it defaults over to County roads in Hennepin County, Minnesota#1. It will do that only for Hennepin, Isanti, Kanabec, Lake, Le Sueur, Pine, Ramsey, St. Louis, or Washington counties. However, in the long run, that additional step should be removed. It would be simpler to just require a redirect or actual article to display a link. The old backup scheme won't work right if lists are converted to tables to follow WP:USRD/STDS/L. (WP:USRD/RCS is still an option, but if that method is followed properly, we'd use redirects to section headings, not hidden anchor codes. Note, the tables and RCS schemes should not be mixed in the same list.) Imzadi 1979 → 02:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed that fallback scheme, so now they're unlinked again for those counties. Imzadi 1979 → 02:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

junction

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

here are some road articles with duplicate junction= parameters:

  1. Fort Bend Parkway
  2. Interstate 440 (Tennessee)
  3. Maryland Route 182
  4. New York State Route 37
  5. U.S. Route 371
  6. West Virginia Route 259

thank you for your help. Frietjes (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done all fixed –Fredddie™ 22:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories for Kentucky Routes

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just found out that a lot of Kentucky state route articles lack "Transportation in ****** County" categories. While I was adding one to a redirected US route earlier today, I found there were a lot of them that had to be created. Who else is willing to add those categories in? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Major proposal to rename USH articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago55 comments16 people in discussion

I was looking at Google Trends this morning and I decided to look up what's more popular: U.S. Highway or U.S. Route. I was surprised to discover that over the last ten years, U.S. Highway is more popular by nearly a 2-to-1 margin. [1] Then I wondered if US Highway/Route would be more popular than U.S. Highway/Route. Even more surprise as US Highway and US Route are far and away more popular than with the dots, but the 2-to-1 margin remained. [2]

So I am proposing that we move all US Highway System articles to a new title, but I have a few options that we can mull over.

  1. All articles move to US Highway X (US Highway 1, US Highway 1 in Florida)
  2. All articles move to US Route X (US Route 2, US Route 2 in Washington)
  3. All national articles move to US Highway X, but state-detail articles move to state-preferred terminology (US Highway 20, US Highway 20 in Iowa, US Route 20 in Illinois)
  4. Same as 3, but "route" states could become "highway" states (and vice versa) with consensus
  5. No change (U.S. Route 412, U.S. Route 412 in Oklahoma)

Please select your first and second choices for this proposal. –Fredddie™ 22:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 1

  • First choice. In addition, the dot-less form is preferred by the Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), specifically §§ 8.55 and 9.51. Imzadi 1979 → 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice. Establishes consistency and respects the common name used (which happens to be somewhat official). SounderBruce 22:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice to keep things consistent, and better reflect popular usage. Note that the current convention was done without much discussion, mostly mass-moved by one user. --Rschen7754 22:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice. It is called the system of United States Numbered Highways. When we type them in shorthand, we often call them USH, not USR. "Highway" is the more popular term for them not only among the population at large, but among us roadgeek folk, too. And with these highways in the same system, it's important to be consistent between states, I think. TCN7JM 00:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Second choice. If this becomes a thing, would rather drop the dots then too. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice. I like the idea of moving to the common term. The dot-less form seems acceptable in relation to MOS:U.S., as long as we're consistent (and it makes editing slightly easier anyway). If we're going to do a mass move, I think all titles should move for consistency (and we can retain provisions for "US Route" nomenclature to be used in the article body, as we currently have provision for "highway" states). -- LJ ↗ 19:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice. From an international perspective (America isn't the only place that speaks English, after all), I definitely prefer it to be US rather than U.S. Additionally, nomenclature over here in Australia suggests that a Highway (with the exception of the two Bradfield Highways) is a long-distance road that usually connects a chain of settlements (such as a US Highway); whereas a Route is a road of lesser geographical and governmental importance (such as a State Route/Road). Be it far from me to suggest my English should dictate another's, though. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice based on trends, even though I simply like the look of the dots better. "Pepper" @ 01:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice. Another thing to consider is that the main article of this subject is United States Numbered Highways, not "United States Numbered Routes." I know that's a minor nitpick, but it could be very confusing to ESL readers and others. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 20:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 2

  • Second choice. Again, consistency matters. SounderBruce 22:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice - AASHTO, which regulates the numbering of the highways, refer to them as US Route X. Therefore, I say we stick with official sources rather than Google. Also many states, especially in the heavily populated areas of the east and west coasts, use Route X to refer to their highways while Highway X tends to be used in the less populated areas in the middle of the country. Dough4872 06:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice. Feel we should stick with what is considered official by the Federal government agencies. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Second choice. While I'd prefer the change, I'm happy enough with the status quo, especially if it's more appeasing to be more conservative and is line with the official nomenclature. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • First choice I feel like we should stick with official sources and have the articles all be named Route. --Will211 21:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will211 (talk • contribs)

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Discussion

  • One thing to note, if this results in any changes, we'll likely need to enlist a bot to carry out all of the page moves. The bot operator should be told that even though something like U.S. Route 31 Business (Muskegon, Michigan) is a redirect, that redirect should be moved because it is categorized. Also, we'd need to move Business routes of U.S. Route 31 in Michigan and other similar listicles for consistency too. Imzadi 1979 → 23:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Washuotaku: we're bound by WP:COMMONNAMES, not WP:OFFICIALNAMES, and that's what the Google Trends search demonstrates. –Fredddie™ 18:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dough4872: Your assertion about nomenclature under option 2 isn't universal. For example, Nevada is a "State Route" state. It is very common for people and the media to refer to "State Route X" but use "US Highway X" (often shortened to "Highway X")—even NDOT uses this in press releases. (Note: I have tended to use "U.S. Route" in articles for consistency with article titles.) I believe California is similar with their usage. -- LJ ↗ 19:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • While I think Option 1 is the best option for most US highways, what about US Route 66? I've never heard anyone call that one Highway 66, so if we choose Option 1 it might be worth leaving that one out as an exception. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem with option 1 is that we would go against the common name in several states, especially along the coasts. In this part of the country, people refer to U.S. routes as Route X and not Highway X. I think maybe going for option 3 could be the best option to allow for differences in states that use Route vs. Highway, as to respect the local vernacular, so we would have US Route 1 in Pennsylvania and US Highway 41 in Michigan. However, this still leaves the issue about to what to title the national articles, whether to do US Route X to follow AASHTO or US Highway X to follow common usage. I still feel that we should stick to official sources versus Google. However, I could be indifferent to what the national articles are called as long as the state-detail articles reflect local vernacular. I am strongly opposed to having article titles like US Highway 1 in Pennsylvania as that completely goes against what people in Pennsylvania refer to the highway as. Regardless of what happens, we need to drop the periods from US. Dough4872 19:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I would support moving it to Route 66, but keep the state-detail articles at the standard names. –Fredddie™ 19:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@DyluckTRocket: "Highway" and "Route" don't necessarily have to do with the length and importance of the road as some states refer to longer and more important roads as Route and some states will refer to shorter and less important roads as Highway. Which term is used depends heavily on the state and region, much like soda versus pop. Dough4872 04:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Can we add an option (Option 6?) for dots and Highway? I much prefer dots, but I am open to changing Route to Highway in all titles. The Route 66 situation, though, is a decent reason to not make the switch.
  • We should consider keeping with the Wikipedia Manual of Style for the abbreviation for United States. To wit, the relevant entry says dots is the prevalent style in the United States and Canada, although Chicago deprecates the dots. Chicago is not the only style guide that matters. The U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual, Associated Press, the American Psychological Association, and the Modern Library Association all use dots.  VC  01:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If we do change it to "US" rather than "U.S.", does this mean we should then change the name of the WikiProject to "US Roads"? -DyluckTRocket (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised it apparently hasn't been mentioned until now, but we're already incredibly inconsistent at the moment. We use the dotless format for the abbreviation, but the dotted format (outside of Michigan) for the full name in prose: "U.S. Route 12 (US 12)" or "U.S. Highway 66 (US-66)", etc. The only state that used dots in the abbreviated format in {{jct}} was Arkansas, and that state was switched to be consistent with the other 47 on that issue a while ago. Michigan is the only state to completely switch to the dotless form except in article titles, "US Highway 41 (US 41)"

    We're also inconsistent in the names in categories, where "U.S. Highway" is in near universal usage now.Imzadi 1979 → 03:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Closing?

Is it time to find someone to close this? I'm thinking of asking at WP:AN/RFC since this close could be controversial. --Rschen7754 19:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Viridiscalculus: asked the question before, but to anyone who !voted for Option 1 above, would your !vote change if it was U.S. Highway X instead of US Highway X? –Fredddie™ 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this would change my opinion. -- LJ ↗ 14:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer it without the dots, personally; but, when in Rome, as they say. In other words, if consensus is to keep the dots, I won't make a fuss. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we think we can resolve this soon? There was already a question regarding the US vs. U.S. usage in the text of List of U.S. Highways in Michigan [a] when that list came up at DYK. The list will be headed to FLC in the next few days as soon as a map is finished, and if this discussion isn't resolved by then, I'm sure it will impact the nomination to some degree. Imzadi 1979 → 03:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should just stick with the status quo and leave the articles as they are right now. We don't seem to have enough consensus regarding whether or not U.S. should have periods, mind as well use them to stay consistent. Dough4872 03:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Note that we're not consistent in their usage, and my plea is to reach a resolution soon rather than reach one in the middle of an active FLC and screw up a nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 04:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I can be fine with dropping the periods, as long as we leave the article titles at "Route", with "Highway" permissible in the prose for those states that use the terminology. Dough4872 04:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes we know. You made that clear above with your !vote. There is no need to rehash it here. –Fredddie™ 11:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Michigan has been using "US" for several years now to eliminate the inconsistency between "U.S. Highway 41" and "US 41".

Looking again at this, it seems there's a slight preference for option 1, but I'm not sure that it's consensus. Perhaps it would be better to restart this discussion, but format it around these two questions, and then name the articles accordingly:

  1. Highway vs. Route
  2. U.S. vs. US

Options 3 and 4 do not seem to have support and should likely be dropped from consideration. --Rschen7754 01:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer "Route" over "Highway" since the former is what AASHTO refers to them as, and we should stick with the official sources. As for the periods, I'm indifferent but we should make them consistent for the spelled out form and the abbreviation, so it would be "U.S. Route 13 (U.S. 13)" or "US Route 13 (US 13)". Dough4872 01:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't address the issue that the term "route" doesn't match the keystone article, United States Numbered Highways. Regardless of what AASHTO or any state agency says, continuity of terms within the encyclopedia is important. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 21:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is AASHTO is inconsistent with how it refers to them. It calls the system "U.S. Numbered Highways" but refer to the individual highways as "U.S. Routes". Therefore, I feel we need to be inconsistent to be consistent with their usage. Dough4872 18:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
What? "We need to be inconsistent in order to be consistent" is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. –Fredddie™ 20:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
We need to be inconsistent in our usage of Route versus Highway in order to be consistent with how AASHTO refers to them, since they use both terms in different capacities. Dough4872 22:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm still having trouble understanding what you mean by this. Do you mean referring to the system as whole as "Highways" but each individual component as a "Route"? -DyluckTRocket (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
He's saying that since AASHTO uses both route and highway inconsistently, USRD must do the same. I hope that sounds as dumb to you as it does to me. We are not AASHTO and we're not beholden to AASHTO's idiosyncrasies. –Fredddie™ 22:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I still think we should stick to the status quo since Route X is used in official sources. In many states Highway X is not used and therefore an incorrect term. We could always move the state detail articles to Route X or Highway X depending on what the state used while we can decide what the national articlrs should be. I prefer Route X but the majority seem to want Highway X, so be it for the national articles. Dough4872 23:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Nomenclature in Nevada and other western states tends to prefer "Highway" in common media usage, so that is where my vote would lean—note that I've stuck to 'route' more often than not in Nevada article prose more for internal consistency than anything else, so I can go either way. I'm indifferent about the periods, but feel they could be dropped easily to keep consistency with the common abbreviation scheme. Whatever is decided, I don't think we should be inconsistent in article naming across state-detail articles (i.e. we shouldn't have "US Highway 50 in Nevada" and "US Route 50 in Maryland").

Call it personal preference, but "US" without the periods looks undignified. I'm skittish on any change because my own nomenclature for highways is heavily inspired by the existing convention. My old personal highway project did however use "Highway" consistently, so I have a slight preference for "U.S. Highway X". But I simply don't see a need for change. I honestly hope this closes without consensus. It's a minor academic issue that doesn't deserve this much deliberation. I will say this however: we are not beholden to AASHTO, Google, reputable sources, other roadgeek sites, or anyone other than the project itself. -happy5214 02:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The Wikipedia Library

There are up to 30 free one-year Alexander Street Press (ASP) accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP.

Alexander Street Press is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons licensing update

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All current state highway shields for the 50 states and DC have been tagged with the correct licensing templates listed at c:COM:USRD/L. When uploading new shields, please use these templates for licensing.

I plan to do the territories (Puerto Rico, etc.) at a later date. --Rschen7754 18:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ohio's Opportunity Corridor

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Last year I proposed merging the Opportunity Corridor section of Interstate 490 (Ohio) into Ohio State Route 10 because I noted the Ohio DOT's plan to reroute the latter designation over it (see I-490's talk page). Without either a consensus on the merger or final decision on ODOT's part, a user removed the section from the 490 page and another placed it on the SR-10 page just recently. I'm reverting because even if the final decision on the section is to put it on the SR-10 page, the "merger" as it was just now was just a copy/paste, creating bad context (broken refs, a self-link, a sudden mention of I-290 on the SR-10 page, etc.). Mapsax (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness, Mapsax, it would probably be best to create a separate article for the Corridor, since at this point it appears it will be assigned to neither route. That's just my take on it. Prhdbt [talk] 21:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
That's kinda what I was thinking. It seems notable enough to have an article, but doesn't feel right attaching it to the end of the road articles. –Fredddie™ 21:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Concur. Even if it doesn't end up on the state system, its notability can be justified by it being a major street in a large city. I've changed out the old "merge" tag with a "split" one. Mapsax (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Mapsax/Opportunity Corridor Have at it. Mapsax (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

State Route 10 or not?

I have placed a section on the new page identifying the planned SR 10 designation, but I have left that information out of the lead section and infobox. Note that the references used regarding the designation are a document with a map showing a "Proposed SR-10 Extension" drawn in, and the 2015 construction guide with a passing mention of "to be known as SR 10" (the 2016 guide is just out, and retains the message, but I left the 2015 one since the difference is negligible between the two years). The wording of those two leads me to believe that, while it's obvious what ODOT's intentions are, the SR 10 designation hasn't been approved yet. I just did a revert of an edit which used those sources plus a couple others with a single map with a SR 10 shield (really just one since one source reproduced the map from the other) which the user placed in the infobox, convinced that it will be SR 10, no questions asked. (The revert also threw out a cite which doesn't mention SR 10 at all.) Thoughts? Mapsax (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

New York State Route 32 article needing update -- information 5 years out of date

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The following sentence says something is expected to be complete by 2011. If 2011 is the correct date, it should say it was completed. If it is not yet completed, then it should not say it is expected by 2011:

The changes are expected to be complete by 2011, as part of improvements to convert the Route 17 expressway into I-86. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.150.154 (talk) 17:59, 2 April, 2016 (UTC)

@Mitchazenia and Daniel Case: --Rschen7754 01:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  Done [3]. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
And then wouldn't you believe it ... the local newspaper runs an article fully updating the situation (which, yes, has now been incorporated into the article). Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A request. I'm not the best writer, but the last few days I have been improving this article and would like somebody to review and make any corrections, changes, whatever necessary to it. Thanks as always. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Fast comments: Good length of the RD and history sections, but you need to break them down into subsections. It's tl;dr right now. In the RD, try to split it into three sections of roughly equal highway length (roughly 160 miles). Don't force a break, just wherever there seems to be a logical pause. A mini-lead wouldn't hurt either. The history section already has the mini lead, so I'd break it into a couple sections after the first paragraph. –Fredddie™ 21:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I embellished the starter sentences into full paragraph and broke-up the RD section into three regions, with lead-in. I also added tourist routes, not sure if those NC Byway shields looks good in the infobox, I'm 50/50 leaving them out and only focus on National Scenic Byways only. Not sure how to break-up the eras in the History section. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Vision for the future

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

I thought I would share some ideas I have on things I'd like to see the project do in the next five or so years. These are not measurable goals, so they're not exactly suited for the planning page. My apologies if you've heard them before. Feel free to add your own if you like. –Fredddie™ 08:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Add some more types to the banner

For as long as I can remember, {{USRD}} has tracked Interstates, U.S. Highways, and auto trails and that's because they started out as separate WikiProjects. Now that we've been one all-encompassing WikiProject for the last few years, we should have ways to track just state highways, county roads, KMLS, or interchanges. Ask yourself, do you know how many KMLs USRD has? So I'd like to see |type= required on all instances of the banner. An Iowa state highway would be tagged {{USRD|state=IA|type=IA|...}}, a Minnesota county road with {{USRD|state=MN|type=CR|...}}, High Five Interchange with {{USRD|state=TX|type=INT|...}}, and so on. We could then identify states by their flags and use the state highway shield for the SH/SR/state type.

Along the same lines, we could add support for metro areas so we could track New York City- or Chicago-related road articles, for instance. That's another discussion entirely. –Fredddie™ 08:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

In the short term, I'd add the INT and CR types for tracking purposes, and possibly even make the banner smart enough to display a blank county road pentagon for CRs instead of the blank state highway marker and track the CR articles nationally for statistics like the I/US/Trail TFs. [Compare |state=MI vs. |state=MI-CHTF for what I mean in terms of display on Talk:M-28 (Michigan highway) and Talk:H-58 (Michigan county highway).] The trouble is that Interstates and US Highways are state highways, so really they should be counted both ways, as an Interstate/USH and as a state highway, as they are now. Also, we have articles like State Highway 243 (Minnesota–Wisconsin), which are on the state-level in two states. Imzadi 1979 → 09:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Along with what Fredddie is saying, maybe we should also adopt a parameter that will let us better track the national articles. Right now, articles like Interstate 80 or U.S. Route 30 typically just have |type=I or |type=US. They do get lumped into the overall Interstate and US Route categories (along with all the state-detail articles). But we can't really see what all these national articles look like in our categories or leaderboard statistics. So, for example, the I-80 article could have something like {{USRD|state=national|type=I|...}}, and would be sorted into national assessment categories.
We also have some random non-road articles that are tagged as part of the project, but fall into Category:U.S. road transport articles without a state parameter due to not fitting in the current type/state scheme. These are mostly American road concepts (e.g. Michigan left, Functional classification), legislation/highway acts (e.g. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act), some lists (e.g. List of unused highways in the United States) and other related things (e.g. Federal Highway Administration, AASHO Road Test). There should be a catch-all topic parameter(s) to monitor these, even though they don't follow our typical "big 3" assessment system. -- LJ ↗ 20:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm on board for adding the CR and INT types, as we can be able to track County Route articles (and check to see if they are truly notable), along with interchanges, which use a different format. We may want to add a tracking category for system overview articles as well since they follow a special format. I also like the idea to be able to specifically track state routes only (and not U.S. routes and Interstates) for a given state. Dough4872 00:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Absorb WikiProject:U.S. Streets

Adding more types to the banner will make it easier to absorb WP:USST, which was created by USRD members to be a catch-all for articles that we didn't want were not in USRD's scope. Currently, USST has 757 pages, only 1 of which is a FA and 6 are GAs. It would put a dent in our WikiWork, yes, but I think it's the right thing to do. Obviously we would have to work on notability requirements for streets so streets like Dove Avenue in Cleveland don't get an article and maybe relax the junction list requirement for city streets. As a bonus, our project name would no longer be ambiguous; it would actually be about "roads in the U.S." and not "roads in the U.S., but not streets!" –Fredddie™ 08:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not particularly keen on absorbing USST to the project, particularly when I've spent the past few months off and on trying to discern whether or not various Miami-Dade county State Roads should be merged into a listicle a la RCS and various others spun off into USST's care so as to reduce USRD's WikiWork. But enough of my own sub-project; the notability requirements are what I find issue with. I believe in the validity of unconventional knowledge, so long as it can be verified and proven. In other words, a street that someone outside of a particular city may not regard as notable is notable to those whose daily lives are affected by it or find it a source of civic pride or have local knowledge as to its history and/or importance to their Podunk town or city. As it is, I've seen the decline in the categorisation and navboxen of the streets of "minor" US cities, so even the classification of what particular cities' streets are notable enough to warrant an article is in question. So, what then becomes valid for articles, and what does not? I have a gut feeling that the creation of rules and guidelines of what makes a street notable is going to find a lot of exceptions and a lot of contention as a result. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm a little wary about merging USST into USRD since articles on city streets follow a different format than articles about numbered routes. City street articles put more emphasis on points of interest and the culture and history of the city it is in as opposed to focusing on the description and history of the road itself, which is somewhat out of the USRD focus and is something many editors would be uncomfortable with. Dough4872 00:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I think there is a bit of a false dichotomy between USRD and USST, and that the situation is a bit awkward. There were some concerns though that were valid about including those streets in the same manner as other USRD articles. Perhaps we should reevaluate this and see if there isn't some other solution. --Rschen7754 05:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Rschen7754, can you elaborate on this false dichotomy? Better knowing the history of USRD versus USST would help us make a better decision.  VC  12:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I have been meaning to get back to this (ping me if I forget) but some of the others who were involved with it are still active too, if they want to share their recollections too. --Rschen7754 07:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Looking in the archives, it seems that the split happened around 2007-2008, and was related to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2 dispute. [4][5] This was also back when we had state highway subprojects, so some of the reasoning behind this (state highway subprojects being forced to take on articles they didn't want) isn't quite the same anymore. I will probably be re-reviewing some of those discussions (especially the 2008 one) before forming an opinion on the current state of affairs. --Rschen7754 17:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't look at the 2007–08 era as being in line with current consensus. –Fredddie™ 20:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A bit of a thought: A lot of the same arguments could be made for Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Auto trails that are made for USST. (Which, I believe that we need to refocus that scope as it's way too narrow, but that's for another discussion). --Rschen7754 01:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for absorbing USST or at least giving the project some more activity and defined goals. Why does riff-raff like Los Angeles streets, 41-250 need to exist?--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 01:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we absorb USST, we need to give more structure and goals for articles about U.S. streets, as the project page currently does not give that. It would be nice to set standards for how U.S. street articles should be written so we have the groundwork to write quality articles. Dough4872 01:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose—the scopes of content have always been a bit different between city streets and state highways. Yes, there are some shorter fully urban state highways that look and act like city streets, but the levels of detail and types of content are different. For that reason, I'd leave them separate. Barring that, we would need a way to completely separately track state highways from city streets for statistical purposes across the board. The current USRD was formed by the amalgamation of state highway projects and the jettison of the streets and bridges to refine our purpose to covering state highways and the occasional major county road. That result should be respected at some level. Imzadi 1979 → 02:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If I have a preference I favor the status quo of leaving USRD and USST separate. However, as I mentioned above, we do need to give USST some love and set goals and standards so it can flourish as a project and lead to the improvement of articles on U.S. streets. Dough4872 02:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Both of you missed the point of this thread, which was to simply write down ideas for the future of USRD. I never proposed that we actually merge USST into USRD and especially not right now. All I said was that USST should eventually be a part of USRD. No more no less no !votes. –Fredddie™ 02:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
      • You did not propose it explicitly, but you gave some arguments in favor of it. I was looking forward to having a discussion about whether or how to make it happen.  VC  03:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If we want to discuss the future of USRD, I have several points to bring up. We have many venues such as ACR, the newsletter, and the portal that are barely active. Articles at ACR move through slowly, sometimes up to six months to a year, due to lack of reviews. We are long overdue for a newsletter and really do not have much content to write for one, so we should consider reducing the frequency or shutting it down. Also, no one suggests ideas for the portal anymore and I usually have to dig for stuff every month, so we should consider automating part of all of the portal to generate content randomly. We need to streamline these venues to run more effectively with reduced editing levels. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Dough4872 02:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

needs-kml parameter

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

It donned on me that I'm not sure whether I should be removing the needs-kml parameter in the USRD template when I create a new KML, or if I should change it to =no. I know that the template is set up to automatically display correctly on the talk page and categorize the article correctly regardless of the presence of the parameter, but I wasn't sure if it should be left for some reason. "Pepper" @ 04:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The only time we really need {{{needs-kml}}} is when the KML is not located at the same title as the article (e.g. <article> and Template:Attached KML/<article>), or when the article gets |needs_kml=NA. Both of these examples are fairly rare. –Fredddie™ 15:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I guess it's not as "required" as the template documentation makes it out to be. "Pepper" @ 17:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm finding that if a talk page still has a {{{needs-kml|yes}}} even if there is a KML file created, the talk page will still appear in the "Category:X road articles needing KML." Example: I have the KML for North Carolina Highway 226 done, the talk page banner which does have {{{needs-kml|yes}}} displays both "This article has a KML file" and "This article needs a KML file," and Category:North Carolina road articles needing KML still includes 226. For articles that don't have the parameter, I don't add a {{{needs-kml|no}}} but I still need to change articles that do have it. —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 19:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
There are sometimes caching/purging issues that will sometimes require an edit to get it to properly refresh. I coded this back in the days of parserfunctions, so it is possible that switching it to Lua might fix it. --Rschen7754 19:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)`

WP:USST content that should be in WP:USRD

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I decided to restart the WP:USST discussion, but in a different thread, because it got prematurely derailed above. There are many articles that have been retagged for USST because of the sentiment that "we don't want these in USRD." We should figure out which articles really belong in USST, which articles USRD should claim or reclaim, and how to decide where an article should be placed should the situation arise. My first thoughts are:

  • Remember the distinction between a street and a road. As stated in the street article: a road's main function is transportation, while streets facilitate public interaction. I encourage us to discuss this distinction further.
  • Articles about freeways and expressways should be in USRD. The first article that comes to mind is Peña Boulevard, which is a freeway owned and maintained by the City and County of Denver. Sure, it is municipally maintained, but it is clearly not a street. Its sole purpose is transportation, specifically getting people between the airport and the main part of Denver and other places. There are other examples like Storrow Drive that are freeways that should be in USRD but may have arguments in favor of remaining in USST.
  • There are many county highways in USST, and many of these are in USST because they were deemed not notable for USRD. We should figure out more specific notability guidelines for county highways, remove or listify county highways that we deem not notable, and correct the earlier dumping of articles from USRD into USST. Most of these county highways likely serve more as roads than streets, but some serve properly as streets.

Have at it!  VC  13:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that road articles focus on the transportation apsects, such as road design and route numbers, while street articles focus on public interaction, such as buildings and cultural aspects. For example, Broad Street in Philadelphia carries Pennsylvania Route 611 for most of its length. PA 611 is tagged USRD as it focuses on the road design and history of the route numbers along Broad Street. The Broad Street article is tagged USST as it mentions important buildings along the street as well as the street's cultural impact on Philadelphia. Any road that is limited-access, even if it is unnumbered and city-maintained, should be tagged for USRD since limited-access roads are more about transportation than public interaction. Under this logic, Peña Boulevard and Storrow Drive should be tagged for USRD. Also, county highways that are tagged for USST should be evaluated on whether the article focuses more on transportation or public interaction, and should be tagged appropriately. County highways should generally only be covered in lists and not individual articles, and if a county highway is also a city street the street article should put more emphasis on public interaction while the county highway can be covered in a list that focuses on the transportation aspect, with a link to the street article. Dough4872 18:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think most routes with an NHS designation should be under USRD. Shepard Road/Warner Road is an example of a street (mostly) on the NHS which has additional historic and current day value as a primary route along the Mississippi River, where the parallel state highway (Minnesota State Highway 5/Fort Road) is more of a local connector and is scheduled for turnback.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 18:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Connecticut route types in templates

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I am creating route lists at List of State Routes in Connecticut. Connecticut has three types of state routes:

  • Routes from 2 to 399 are signed highways and are called State Routes.
  • Routes from 400 to 499 are unsigned and are called Special Service Roads.
  • Routes from 500 to 999 are unsigned and are called State Roads.

I am creating separate lists for each of the three types of highways, although I would like to leave the possibility of combining the highways into one list. I created the State Route list without a problem. I also created the Special Service Road list, but the output of the Number column looks like a malformed wikilink; only the routes that have redirects of the form Special Service Road 4xx (Connecticut) look proper. Is there a way to prevent the entry in the Number column from attempting to create a link?

It is the State Roads list on which I am stuck because there is no way of properly outputting the State Roads in the Number column. The purpose of this request is for someone to code for State Roads. There is no SR or State Road parameter accepted in the routelist row or jct templates for Connecticut. We need those parameters to be able to create the list of State Roads or to call State Roads in junction lists. Like the SSRs, calls for State Roads should never output the route marker.

Because the types of routes have mutually exclusive number ranges, if we wish to simplify the coding, we could (I assume this is possible) use any of the Connecticut route terms or parameters (Route, CT, SSR, SR, State Road) as acceptable input for any of three types of routes. For instance, someone could use the Route parameter for SR 901 or use the SR parameter for Route 2 and still have the proper output.

I appreciate your work on resolving this problem.  VC  15:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I figured out a temporary solution by using the nolink and noshield parameters to prevent link formation and marker calls. However, I hope we can create a more permanent solution. I have in mind eventually creating Rockland County Scenario–type lists for each of these types of routes.  VC  06:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate road parameters

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the following articles have duplicate values for |road=

  • U.S. Route 18 in Wisconsin {{WIint|road={{Jct|state=WI|WI|181|name1=84th Street}}|road={{Jct|state=WI|WI|175}}}}
  • Washington State Route 506 {{WAint |county=Cowlitz |location=Ryderwood |mile=0.00 |road=2nd Street |road=Western terminus; continues south as Morse Street}}
  • Interstate 69C {{jct|state=TX|FM|2128|road=Schunior Road / Richardson Road|road=Chapin Road}}
  • Interstate 94 in Illinois {{ILint|exit|mile=66.18|exit=66A|road=111th Street|road=Access to [[Pullman, Chicago|Pullman Historic District]]}}

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

   All fixed. SounderBruce 19:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to discontinue the newsletter

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

We are four months overdue for a newsletter, as the deadline was January 15. At this point, I feel there is no use to continue publishing the newsletter as no one is submitting ideas for stories and no one is making a push to get the newsletter out in a timely manner. Therefore, I propose that we discontinue the newsletter and mark it as historical. I feel that our editing time should be prioritized in improving articles. If anyone objects to this idea and would like to revive the newsletter, possibly on a more limited frequency, feel free to comment. Dough4872 02:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would rather try slimming it down and not requiring three full stories before publication, which is where I feel the holdup is. --Rschen7754 03:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
We don't even have a single suggestion for a story at this point, and are actually two issues behind at this point as the deadline for the spring issue was April 15. If we do want to continue doing the newsletter, I say we are going to need to decrease both the number of stories and the frequency unless people have more suggestions, Dough4872 11:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose discontinuation, support trimming back. I don't think we should throw out the newsletter just because we can't throw together three stories every three months. Rather, I think we should only put out issues when we have one good story and have the portal stuff include all the months "since our last issue". Foreseeably, some years could have only one issue, some could have 12 issues. Our lack of newsletter activity is not that big of a deal. –Fredddie™ 21:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support smaller newsletter. We tried to rid ourselves of the newsletter back in 2008 and 2009, but the effort didn't go so well. A newsletter is a much nicer way of presenting things and it would do fine with less full stories and more regional updates in its place. SounderBruce 22:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would like to keep the newsletter if possible, but we are going to need to reduce the frequency and/or the amount of stories. There are two ways we could do this. We can still keep three stories in the newsletter but reduce the frequency to once or twice a year, that way we have a longer time period to draw stories from. The other way is to do as Fredddie suggests and only put out a newsletter when we have the content to do one, not adhering to strict deadlines. With the editing levels, the latter may be a better idea at this point as following deadlines may be hard to do. Dough4872 23:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support discontinuation — Let the newsletter expire, and when a group of editors get passionate enough to revive it, great. We should not be beholden to a task that no one is passionate about that is not crucial to the general public viewing the fruits of our project.  VC  00:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Transitioning Template:Infobox road to Lua

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Template talk:Infobox road#RFC: Transitioning to Lua module. Feedback will be appreciated. Chinissai (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

New Google Maps usage

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This may have been mentioned before, but I never saw it. How do we use the new Google Maps for road lengths? I don't understand how to mark waypoints or get the link to put into Wikipedia pages. Thanks for your help. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Morriswa: It's fairly easy to do now. Right click > "Directions from here", repeat with "Directions to here", drag the road for route alignments, and copy the URL string (no share button needed). If you click on the little search icon (magnifying glass) in the top right, the map will even be centered for better presentation. Hope this helps. SounderBruce 22:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
  1. Right click at the southern/western/starting point and hit "Directions from here"
  2. Go to the first intersection on the route you're reporting the distance and hit "Directions to here"
  3. Click and drag from the blue line the actual route you're measuring (if/as required)
  4. The distance from the starting point will be listed on the left toolbar (under the green travel time)
  5. For more than one point, drag the red target/pushpin to the next intersection; drag from the blue line any changes in the route and get the next distance
  6. Upon completion of measuring, single click the list on the left showing the start/end point so that the map will zoom to the full extents of the route; you can then just copy from the URL bar the link to the full length of the route and add it to {{google maps |url= |accessdate=[Today's date] }}
—Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 22:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, @SounderBruce and Mr. Matté:! I need to correct Georgia State Route 21#Newington business loop, and I have a bigger idea of revamping South Carolina and Tennessee state highway articles, kind of how I revamped Georgia. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes that doesn't necessarily work, though. I tried to do the same thing with U.S. Route 129 Alternate (Hawkinsville-Macon, Georgia) when I was making my Bannered US 129 list, and it kept going to mainline US 129, and refused to let me drag it to the alternate route. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect hidden category

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just created a Category:U.S. Route 287, and it keeps claiming that it's a "Commons category without a link on Wikidata." The commons category I have there was linked from the very beginning. How can I correct this false hidden category? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not to sound like an ass, but you'd need to create the link on Wikidata. I can do that in a little bit. –Fredddie™ 19:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It is created. –Fredddie™ 21:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

RJL distance in brackets?

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The RJL for U.S. Route 202 in Connecticut has a couple of the miles in brackets, which prevents the conversion to kilometres and (as of a recent update to {{Jctint/core}}) shows an error message and places the article in Category:Jctint template using non-numeric parameter values. Does anyone know if the brackets are supposed to indicate anything, or can they just be removed? - Evad37 [talk] 00:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I just removed the parentheses as they appear to be there for no reason. Dough4872 00:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If I had to guess, I'd say they were mileposts from I-84. It would be smart to do the math and make sure the mileposts are correct. –Fredddie™ 00:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the mileposts jumped around and appear to reflect other routes that US 202 is concurrent with. Note the jump in mileposts along Route 10 near the state line in Granby. Dough4872 00:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

South Carolina Highway 252

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

On the South Carolina Highway 252 page, there are some issues in the "Bannered routes" section. Neither shield displays, and the length reference for the truck route doesn't show up at all. Can someone help me figure out what is wrong? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

A length reference will only be shown in the infobox (and thus usable elsewhere in article, if defined there) if |length_mi= or |length_km= is set - Evad37 [talk] 03:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
For the shields, it seems |type= is required as well as |subtype= - Evad37 [talk] 03:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Farm to Market Road 2551

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Someone marked Farm to Market Road 2551 for speedy deletion. Can some of you respond to it? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Morriswa. I removed the speedy as neither cited criteria apply. That being said, it needs a ton of help. FM roads are commonly redirected to lists. John from Idegon (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I put a band-aid on the article for the time being, but it would be better suited in a 2500 list. –Fredddie™ 23:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the map that came up on a Google search showed this road to be the road that services Southfork Ranch from the old tv show Dallas. Might that be enough to garner a freestanding article? John from Idegon (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting and that should definitely be included. Once this article is fully fleshed out, though, I don't think this article will be very long. The best place for this is still a list. –Fredddie™ 23:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Non-freeway beltways

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

What is the best way to start an article on a beltway that is not a freeway. Freeway beltways usually start at exit 1, 2, 3, etc., but non-freeway ones I'm not too familiar with. I want to eventually start South Carolina Highway 118, but I need to know how to effectively tackle this. Thanks for the help! Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Morriswa: a little more context is needed to answer this question. Is this a full circle? If so, do you have an official source that demarcates a zero milepost, similar to M-185 (Michigan highway)? If not, you may need to pick an arbitrary point to be your zero milepost for editing and writing purposes, perhaps the southernmost major intersection, which is where the MUTCD says would be exit 1 on a freeway. Imzadi 1979 → 07:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure where South Carolina keeps information like that. Here is a Google Map image of the route. It is a full beltway. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
@Morriswa: since you appear to lack an official source, my reply above says that you will "need to pick an arbitrary point to be your zero milepost for editing and writing purposes, perhaps the southernmost major intersection, which is where the MUTCD says would be exit 1 on a freeway." Imzadi 1979 → 08:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there an example highway that I can look to for an example of this? It might make it easier. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, according to this page, when you click on the southern-most part of SC 118, it shows that the highway's begin milepost is "0.090" and its end is "12.510". Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like you identified an official source that gives you the mileposts. Based on that source, you should write the RD section starting at the lowest milepost proceeding to the highest, where presumably they reset back to the lowest number again. The junction list should also follow this order. Imzadi 1979 → 09:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The only problem I'm currently seeing is that the SCDOT page I linked didn't mention which intersection belongs to which milepost. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Transportation in the Lehigh Valley

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

An IP user nominated Transportation in the Lehigh Valley for deletion. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It's actually been prodded, not nominated for deletion. I haven't the time to investigate, but if there has been no discussion at the mother article (Lehigh Valley) about a content split, my thought would be to merge whatever useful content there is in this completely unreferenced article back to the mother article and boldly redirect it there. Just my 2 cents. John from Idegon (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I know I'm going to regret this due to a probable reaction from an editor know to a few people here, but I've boldly redirected it with no merging. Some of the graphic content might well be added to the mother article, but there was nothing in the daughter article of substance that isn't already in the mother article. John from Idegon (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I support your boldness. –Fredddie™ 21:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Routelist row - large number of page errors

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, just a quick FYI but over a hundred new articles popped up in Category:Articles with missing files overnight and it looks like one of the sub-modules used in Template:Routelist row has been changed and introduced an error. For example 1969 Iowa highway renumbering - lots of refs to File:1. I wont get to look into in further till tonight so thought I'd flag it up in case anyone else want to look into it inthe meantime. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: I reverted a Lua module update, and that appears to have resolved the issue, setting things back to the status quo ante. @Happy5214 and Chinissai: you'll want to take a look at Module:Road data/parser to see what caused that issue. Imzadi 1979 → 10:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
See Template talk:Jct#Glitch with banners. Chinissai (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

South Carolina Highway 304 terminus

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone help? The southern (or eastern?) terminus of the highway in Hilda does not meet another numbered highway. There is no "End" sign. And the SCDOT page doesn't show a definitive end point. Is there somewhere else I can look? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

SC 304 begins at Main Street (S-6-59). When you run into these issues, it helps to pull multiple sources. So what typically works but failed here was ACME Mapper, where you can view using Google Maps, Topography and Mapnik; but none gave a definitive answer here. I used Google's Street View, but sadly the last drive through was October 2009 and its blurry... at this point I leaned towards the road split with Delk Avenue (S-6-35). I finally used SCDOT ArcGIS and it says that road to Main Street is SC 304, so that's the answer in this case. Hope this all helps. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Can you clarify the terminus? I didn't quite understand. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Ends at Main Street, at the center of Hilda. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Unrelated, but I notice you made changes on List of numbered highways in South Carolina. At one point I planned to make a major revamp to it, similar to List of state highways in North Carolina, but lost motivation on it. I still have the work in my Sandbox if you want to take a look. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not good doing this type of edit. Sorry. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
It's okay, someday I'll get my mojo again and try to knock this out. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
LOL. I haven't really used the routelist templates much. I tried revamping Georgia's list one time, but it got to be too much, so I dropped it. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

US 33

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Could I get some help in writing history about U.S. Route 33 in Ohio? I have the mileage table made up here, but would like some help in writing a route description and history. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Writing an RD is easier than writing the history. Just divide the length of the road (about 240 miles) into three sections (about 80 miles) and write two paragraphs for each section. That way each paragraph covers about 40 miles. It doesn't have to end abruptly at 40 miles, it should flow. Dividing up your RDs like this makes you say what you need to say without going turn-by-turn. –Fredddie™ 01:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
As for the history, ODOT has an archive of the various state highway maps. You'll need to make sure you have a program capable of reading MrSID files though. We even have a citation template designed to cite them, {{Ohio road map}}. You'll need to look through them to find any routing changes, noting the map before and the map after the change to give the year or year range when that change was implemented. Otherwise, if you can find newspaper articles detailing the various changes, you can cite those for more specific dates with better details. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: The links to the program that reads MrSid files are all 404'd, as Lizard no longer supports it, and I couldn't find anything else that can read them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

New Interstates

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Per the AASHTO meetings going on in Des Moines, there are two new Interstate Highways in North Carolina: Interstate 42 and Interstate 87 (NCDOT release) As a result, we will have to do some page moving – Interstate 87 → Interstate 87 (New York). When should we do this, now or when NC opens their I-87? –Fredddie™ 22:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I say we wait just a bit before page moving and creating articles. To a roadgeek an AASHTO announcement is second only to a mandate from the almighty himself. However, to the general wikipedia community, I doubt an article created where the sole source is an AASHTO news release would survive a discussion at WP:AFD. (Although I've been wrong many times on what will and will not survive an a deletion debate, I'll admit that.) At any rate, once the future interstate shields are hung, no doubt TV or print news source will cover it, and then we would be on more solid footing. Dave (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Wait till sign posts are on the ground. Till then, we already have existing articles that can incorporate the Future Interstates until they reach critical mass: Interstate 495 (North Carolina) and U.S. Route 70 in North Carolina. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I concur with the above. Another important concept is WP:UCN. While AASHTO may have approved future numbers for these roads, until they become those numbers, Wikipedia should continue to use the numbers they are known by now. A single sentence note at the existing road articles is sufficient. --Jayron32 23:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Already nixed an article being written for Interstate 87 in North Carolina and made it a redirect. The next step now is to revert any attempts by some editors to build out these pages. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I added a hatnote to the article about the current I-87 linking to the proposed highway. But I say we don't create articles for I-42 and I-87 until they are signed, and in the meantime leave the New York I-87 as the primary topic. Once I-87 in NC is signed, then we can move the article about I-87 in NY and leave I-87 as a dab page. Dough4872 00:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are the AASHTO Special Committee on U. S. Route Numbering Meeting Minutes. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:KYTC route log

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For whoever knows how, can the county be added to the title in the template {{KYTC route log}}? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 540 (North Carolina)

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Okay, while not paying attention today, I-540 page was moved twice, from original location to Raleigh Outer Loop and then to Interstate 540 and North Carolina Highway 540 (North Carolina). Can somebody move it back to its original location? Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This was done because there was some confusion about what the article title should actually be. Perhaps we should briefly discuss this first? As for myself, I don't see a clear-cut solution and could be convinced either way on this. @Ncchild: --Rschen7754 03:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, that is fine, so here is my response. First off, the current name is bad with the redundancy of "North Carolina." Second, was not aware of any issues people were having with both being there but only I-540 at the article title; we do have other articles that do the same, granted those NC highways are only temporary designations (i.e. Interstate 140 (North Carolina) and Interstate 295 (North Carolina)). I'm in the camp that if it isn't broken, don't fix it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Washuotaku here. When it gets moved from the current title, I hope the admin does not leave a redirect. –Fredddie™ 05:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll second Fredddie's comments: the current name is atrocious. The "Raleigh Outer Loop" redirect should be fixed in the process as a redirect from a legitimate alternate name, but the current title needs to go. Imzadi 1979 → 13:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
So this is more for @Washuotaku:. At the present moment NCDOT and leaders in Raleigh really don't plan on changing the NC 540 designation, so it is different from I-295/NC 295 or I-140 where both of those will eventually just become I-295 or I-140. As for the current name it was derived from Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California) which was an example given to me. Raleigh Outer Loop could be an idea however part of the western side is also part of the Triangle Expressway so I was confused on what the actual name should be. I would really like to start building this article up to GA Status ASAP so the sooner we can figure this out the better.--Ncchild (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If the road isn't complete, taking its article to GA level isn't exactly the best idea. I'd suggest that you wait until it's completed before attempting that task. Imzadi 1979 → 17:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I am very aware of I-540/NC 540 situation. I am not a fan of combo titles, but you could have left off the second North Carolina, we don't use the generic term "state route" like California does. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
In Response to @Imzadi1979:, I understand where you are coming from but because it has been a very slow moving Interstate in terms of progress I think it may be ok. In response to @Washuotaku:, I agree that we should take the (North Carolina) part off and I will do that now.--Ncchild (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this what others like? I only ask because I'm partial to its original article title before it went on a moving odyssey to its now current title. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's the best thing. I liked the first title as well but this is more inclusive of the NC 540 part because it most likely ever be one road along the loop unless the rumored I-640 comes true.--Ncchild (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the original title was fine, and I'd point to Interstate 15 in California as a counterpoint to the clunky title for Interstate 210 and State Route 210 (California). Imzadi 1979 → 03:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

California Pre-1964 Shields

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We need these. This is roughly what they look like

--Kevon kevono (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC) 21:36 (PDT)
Don't forget this one from 1959 and the two subtle changes to your 1934 version in 1935 and 1940. Not to mention we need to get the typeface in order to make them. But I agree, we do need them. –Fredddie™ 10:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 464/New Circle Road

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, WikiProject U.S. Roads. You have new messages at Talk:New Circle Road.
Message added 17:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Morriswa (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential changes at FAC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a proposal at FAC to potentially require a Peer Review or A-Class Review before nomination. The idea is that would the change streamline the reviews at FAC to push articles through there faster by requiring more of the advance prep work to be done before an FAC was initiated.

In anticipation of that possible change, my next FAC has been nominated at ACR. Please feel free to offer commentary at that review page. If you have any other articles you'd like to see at FAC in the future, feel free to nominate them at ACR so that others can review them as well. Imzadi 1979 → 20:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Book talk:U.S. Roads quality articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've set this page up so that (hopefully) we get an automated report of all the maintenance tags on our FAs and GAs. It took about 10 minutes to set up, so it shouldn't be that hard to update with new FA/GAs - maybe every 3 months or so. --Rschen7754 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Assuming it's been set up correctly, the same bot that updates WP:USRD/RC every week should also update that book. Hopefully then the other bot will also update the status of each article as well. Imzadi 1979 → 00:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Automobile Blue Books

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Free resource to download that may be of help: [6] --Rschen7754 18:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Indiana State Road 931 northern segment north end dispute

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See the talk pages of the article and of mine. Mapsax (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please See - Submissions

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Canadian border

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

An editor has been changing the piped text for Canada–United States border article from Canadian border to Canada–US border. See this for an example. A discussion at Talk:Canada–United States border#Usage of Canada-United States border in Wikipedia was made, but there seemed to be no consensus about what to be used. I think in USRD articles, US is already clear from the context. Seeking for opinions and perhaps consensus here, at least for USRD articles. Chinissai (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Depends on the context where the text appears. In that I-81 article the context should be clear that the Canadian border is the Canada–US border. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As I've noted with the same editor in the past, if the context is clear, "Canadian border" is sufficient for the displayed text in the article. This editor was told as much weeks ago, so feel free to revert as appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 21:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Control cities list

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anyone is looking for an official source for control cities, here it is: [7]. I'm told that it is a bit dated though. --Rschen7754 20:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Attached KML#Proposal: Use Wikidata and new module

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Attached KML#Proposal: Use Wikidata and new module. Evad37 [talk] 12:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Alabama State Route 267

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Bringing the recent move of Alabama State Route 267 to Alabama State Route 267 (former state route) to your attention. In particular:

  1. Should this move have occurred? No references provided re decommissioning. But either way, the infobox and article should be made consistent.
  2. Should former routes have a disambiguation term added if there's nothing to disambiguate them from? (i.e. no current or other old routes with the same number)
  3. Is there any naming convention (or project standard etc) for disambiguating former routes? I'm pretty sure I've seen some using "(year–year)"

(pinging page mover @CC21560:) - Evad37 [talk] 09:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless the designation has been reused elsewhere, no page move was necessary nor desirable. On that basis, I'd say it should be moved back, without a redirect. As for the article content, that needs to be fixed to bring things into harmony, along with other related and unsourced changes to Alabama State Route 147 and the List of state highways in Alabama. The purported decommissioning of SR 267 and realignment of SR 147, if correct, need citations. Imzadi 1979 → 09:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If it's the only SR 267 that ever existed in Alabama, then it should not be disambiguated, Otherwise, I would use Alabama State Route 267 (former) for the title. Dough4872 15:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The (former) disambiguator is not desirable when we can use dates (see: Iowa Highway 23, Iowa Highway 23 (1969–1997), and Iowa Highway 23 (1926–1968)). We just need to do a little bit of research. –Fredddie™ 22:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, dates are also a good option, especially if a former route was used multiple times. Dough4872 22:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree; avoiding unnecessary disambiguation in article titles is ideal. If there is no other SR 267 from which to disambiguate this route, this article should be moved back to its original location. --Kinu t/c 16:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Per the rough consensus above, I have WP:BOLDly undone the page move for now. As indicated, if there are multiple SR 267s that require disambiguation, the use of more proper parenthetical information (i.e., dates) can achieve that goal. --Kinu t/c 18:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiConference North America 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Those attending WikiConference North America this year may be interested in a talk I've proposed discussing OpenStreetMap: "Be bold and edit the map". I'm looking forward to hopefully meeting some of the folks behind this WikiProject at WikiConference. (I'm hoping to attend regardless of whether my talk is accepted, but that's up to logistics at this point.) – Minh Nguyễn 💬 15:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that a few of us are planning on attending, including myself pending a few logistical hurdles in planning accommodations. Imzadi 1979 → 20:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Bannered routes" in titles

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

The creation of Bannered routes of U.S. Route 431 leads to my posting here, although I've had this idea percolating for a while. In short, can we formulate a new titling scheme to avoid using that roadgeek neologism in actual article titles? The term "special routes" would be much better, and I suspect, more understandable for those outside of our project. For Michigan, all of the articles use "business routes" in the title, even if there are a few alternate or bypass routes to be listed. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

We could use "special routes" as that is the term AASHTO uses to describe alternate, business, bypass, truck, etc. routes. I would not use "business routes" for the title of the lists unless it solely includes business routes, as many of the Michigan lists do. Dough4872 23:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I have seen "bannered" routes so much that it looks normal to me now, since they appear a lot in modules. At any rate, if it is truly a roadgeek term and needs change, would "auxiliary" routes be an appropriate substitution? Prior to learning that "special" routes is an AASHTO term, I had no idea why these routes are called special in the first place, and I still think they sound misleading after the fact. These routes are not special than the unbannered counterpart in any way. Rather, they help lessen congestion, help serve downtown, or have similar purposes, as far as I understand it. I think the term "auxiliary" means "help" in that sense, and will be understandable for the general audience. Chinissai (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I think Auxiliary is a better term than Special. If I didn't understand the context of a special route, I'd ask what was so special about them. Chinnisai has the right idea. The definition of auxiliary in this sense means "providing supplementary or additional help and support", which seems fitting. –Fredddie™ 16:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

California mileposts

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Zzyzx11, PhATxPnOY916, WikiLeon, Kevon kevono, and Pzoxicuvybtnrm: There are now mileposts available for California, just like the other states! You can see an example at California State Route 76. Personally, I would prefer using the Cal-NexUS site for statewide mileages when it is possible (for example, [8]) but it doesn't have the data for most routes. --Rschen7754 06:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Interstate 24 merger

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion

I remember talking about this a few months ago and I don't think it really went anywhere, but I'd like to propose that the draft article located at Draft:Interstate 24 replace Interstate 24 and its state-detail articles (Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee and Georgia). None of the four articles are that great, so this idea will improve the WikiWork scores in three four states, even if only slightly. It will also facilitate maintenance as there would only be one article instead of four. –Fredddie™ 00:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You know what's going to happen... at some point in the near future someone will want to break them up again. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
If you can fit all the information about I-24 in one article without overburdening it, then cover it in one article. Otherwise, I would keep the state-detail pages. Dough4872 01:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest focus on the main I-24 article first, then deal the I-24 in state articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Merge as an interim solution, focusing on the national-level article first. Hopefully, there will eventually be enough to split it back out again. -happy5214 02:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
There may not be, Interstate 8 is about the same length and did not. --Rschen7754 16:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I-8 is not an apt comparison because it only passes through two states. I-24 passes through 3.05 states. That being said, merge, baby, merge.  VC  03:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Iff the article in the future lends itself to a split, we can deal with that then. For now, merge away. Imzadi 1979 → 12:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking a merge may be a good idea since half the highway is in Tennessee, with the Illinois and Kentucky stretches relatively shorter and Georgia the blink of an eye. With the total length and the length in the states it passes through one article may be able to do the job, though splitting may be a viable option in the future if more details are added to the article. Dough4872 16:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
That sounds a lot like what you said the other day, Dough4872. –Fredddie™ 16:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

How should this proceed? I feel like it's going to be messy; the three state-detail articles would probably have their histories merged into the new article. Any thoughts from admins? @C.Fred, Mitchazenia, Moabdave, Rschen7754, and Scott5114: apologies if I missed anyone. –Fredddie™ 04:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you only have to mention those articles in the edit summary. There's a formal writeup at [9] but I personally would just do the edit summary. --Rschen7754 04:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd say, keep the state articles around for their edit histories and make them into redirects to the main article. Then, note the merge is from the state article. That should handle the attribution. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The guideline Rschen mentions above is how to preserve enough of the edit history to be in compliance with the GNU Free Documentation License that Wikipedia uses. It lists templates that can be used on the talk page to direct those that want the edit history to the source. Although to comply with the GFDL even a simple "copied content from Interstate 24 in Tennessee" comment in the history is enough. So that part isn't near as messy as the actual work of merging the articles, especially the exit lists, etc. As long as the "new" article has an exit list and nav templates I think you are ok. Most of the problems I've seen are the articles for long distance routes where some states have detail articles and some dont. This leads to the confusion (to novice readers) about why is there a navbox, exit list, etc. for some states but not others. I would like to have a discussion about that also, as that has long plagued the USRD project, but I haven't started that discussion, as I have no ideas myself on how to resolve it.Dave (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The work is basically done and ready to go in the draftspace, I was just asking about the best way to perform the merge and still be good copyright-wise. –Fredddie™ 20:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Numbered routes in Rhode Island

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It appears that a random editor may be vandalizing the Numbered routes in Rhode Island page. Could someone check out the page and verify the validity of what is going on? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Aside from a couple lines being removed, nothing seems out of sorts to me. What is your concern? –Fredddie™ 03:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

County roads in junction lists

Latest comment: 8 years ago25 comments10 people in discussion

I would like to gauge consensus on when and where it is appropriate to include county roads in junction lists. Please leave a bullet point with how you approach county roads in general. –Fredddie™ 21:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • In articles about county roads, then I include them.

    In articles about state highways, they're included for any interchanges, the rare concurrencies, CRs marked on the state DOT map, or CRs marked at junctions that would already be listed. I also include CRs if they're the location of the terminus of a state highway, have their own individual Wikipedia article, or once in a while if by excluding them would make the table look unbalanced because so many others have been included for the other stated reasons. In general though, I omit CRs on state highway junction list tables. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

  • In every junction list, if a road is signed, whether Interstate, U.S. highway, state highway, county highway, etc., I include it. In that manner, Alabama highways (among other states) need major revamping to include the county highways (at least in my opinion). Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It depends on the state, really. In California, county roads are generally considered notable enough for junction lists, since there are 100-150 of them for the whole (large) state. However, in states that have a lower standard of considering what is a county road? No, per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. --Rschen7754 00:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I only include county routes in a junction list if they are an interchange, terminus point, or part of a statewide county route system (such as the 500-series routes in New Jersey). Dough4872 00:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Nevada doesn't really have a robust county route system, so CRs are pretty much absent from junction lists (except for anything involving Clark County 215 due to its freeway status). My thought is that I would generally tend to exclude them from most junction lists unless it's one of the following (1) interchange along a freeway where all exits are listed anyway; (2) terminus/route transition; (3) marked overlap; or (4) a county route important enough to have its own article because it's a major facility (such as CC 215). A possible case can be made for a including county route that is a former state highway, especially if there is a tendency for that state's junction lists to include former routings in the lists. I'd also agree that CRs make sense to include if a junction list for a county route. -- LJ ↗ 15:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning towards include if and only if, the route is notable enough for a prose based article (i.e. not just listed in a "list of county routes in roosterpoop county" article). I would accept a county route if it were part of a prose based article with other routes (i.e. collection of mini-articles or a case where a county route is related to a U.S./state route and is covered as a paragraph or two in that article). I agree with most of what's said above, the regional differences as to what is a county route vary too much to try to come up with a uniform standard based on signage etc. An absurd example is some counties have a "reference marker" at the terminus of EVERY county maintained route, even dirt roads and county maintained driveways. Washoe County, Nevada is a curious case. That county only signs the "through traffic" county routes, that can (and most do) have a Wikipedia article. However, they use a bizarre (but frankly cool) mismash of signage, including an older version of the Nevada State Route shield for relinquished state routes, circles, and the more traditional Gold letters on a blue background county route shield. Then there's California where the county route signage and numbering standards are uniform throughout the state and they are practically a "minor state route" system. I don't see how you can have a consistent standard when those extremes exist. Dave (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I include county highways in a junction list if it is accessed through an interchange, it connects another state highway that does not directly access the subject state highway, or it has an article under the WikiProject's state task force. I have thought of using the National Highway System as a criterion to determine whether to include a county highway in a junction list or even as its own article because it offers an objective notability criterion. The National Highway System criterion could also be applied to city streets and roads and secondary state highways. However, it opens the door a crack for someone to argue a primary state highway in the middle of nowhere is not notable enough for an article.  VC  23:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. What would you say to someone who adds county roads to a junction list "because they can" without any respect to what's been said above? –Fredddie™ 20:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want something to "say" to a novice user. I think the only option is to codify the consensus reached into WP:RJL. Dave (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
What I'm trying to get at is that "because I can" is a lazy rationale. The above exercise demonstrated that the regulars here can back up why they do something instead of just saying "because I can". –Fredddie™ 20:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it boils down to a couple of simple "rules". The first is as you say it, we don't add them just because we can add them. We add them when there is some significance to including them instead of just bulking up the length of the tables. There has to be a purpose to including them, and if there isn't, they get deleted. Also, to newbies, I'd caution them that if others keep removing there, there's probably a good reason and you should't restore them without discussion, à la WP:BRD. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It would probably help to flesh out some additional inclusion/exclusion guidelines on the USRD Standards page, so we could refer new editors to our "rules". -- LJ ↗ 02:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a first stab at what could go into either the standards page or the Exit List Guide:

County routes are, as a general rule, not sufficiently notable to be listed in a major intersections table. Please keep in mind that there are significant regional differences across the USA as to the threshold for signing and numbering county roads, with some counties numbering and signing every road, even dirt roads, while other counties that only sign arteries. Some counties have consistent numbering schemes, others do not. Rural western counties, where most of the land is owned by the federal government, pose an additional challenge, as there can be dueling designations for a road between the various federal agencies and the county.

With that said, there are some cases where a county route should merit inclusion in a major intersections guide:

  • If the county route is built to expressway standards or higher
  • If the intersection in question is a grade separated interchange
  • If the county route is sufficiently notable in its own merit to have a prose wikipedia coverage (i.e. not just an entry in a "list of county routes" table). This can be a dedicated article, or coverage in another article, such as an article about a related highway, geographical feature or history event, etc.
  • If the county route is numbered and signed as part of a statewide coordinated system of county routes.
  • If the intersection should be listed based on other criteria (i.e. is also an intersection with a state highway, terminus, etc.)

Feel free to chop away at that and modify at will. Dave (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I like all of these criteria except the fourth one. It is subjective and relies on knowledge of route marker signing practice, which would be difficult to support in some states. In addition, not all states have county route systems, and many notable county highways do not have numbers.  VC  00:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a good start. However, the fourth point can be murky as different counties have different standards for what they sign county routes, some counties only sign main roads while others will sign CRs on main roads along with side streets or cowpaths, and we cannot be subjective as to which CRs in a county to include in junction lists. I think we should also clarify in the third point that CRs that are part of a statewide system (i.e. 500-series in New Jersey or California's routes) can get covered in junction lists and should clarify in the fifth point that CRs that act as a terminus point can be included. Dough4872 00:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
As I was writing that, I suspected the 4th point would be edited or deleted outright by someone. So I have no objection to deleting that, for the reasons stated. Dave (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I have made some improvements to that above paragraph, both based on your feedback and my own ideas, changes are underlined.Dave (talk) 04:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I know tend to include them more often than the rest of you, although I've tried to keep them to a minimum on a lot of articles. In the case of some of my articles on US Routes in Georgia, I tend to only use them if there the only crossroad in some hick town, but nothing beyond that. For Florida, I lean more or less towards the direction of Dave (although I'm okay if the link leads to a list), and I'd also like to add the criteria of being a county extension of a state route. As for New York, or more specifically Long Island, lots of county roads there are of the same quality, if not better than the state roads. So, as I've mentioned in the past an intersection between NY 112 and a four-lane divided highway like Suffolk CR 99 or 83 is fine, but an intersection along NY 111 with CR 15 isn't really worth the effort. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the notion that intersections with county roads are never notable unless the county road is notable itself. I don't know any exact criteria we should impose, but this intersection is definitely more notable than this one even though the latter involves one US and one state highway and the former involves two county roads and a state highway.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand the point you are trying to make by linking to two undistinguished intersections in rural Minnesota. No one is saying that intersections with county highways are never notable. The purpose of this discussion is to come up with criteria to guide us in determining whether a county highway is notable and thus should have an entry in a junction list.  VC  03:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrap-up question

I forgot about this discussion. I'd like to wrap it up by proposing some text to add to WP:USRD/STDS.

With regards to Dave's list, this would cover #2 (which is mandated by MOS:RJL anyway), #1 and #3 (which, to me, go along the same lines), plus #5 and DanTD's comments. Would anyone be OK with this addition to USRD standards? –Fredddie™ 22:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to this consensus language. "When consensus says that a list would be incomplete without its inclusion" begs the questions: How is this consensus determined? In what scope does this consensus apply? "In absence of an established consensus" implies we are not going to reach a consensus. If we do not reach a consensus, I would rather we let this conversation fade and we return to the topic in 2 or 3 years than explicitly state that we do not have consensus on the standards page.  VC  02:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer that we add Dave's list to MOS:RJL WP:USRD/STDS since it clearly lays out what instances CRs should be included as opposed to the shorter text proposed by Fredddie as the latter is vague and open ended as to what CRs should be included, which can lead to countless edit wars. Dough4872 02:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
MOS:RL would be the wrong place for any US-specific language regarding county roads; WP:USRD/STDS would be appropriate though. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Internal navigation in route pages via {{infobox road}} and {{infobox road small}}: Independent articles mixed with lists

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Why does {{infobox road small}} not have the option to include the previous and following routes? Most independent articles allow you to move forward and backward in the list of state routes in order via links at the bottom of the {{infobox road}}. However, since some short routes have been mandated to lists, and these lists are supposedly mandated to use {{infobox road small}}, that disrupts the navigation ability used in {{infobox road}}. Famartin (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is that IRS is supposed to be a compact method of providing just the key highlights, and it's intentionally not supposed to have all of the options of IR. There's also the {{XX browse}} templates to provide a browser at the bottom of an article or an article section. (Substitute an all-lowercase version of the state abbreviation for the XX to get the appropriate template.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Well I get that its supposed to be 'compact', but I don't think there should be such disruption with the method of navigating. Its expected to be in the infobox like the rest, so even the other way is still not exactly as user-friendly as just having it in the infobox. Was there ever any discussion on how this disrupts the navigation? Famartin (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
In the six years we've been using IRS, this is one of (if not the) first time(s) that I've heard of navigation being disrupted by not including a browser. –Fredddie™ 03:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, not all articles have the browser(s) in the infobox. In fact, the rule of thumb for national-level articles has been to put the browsers at the bottom of the article, omitting any for any states that sub articles. Of course, if the national-level article serves as the state-level article too, like U.S. Route 8 or U.S. Route 131, we've shifted those back to the infobox. Having separate browsers in article subsections has been around for many years; Former Michigan spur routes used them until it was rendered redundant and redirected to List of state trunkline highways in Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 04:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed the browses from Deleted state highways in California in 2013 and nobody complained about it since. --Rschen7754 06:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Historical maps for US 43

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have been working on a "reboot" of the U.S. Route 43 page in my sandbox. I have run into a snag. I have been using the historical maps on the http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/ page, as well as the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's historical maps (so I can prove whether US 43 actually existed there or not). Not all of the maps I need are actually there. The maps I need are the following:

  • Alabama: 1914 to 1924; 1932; 1944 to 1945; 1947; 1950; 1953; 1956; 1960; 1966; 1968 to 1976; 1978; 1980; 1982; 1984 to 1990; 1992; 1994 to 2015
  • Tennessee: 1928 to 1937; 1939 to 1950; 1952 to 2015
  • Kentucky: any before 1928; 1929 to 1938; 1940 to 1956; 1958 to 1961; 1963; 1969 to 1972; 1974 to 1975; 1977 to 1982; 1986 to 1987; 1989; 1993

Any other help you could provide to help me effectively revamp the page would also be greatly appreciated. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I come off sounding like an ass (I have had a sinus headache all day, I feel like throwing up, and my Cubbies are getting their asses handed to them, so bear with me), but you shouldn't rely on us to hook you up with maps. Build a collection of paper maps that are yours and yours alone. Check Ebay and Craigslist for deals. Stop by yard sales. You never know what you'll find. Just because you can't find a map in an online format doesn't mean that we have one stashed away. –Fredddie™ 03:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Another couple things you can do are figure out which maps you really need (as opposed to needing all of them, like above) and get them on Ebay. I found hundreds of Alabama and Tennessee maps without even looking for Kentucky. You can also send an email to the state DOT librarian or a state librarian if the DOT doesn't have its own library. They may have documents and maps on their internal servers that you wouldn't otherwise get. All you have to do is ask. –Fredddie™ 04:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
If I buy any, it will have to wait for a while. I got out of the Navy in March and been unemployed since. I have been surviving on savings. I can attempt to contact the DOTs to see if that will help. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

US 50,000 Challenge invite

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more states than they might otherwise work on. If there's the interest I will start 1000 State Challenges like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of states regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for the US and your specialist/home state like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every state, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any state sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thankyou.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:U.S. Route 84 in New_Mexico needs review

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The draft by HeatIsCool has been sitting at AFC awaiting review since June. Could someone from this WikiProject take a look and make a determination? I see that a parent article (U.S._Route_84) already exists, as does a sibling article for U.S._Route_84_in_Texas. I don't know enough about road notability to make an informed determination about whether this section of the route is notable enough to deserve a sub-article. Although as a former New Mexican, I guess I can vouch for the local significance of the highway. Note that the article with this name currently redirects to the parent article, so that will need to be resolved before we move the article to mainspace. Thanks in advance, J-Mo 20:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The entire article is backwards; US 84 is inventoried south to north in New Mexico. That needs to be rectified before anything else happens. –Fredddie™ 21:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
For state-detail articles, do we inventory in the direction the route is signed in each state (north–south in New Mexico) or in the direction of the route in general (east–west from Colorado to Georgia)? The former would conflict with the latter in cases of northwest–southeast or L-shaped routes.  VC  03:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it might be best to use the national-level direction, just so that people reading the articles in sequence from the progression box at the bottom have some consistency. Imzadi 1979 → 05:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Then someone should rewrite U.S. Route 52 in Minnesota and U.S. Route 52 in Iowa because they run south to north while the national route goes westish to eastish. –Fredddie™ 21:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Most of the other state-detail articles for U.S. Route 52 are written south to north, so I would not mind every US 52 state-detail article being written south-to-north, or east-to-west in the few states it is signed that way. We do not need to be nationally consistent, but let's at least be consistent for each route.  VC  03:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jtmorgan: the short answer is that in general, an Interstate or U.S. Highway that enters three or more states should have individual state-level articles in addition to the nation-level parent article. There are exceptions, like with U.S. Route 8 where the hypothetical national-level article would be so heavy on Wisconsin content that it would essentially repeat one of its hypothetical state-level sub articles.

To make sure that {{jct}} works correctly, the expected state-level article titles, if they don't exist, have been redirected, and it's a simple matter of tagging them with the appropriate CSD tag to have an admin clear the way for a page move. Imzadi 1979 → 02:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Former Interstate 84 (Connecticut—Rhode Island)

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Guys, we have a slow-moving edit war going on. I'd like to get some advice from the rest of the project. @JJBers and Imzadi1979: just pinging the involved parties –Fredddie™ 01:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

My position is simple: we already have an article on the topic as what was I-84 in CT is now Interstate 384, and the appropriate content that is not sourced to unsuitable sources should be in that article as the successor designation. I moved the article to the draft space so that it can be fixed, if possible, before going back to mainspace, but it really should be merged away. Imzadi 1979 → 01:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
First of all, I just replied on the draft space with this argument, second of all I did fix some of the sources and added new ones. But like said in the reply on the main draft page, I-384 is not about the article that was written. There is a brief history section, and I feel that expanding it would be unnecessary, if not a poor decision due to the article idea pertaining about the planned section of I-84, which is large in notability, while I-384 is just a small remnant of the planned highway, not about it at all. It really just looks like you're deleting/redirecting the article just based on the premise that it has SPS, which isn't a large enough of a reason to delete, especially after some of the sources are well used sources, and are very well sourced and written.—JJBers|talk 02:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

KMLs on Google and Bing

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all, it has come to my attention that KML usability has recently taken a turn for the worse. Originally, both Google and Bing automatically supported the files, but that is no longer the case. As of a few weeks ago (following a few months of notice given via a popup), Bing no longer displays any KMLs. Google stopped their support for them a while back, so WMF people made our own version of Google Maps that has been linked in Template:Attached KML for a while.

I mainly create KMLs manually using Google Earth, which I originally learned from the tutorial. Recently (I'm not sure how recently), these KMLs are not correctly rendering on the WMF Google Maps (see Nevada State Route 231), yet others that I assume were made using another method are correctly rendered (see Ontario Highway 401).

I don't know the history behind how the WMF Google Maps came into existence, but it seems that we may need a WMF Bing Maps, and either the WMF Google Maps should be changed to support Google Earth-made KML files, or that section of the tutorial should be reworked and all past Google Earth KMLs be updated (gross).

Any thoughts/knowledge on how to proceed? "Pepper" @ 03:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Greetings WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 23 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Illinois Route 68

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

can someone fix the duplicate parameters in Illinois Route 68 (they show in preview mode). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Dough4872 16:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect highway mileage figures in Texas

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Now that I've come across three examples of this, I think there may be a systemic problem. My suspicion is that whatever the TXDOT source is that editors have been using for state highway mileages, it may not include mileage where the route in question is concurrent with some other routes.

Here are the three examples of which I'm aware; feel free to check out any or all of them to verify my figures:

  • The US 84 in Texas page says the route is 530 miles, but it's actually more like 655.
  • The TX 16 page says the route is 542 miles, but it's more like 568.
  • The TX 6 page says the route is 476 miles, but it's more like 551.

So in the TX 6 example, maybe one concurrency that the TXDOT source does not include is the segment that overlaps with US 290 (northwest of Houston).

Bottom line: a better source is needed. Niobrara (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

We could just put a disclaimer in the infoboxes saying that the mileages don't include concurrencies. We've done it before. -happy5214 21:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Farm to Market Road 289

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Someone marked Farm to Market Road 289 for speedy deletion. It looks viable, but I can't seem to understand why. Could someone with more expertise refute this? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't been marked for deletion, it was boldly redirected to a list, which, except for highly notable ones, is how we cover Texas FM roads. John from Idegon (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Morriswa and John from Idegon: it was marked for deletion in this edit, and then redirected later. Imzadi 1979 → 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Miles in jct table for new highway with no source for distances

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

I tried removing the mileage parameter for the listings in the jct table for Florida State Road 538, but the mi & km columns still appear. The road is new (first segment opened April 30, 2016, second segment opened November 18) and FDOT sources used as refs on other Florida state roads do not have SR538 yet: the straight line diagrams source (used on Florida State Road 60) and the Interchange Report (used on Florida State Road 570). If no one knows of another source, can the mi & km columns be omitted until such data is available? AHeneen (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

{{Jctint}} and related templates do not have a way to remove the distance columns, since they are usually considered "mandatory". Just go ahead and leave the distances blank. If you want, you can tag the section with {{mileposts}}. -happy5214 21:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
In the interim you can always use Google Maps as a mileage source. Dough4872 22:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It is currently a good article candidate. I don't want to add {{mileposts}}, because one of the good article criteria for immediate failure is "[the article] has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid." Here, there is no source for mileposts and measuring with Google Maps/Earth is original research. Are there any alternative options for handling the empty mi & km columns in this article? AHeneen (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You cite Google maps itself, that's not original research.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I added distances calculated from Google Earth (is the middle of the overpass the correct distance for intersections?), but according to WP:PSTS: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. It's one thing to use Google Maps for intersecting streets and towns passed and to use satellite imagery to note that the highway passes undeveloped land, but making calculations seems like inappropriate analysis. AHeneen (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Plenty of GAs have done this, don't see the problem with doing this here either.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 21:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Maps are not primary sources. The satellite data to prepare them is the primary source, and maps are the secondary source. --Rschen7754 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The use of maps is controversial by some, but we've had GA's and even FA's pass scrutiny that use them. See also Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles. Dave (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@AHeneen: the quick answer is that yes, of course, we'd prefer an FDOT source for the mileages on that article, but until we have such a source, falling back to measuring the distances off a map, a skill taught in elementary school, is a valid exercise. It is precisely because the skill involved is taught at such a basic level that it isn't really OR, because it does not rely on any specialist training to extract distances from a map, any more than it takes any specialist knowledge to read intersecting roads off a map. Imzadi 1979 → 05:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies. AHeneen (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Route Browsing in Infoboxes

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

What's the standard on this? I was working on some Nebraska stuff and was making sure the highway browse was contiguous when I noticed pages like Interstate 76 (Colorado-Nebraska) have the browse at the bottom of the infobox while U.S. Route 83 has them at the bottom of the article. The WP:USRD/MOS#Browsing seems to imply that it's supposed to be part of the infobox so I'm led to believe the browse at the bottom of the article is simply legacy formatting. Thought I'd check here first since I've been away for a really loooooooong time. Cheers! Strato|sphere 03:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess the current "rules" are close to:
  • If the article is a state-level article, the browse goes in the infobox. (Interstate 75 in Michigan)
  • If the article is a national-level article that won't have state-level sub articles under the three-state rule or similar, the browsers go in the infobox (U.S. Route 141)
  • If the article is a national-level article with state-detail sub articles, only the browsers for states without sub articles go at the bottom (U.S. Route 23)
Imzadi 1979 → 04:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
So the US 83 article I linked, there are no state specific sub articles so they're at the bottom just because there is more than 3? (well I guess Texas has a specific article, but not the other five states)Strato|sphere 04:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Eventually, we'd see the creation of the missing state-level sub articles, and as each is created, its respective browser at the bottom of the US 83 national article would be removed. Originally, {{infobox road}} couldn't add additional browser lines, so the extras had to go to the bottom of the article. Also, the predecessor templates for national-level IH and USH articles couldn't handle browsers at all; they were a function of the state-level predecessor infoboxes before all were merged into {{infobox road}}. It can handle additional custom browsers now, so U.S. Route 8 has all three states represented since it's both the national-level, and surrogate state-level, article. I think any additional inertia against moving them collective from the bottom of the article up top has to do with the idea that as the missing sub articles are created, they'd be removed, and if we moved them all now, they'd bloat the length of an infobox on an article like US 83. Imzadi 1979 → 06:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Gotchya. Someone might want to add that to the USRD/MOS then. When I stumbled onto it tonight it seemed it would be counter-intuitive to end users for the highway browse to jump from the infobox to the bottom of the article. The reasoning might make sense to some of us, probably not regular people, but that's a discussion for another day. I just wanted to make sure I do it the way you guys have been doing it. Thanks! Happy New Year! Strato|sphere 09:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't really add anything to the discussion I just thought it was funny, browsing through the USRD archives I stumbled onto this conversation from almost 11 years ago. No wonder this felt like déjà vu lol Strato|sphere 05:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Organization of U.S. Highway Special Routes

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

Now that List of bannered U.S. Routes has been moved to List of special routes of the United States Numbered Highway System (see discussion), we should continue the discussion here to determine what to do with list articles of the form Bannered routes of U.S. Route X. The option floated in that discussion is to move those list articles to Special routes of U.S. Route X, but we need to come to consensus at the project level to initiate that change.

In addition to discussing the name change of the special route list articles, we can answer a few other questions:

  • Should lists of special routes that are short be folded into the article of the parent route?
  • What should be the definition of "short" for the previous question?
  • For U.S. Highways that have state-detail articles, should the special routes for a particular state be detailed in the state-detail article, be summarized in the state-detail article, or only link to the Special routes of U.S. Route X article?
  • What criteria should we use to determine whether a particular special route merits its own article?

If we have discussed these topics before or we have precedents, please provide links to the relevant discussions so we can decide whether to stick with what was determined previously or consider making changes.  VC  20:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support immediate rename, defer discussion on the other topics for now. Let's keep this simpler for the moment and hold off on discussing the other organizational issues. The various "Bannered routes of..." articles should be immediately renamed to "Special routes of..." titles, unless they're on a single type and named "Business routes of..." already. For any parent highway articles where the list has been merged, and if the header is "Bannered", that should be switched as well to eliminate the neologism from usage. Imzadi 1979 → 20:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support immediate renaming, but I will reply to all of the points. I would say if there are fewer than four special routes on the entire route, they should go on the route's page. I'd even support adding a line for the main route's special routes in the browselinks infobox subtemplate so we wouldn't necessarily have to link to it or summarize it on any pages. For splitting off an article, I'd simply apply the GNG. I do not believe that would cause a proliferation of special route articles. –Fredddie™ 22:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Question, is there any reason "special" is chosen over "auxiliary" routes? Regardless, I support moving from "bannered". Brandonrush Woo pig sooie! 22:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
    Special is the term that AASHTO uses for alternate and business routes. Auxiliary is the term for three-digit Interstate Highways. Clear as mud, right? –Fredddie™ 22:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support immediate renaming - As I stated at the move discussion of List of special routes of the United States Numbered Highway System, we should move all the lists such as Bannered routes of U.S. Route 13 to titles such as Special routes of U.S. Route 13 since AASHTO officially calls them "special routes", the term "bannered route" is a neologism, and not all "bannered routes" have banners as some of them are designated with suffixes. I agree with Fredddie that routes with less than four special routes, such as U.S. Route 113, should have them covered in the main article for the highway as opposed to a separate list. For U.S. routes with state-detail articles, i would only cover the special routes in the special route list as it is redundant to mention it in the state detail article and it should also be worth noting some special routes cross state lines and we wouldn't want them covered in three places. Also some states have a high number of special routes along a given route and it would overburden the state-detail article by having them all covered there. As for giving a special route its own article, i would do so if it's a long enough route or has enough history that would overburden covering it in a RCS list. Dough4872 17:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support immediate renaming - had mixed feelings about the list being moved but we should be consistent regardless. --Rschen7754 02:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It has been almost 2 weeks since the last response, and no one has opposed this. Whoever wishes to implement this may fire when ready.  VC  13:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead to move the affected pages listed in Category:Special routes of the United States Numbered Highway System, but their leads will need to be edited to match Special routes of U.S. Route 1 to implement the rest of the change (and comply with the MOS). Imzadi 1979 → 18:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I did. "Special" is far too vague and therefore is a poor description. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any comments from you above, DanTD. I'm sorry, but we're not mind readers around here. Imzadi 1979 → 19:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I did make a comment about it, but I don't know what happened to it. I hate to say to just take my word for it, but that's all I've got. Maybe it's on another thread on this subject. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There are many redirects which will need to be corrected as well. Famartin (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a bot that already updates redirects to fix double redirect situations. Imzadi 1979 → 21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it smart enough to redirect to the intended section of the new page? Or, will it just redirect to the top of the "specials" page? Right now, following the double redirect puts you on the top of the "specials" page, not to the intended section of it. Just saying, this move may have broken a lot of redirects. Famartin (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@DanTD: you opposed it here: Talk:List of special routes of the United States Numbered Highway System, but that was a separate discussion. –Fredddie™ 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Famartin: this was on in my watchlist: [10]. The bot seems to be working as intended. –Fredddie™ 23:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Florida Scenic Highways nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Someone nominated Florida Scenic Highways to be deleted. Could some of you chip in on the discussion, either way? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A proposed deletion or PROD tag was added to that article with a note that says it is advertisement for an "unnotable entity" by the tagging editor (not me). If the tag stays the article could be deleted on January 23, 2017 or thereafter. The article needs to be worded more neutrally and needs more 3rd party sources, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
A good model to emulate would be Pure Michigan Byway, which has been assessed as a Featured List. A further note, but the listing for Florida should not split out National Scenic Byways. If an NSB is a FSH, it should be treated as such in a list of FSHs, and we can insert a note that it also holds NSB status. Separating the lists that way makes it harder to compare items because you can't resort one list to get them all length or creation date. Also, it's better to put the photos in a gallery below the table so they don't have to take up so much space in the table. Imzadi 1979 → 19:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I merged the federal and state lists and solved the NPOV problem. I will leave the remaining issues as an exercise to another editor.  VC  03:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ohio State Route 778

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I happened upon Ohio State Route 778, a supposed Good Article. Of six references, four are maps, one is a broken link, and the remaining one is this. Significant parts of the content are unreferenced, and I'm pretty sure there's at least one error of fact, too. I'd also argue that content like "passing a small group of trees and a couple of homes" is trivia that should be gotten rid of, but I'm not familiar with this WikiProject's standards. Someone more interested in this topic than me may want to take a look. Huon (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

In reality, that article and several other articles need to be merged into a list of Ohio state routes less than one mile. Dough4872 22:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

U.S. Route 21 Connector and U.S. Route 76 Connector in Columbia, South Carolina

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I was editing South Carolina Highway 760 and got reminded of two special routes in Columbia, South Carolina: US 21 Conn. and US 76 Conn., which are both unsigned and located entirely within the city limits of Columbia. The US 21 Conn. redirect goes to an empty section, and the US 76 Conn. redirect (plus the actual section of a "Special routes of U.S. Route 76" page that should exist) doesn't exist, yet. The South Carolina Department of Transportation has a map of Columbia that shows both connectors on page 31. US 21 Conn. is only shown as having one segment. However, US 76 Conn. actually has three segments. The western one, not shown on the map, is concurrent with US 21 Conn. for its entire length. This link shows US 21 Conn. This link only shows the western segment of US 76 Conn. If you look at SC 760, you can see where the central and eastern (if not more that I may have missed on the map) segments of US 76 Conn. are. I want to make pages or subsections for both connector routes, but I'm kind of confused about this. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, does anyone have any ideas on how to proceed? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I filled in Special routes of U.S. Route 21#Columbia connector route and added U.S. Route 76 in South Carolina#Columbia connector route. I would appreciate any help or criticism. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Interstate 440 (North Carolina)/GA2

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Interstate 440 (North Carolina) was nominated in August 2016 for a GA Review. I started my Review the end of January. The Nominator has not edited WP since August - if any of this Project's members wants to pitch in to get the article's adjustments done so I can finish up my Review that would be awesome. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I live there. I'll take a stab at some of it. --Jayron32 19:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alternate truck routes in Pennsylvania

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 

The article Alternate truck routes in Pennsylvania has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

We do not need a list covering these alternate truck routes, details about each route can be covered in the article about the relevant main route.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this why we have Article alerts? –Fredddie™ 04:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I've declined the PROD for the time being, but made some suggestions on the article talk page to fix the problems noted. --Jayron32 13:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Routelist templates

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Is there any way to use the routelist templates without the length, termini, formed, or removed columns? I would like to clean up some of my personal pages, and I can't use the {{Jct}} template too many times without getting some kind of "overflow" error (I forgot the exact name). Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Nope. The only way to not hit the expensive parser function limit is to not use templates in the first place. –Fredddie™ 02:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. That's a ridiculous way to handle things. This sucks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The templates were designed for a specific use case: the "List of <Interstate/US/state> highways in <state>" lists. Any other uses are outside of the design specs. Imzadi 1979 → 03:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is there the "expensive parser function limit" to begin with? Being able to use the {{Jct}} template as many times as required for the page should be used. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Because the template checks to see if the graphics it expects actually exist. That check (the "ifexist" function) is an "expensive parser function. You get 500 of those per page tops to prevent someone from creating a page that would crash the servers. Imzadi 1979 → 03:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The expensive parser function limit is there to prevent certain pages from hogging a significant percentage of the computing power of the server cluster. It's actually a good thing because it makes us find more creative ways to display information. For instance, on Interstate 90, we use a bulleted junction list instead of concatenating all the state-detail junction lists together, which is a really stupid idea, btw. –Fredddie™ 02:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Maplinks/JSON (possible replacement for KML)

Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion

TLDR: We can now use Wikidata and/or Commons to show roads (lines) on a map, check out these links: Interstate 696 & St Georges Terrace (Perth, Western Australia)

The first link takes the OSM data linked from d:Q2108 on Wikidata. The second link uses GeoJSON data at c:Data:Sandbox/Evad37/St Georges Terrace.map (which I first generated as KML as usual, and then converted to GeoJSON using an online converter.) Eventually, we will be able to place maps in pages directly instead of just behind a link – e.g. instead of static infobox maps. See examples at mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer#External_data.

Before anyone gets too excited, I don't think we can't just mass-convert all KML files to GeoJSON. At the moment, the only licence available for GeoJSON data is CC0, whereas all the KML files are stored as wiki-pages, and thus are CC-BY-SA 3.0/GFDL.

There's an announcement with further details at WP:VPT#Tabular_and_map_data_can_now_be_stored_on_Commons - Evad37 [talk] 01:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This is awesome and I really can't wait for dynamic maps. Regarding the licenses, I think we're OK. I don't believe lists of numbers (which what KML files essentially are) are necessarily copyrightable. –Fredddie™ 02:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know... sounds sort of reasonable enough, but then again, I wouldn't want to go to the bother of converting files only to have them later deleted on Commons... - Evad37 [talk] 03:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Evad, there is a license discussion going on on Commons VP about supporting more than just CC0. --Yurik (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I've made Template:Attached JSON to help insert maplinks into articles – see it in action on St Georges Terrace. - Evad37 [talk] 03:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking the new stuff out :) Copying from my post to @Evad37: While I think it would be awesome to use .map pages for all sorts of things, I don't think we should put streets and other geographical objects there because they are already available to us via the "geoline" and "geoshape" service in Kartographer - straight from the OSM database. I just added the wikidata id to the St Georges Terrace in OSM, so the map on the right should start working within 24 hours. I also wrote this guide on how to add Wikidata IDs to OSM if they are missing. Lastly, I think the best use of the .map is to add non-OSM style data, such as suspect attack positions from the Ukrainian war of 2014, or the Endangered habitat for Plethodon neomexicanus. Lastly, please make sure the data is CC0 (OSM is not), and specify the source of the data. Thanks! --Yurik (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Side question. Is it common for the .map so simply not load? I am getting a 50/50 success rate on maps loading with some producing a map and the others producing a white page. –Fredddie™ 15:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Fredddie, which map are you experiencing it with? --Yurik (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Yurik: the maps that use <maplink> work fine, it's the .map data hosted at Commons that is not working for me. When I click on them, a box that looks like a dynamic map is going to load appears, but nothing does. Current version of Chrome on macOS Sierra, if that helps. –Fredddie™ 18:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  Works for me on Firefox 50.1 on a rather old version of Kubuntu. -happy5214 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Fredddie: after it fails to load, could you open Chrome debugger (Menu/more tools/developer tools), possibly hit ESC if nothing shows at the bottom, and see if there are any errors? Thanks! --Yurik (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Here you go Yurik. I tried to separate out the red errors from the yellow cautions. The errors start with a ** and are separated with a carriage return. –Fredddie™ 13:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Fredddie's error messages 
St_Georges_Terrace.map:98 Gadget "popups" styles loaded twice. Migrate to type=general. See <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42284>.
(anonymous) @ St_Georges_Terrace.map:98
St_Georges_Terrace.map:98 Gadget "Cat-a-lot" styles loaded twice. Migrate to type=general. See <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T42284>.
(anonymous) @ St_Georges_Terrace.map:98

**load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=ext.globalCssJs.user&only=scripts&skin=vector&user=Fredddie&ve…:2 Uncaught ReferenceError: importScriptURI is not defined
    at load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=ext.globalCssJs.user&only=scripts&skin=vector&user=Fredddie&ve…:2

**https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=application/json&title=User:Amalthea_(bot)/userhighlighter.js/sysop.js Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 404 ()

load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154 Use of "importScriptURI" is deprecated. Use mw.loader instead.
get @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154
load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154 Use of "addOnloadHook" is deprecated. Use jQuery instead.
get @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154
VM66:151 This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.widget".
(anonymous) @ VM66:151
VM66:193 This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.position".
(anonymous) @ VM66:193
3load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154 Use of "addOnloadHook" is deprecated. Use jQuery instead.
get @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154
5load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154 Use of "wgUserGroups" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead.
get @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154
load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154 Use of "wgUserName" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead.
get @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154
2load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154 Use of "addOnloadHook" is deprecated. Use jQuery instead.

**get @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154
https://maps.wikimedia.org/img/osm-intl,14,-31.952,115.851,800x600.png?doma…/St Georges Terrace.map&groups=_0013cd720342353d9a36d5ea9f92c43fe717ab4b Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 400 ()

load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154 Use of "wgCanonicalSpecialPageName" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead.
get @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154
3load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154 Use of "wgNamespaceNumber" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead.
get @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154
load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154 Use of "addPortletLink" is deprecated. Use mediawiki.util instead.
get @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154
3load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154 Use of "wgUserGroups" is deprecated. Use mw.config instead.
get @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:154
load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:176 Exception in module-execute in module ext.kartographer.frame:

**load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:176 TypeError: externals[key].fetch is not a function TypeError: externals[key].fetch is not a function
    at InternalGroup.Group_Hybrid.HybridGroup.fetchExternalGroups (eval at <anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:4), <anonymous>:6:568)
    at Object.eval (eval at <anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:4), <anonymous>:7:813)
    at Object.<anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:47)
    at fire (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:45)
    at Object.add [as done] (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:45)
    at Array.<anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:47)
    at Function.each (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:5)
    at Object.<anonymous> (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:47)
    at Function.Deferred (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:47)
    at Object.then (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:46)
logError @ load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery,mediawiki&only=scripts&skin=vector&version=1u1uxh5:176

VM66:146 This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.core".
Please use "mediawiki.ui.button" or "oojs-ui" instead.
mw.loader.implement.css @ VM66:146
@Yurik: Sorry, I remember we did have this discussion on Phabricator (phab:T144152), I just got excited when I saw this was now live and possible. But as mentioned there, there are definitely going to be some road articles that need .map pages, particularly ones that no longer exist like M-31 (Michigan highway). - Evad37 [talk] 22:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Evad37: yep, if OSM doesn't have that data, lets make a CC0 version of it in Commons Datasets. I wonder what the naming should be - Data:Self/something.map or :own/ or ??? --Yurik (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@Evad37 and Yurik: I'm trying to follow what's going on here after my holiday break. I noticed that P402 on Wikidata is up for deletion - what if that happens? (I'm not trying to canvass, but it is something that we need to discuss). Also, is the main roadblock waiting for the licensing issue?
I personally don't want to mass convert KMLs or throw them away, but if third-party mapping sites are turning off KML support we may be running out of options. --Rschen7754 06:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I've been away on holidays also.
As far as I understand, P402 just provides a link from Wikidata items to OSM relations. The way Maplinks work is by looking at the OSM database, and which Wikidata Q-numbers which have been added over there. So in terms of mapping, it makes no difference wether P402 is kept or deleted
The licencing issue is certainly one roadblock, in that Commons usually takes precautionary stances. But also, for a lot of cases, the data is essentially the same as in OSM, and so can just be imported from there (much like how infobox data can be included from Wikidata) – in which case there isn't a real need to convert KML files to GeoJSON (the main exception, where we would want to do this, would be for former roads that no longer exist).
KML files can still be kept, because they'll still work in WikiMiniAtlas, and in Google Earth (and similar programs) if downloaded. But it does seem to be a format 'on the way out', at least in terms of support on web-based maps. So the links to online mapping providers may eventually have to be turned off. - Evad37 [talk] 03:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I see no reason to delete the KML files at this point either. As far as licensing, if the editor who created the KML file creates the JSON file, I think that's perfectly fine. I suppose we'll have to see what happens with the other cases. --Rschen7754 03:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fredddie, Yurik, and Rschen7754: Started a copyright discussion at c:COM:VPC § Lists of coordinates within KML files. - Evad37 [talk] 02:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion now archived here. We're probably okay claiming Public Domain for clearly defined geographical features with a predetemined selection/arrangement, without any creativity involved – so KMLs (and derived GeoJSON) for interstates and other roads would be {{PD-ineligible}}, but something like "the best trip across the US" would not be. (Note that this is only in relation to U.S. copyright law, so any file conversions should be done by someone in the U.S.) - Evad37 [talk] 02:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I think something like Ridge Route would probably not be okay either. --Rschen7754 06:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, it shouldn't be too hard to make a script to do KML → GeoJSON (Data:file.map) conversions [11] - Evad37 [talk] 04:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Testing

I've been doing some testing in my Commons userspace, as embedded maps are enabled on Commons. Using OSM data directly seems to result in low accuracy at medium-to-high zoom levels, at least for longer roads – see the comparison at c:User:Evad37/sandbox/maps § Test 2: Great Northern Highway. So it might be better to go with converting KML to GeoJSON. Also, the process of making OSM data available to Wikimedia wikis can be a bit tricky, and takes 1 to 2 days – see mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer/OSM, in particular the section "How to get a single object from multiple lines". - Evad37 [talk] 04:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T155919
Low accuracy reported on phabricator - phab:T155919 - Evad37 [talk] 04:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Personally, beside the points above, I have reservations about outsourcing elements to sites outside Wikimedia control. --Rschen7754 04:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Maps can also make use of wikidata queries:

<maplink>: Couldn't parse JSON: Control character error, possibly incorrectly encoded

,

<maplink>: Couldn't parse JSON: Control character error, possibly incorrectly encoded

(might take a little while to load). Perhaps not so useful for articles, but similar queries might be interesting for project pages – e.g. mapping featured articles, or good articles; or just for seeing the OSM data that is available to Wikipedia - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

List of state routes in Georgia (U.S. state)

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I was expanding the "Mainline highways" of the List of state routes in Georgia (U.S. state) page. There is a "Lua error in Module:Routelist_row at line 277: Type not in database: GA." error on the page. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You typo'd "state" in the SR 4 line. Xenon54 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my error. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, can someone check to see why the "dab" parameters in the Mainline highways section aren't working? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Morriswa: the Module:Road data/strings/USA/GA Lua module was never set to allow disambiguation of the main SR highway type. I've added that, so it should work now. Imzadi 1979 → 20:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for tweaking that module. I will check it. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple section highway in highway lists

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is the proper way of adding a highway that has multiple sections to a highway list? Do I use one entry and somehow add each segment in? Or do I make separate entries for each segment? Either way, how do I do that? Thank you. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Multi-State Route Articles Redux

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Based on noticing that the two components of State Route 314 (New York–Vermont) no longer connect, that Rhode Island Route 78 was moved to Route 78 (Rhode Island–Connecticut) several months ago, and situations like State Route 78 (Arizona–New Mexico) where the only thing in common between the two components is one state used the other state's number, I wanted to draw out the current consensus on multi-state route articles. This has two components:

  1. In what situations should two state articles be combined into a multi-state article?
  2. How should the article be named based on those situations?

Previous discussions of this topic are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 13#Combining SR article across states, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 14#Moving all (State Y/State Z Route X) to State Route X (State Y - State Z) format, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 16#USSH question, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 17#Pennsylvania Route 179, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 20#Merging articles of same-numbered routes in different states.  VC  02:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Today, I noticed Georgia State Route 119 and South Carolina Highway 119 which meet at the state line, but I'm not sure if they have any other historical connection. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I would combine multi-state route articles if one or both of the routes is very short, such as Route 78 (Rhode Island-Connecticut), or if the two routes are intertwined, such as Route 54 (Delaware-Maryland). If the two routes are long enough to sustain their own articles, like Maryland Route 404 and Delaware Route 404, then we leave them as separate articles. I think the current names are fine as long as they reflect what the routes are referred to in each state. Dough4872 03:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Per Dough4872, we should have separate articles as a normal practice, excepting where one or both are too short to really justify an article (see besides those shown, Route 286 (Massachusetts–New Hampshire) or New Hampshire Route 26 which includes information on the 69-foot long Vermont Route 26. Since we don't need a stand-alone article on a 70-foot stretch of asphalt, that makes sense. In situations like New Hampshire Route 28 and Massachusetts Route 28, we have enough length of each route to justify distinct articles. Oddities like Route 54 (Delaware-Maryland) also make more sense as one article, but such cases are so rare as to defy the need for policy guidance. Two articles where there's enough road to write two articles about, one article where there isn't seems like a good general policy. --Jayron32 19:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm finding myself in agreement with the above, and I'd add one additional caveat. If the two numbers aren't the same, then that cautions against a merger, at least in terms of the article title. That isn't to say that a hypothetical merger of a hypothetical Vermont Route 999 that is 20 feet long and an extension of a hypothetical New Hampshire Route X99 wouldn't make sense. Rather I would just make the VT 999 content a related route section in the other article, similar to M-554 in M-553 (Michigan highway). Imzadi 1979 → 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
There is one question I would like to bring up with the naming convention for these combined articles when one of the routes is very short. We have an inconsistent way of holding this with some like the CT/RI 78 article being titled Route 78 (Rhode Island-Connecticut) while others like the PA/NJ 179 article titled as New Jersey Route 179 after the longer route. We should make the naming convention for these articles consistent. Personally, I would prefer the former method as that would not give preference to any one route. Dough4872 23:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's start with routes that have a very short section only in the second state. Definitions of "very short" vary, of course, but my preference is 1 mile. Connecticut's portion of Route 78 (Rhode Island–Connecticut) is 0.43 miles. Delaware's portion of Route 491 (Delaware–Pennsylvania) is 0.36 miles. Wisconsin's portion of State Highway 243 (Minnesota–Wisconsin) is 0.30 miles. The second state's section is almost an afterthought. I think the article title should only include the state of the longer length, as is already the case for Vermont Route 26 and Vermont Route 123.  VC  01:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Concerning State Highway 243, the WI segment may be that short, but the MN segment is also quite short, so I'd say that proportionally, they're close enough that this scenario doesn't apply, and the histories are very intertwined because each highway is the approach to a bridge over the St. Croix River at the state line.
Otherwise, I agree that when one is "very short", we should title and write the article from the perspective of the longer state highway and include the shorter highway as a related route (assuming we consider the proportionality of the two highways involved). Imzadi 1979 → 04:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Similar to Morriswa's SR 119 instance above, Iowa Highway 136 and Illinois Route 136 present a case where IL 136 (3 miles) could be merged into Iowa 136 (96 miles), but I don't think they should. –Fredddie™ 16:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Now let's address the situation of multi-state routes with only one border crossing and where the shorter end is not "very short," but it is at most half the length of the longer end. Four examples:

Should these be split into separate uni-state articles? What justification do we have for retaining the multi-state articles? What criteria should we use?  VC  16:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion the criteria should not be based on length, but rather "is enough information available to write 2 quality non-redundant articles (GA class or better) if one were to spend the effort." I don't like the "<1 mile" (which is commonly used a a definition of minor highway in several USRD pages as well) as it is arbitrary. Using that as a criteria applied to the NY-VT 314 example, I would guess they should stay merged. The article as it exists today reads like the article is really about VT-314 with a little bit of content about this related route in New York. The implication is that, as a separate article, NY 314 would remain a permanent stub class article. Now, should someone produce several sources that provide unique content about NY 314, I would easily change my opinion. Dave (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with Dave on this one. Length of the road should not be the sole factor as every route is different and a short route may have a very elaborate history while a long route may not have much historical value. Therefore two adjoining routes of near equal length may make better sense to stay merged as splitting would produce two relatively short articles. Take for example DE/PA 261, which are each a few miles in their respective states, the two routes combined produce a decent length article whereas if they were split we would have two shorter articles. On the other hand, Delaware Route 286 and Maryland Route 286, both about two miles long, are separate articles as MD 286 has a lot of history to sustain its own article. Dough4872 00:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Dave, I do not think we were reading the same Route 314 article because when I read it, there were three paragraphs of history for the New York section. But it is a moot point for that article because the two routes no longer connect (since 2014), so the justification for being a combined article is now very flimsy. Unlike Interstate and U.S. Highway articles, we should not be justifying why an article should be split into well-defined components. Rather, we should be justifying why two articles should be combined. If we cannot justify the existence of a combined article, we should split it into its well-defined parts.
Dough, it is rather clear how DE 261 and PA 261 were combined. Their histories in the article are in their own paragraphs, mostly untouched since they were combined in 2014, and each route has one paragraph of history, so there would be enough history in separate articles. Really, I want to see a justification for why DE 261 and PA 261 were combined into one article, not why they should be separated.  VC  02:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The articles were combined to prevent having two shorter articles in favor of one decent length article. The histories are kept separate to organize by state and not jump between states, the subheaders may be able to be ditched in both the Route description and History as the sections are small enough. The combination makes sense since both routes share the same number and even the same name, being called Foulk Road in both states. It just happens this 7 mile stretch of Foulk Road/Route 261 is split by a state line and that should not have to split it into two shorter articles when one article does the job fine. Dough4872 03:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the default presumption should be that highways within separate state highway systems should have separate articles. The option should exist to combine two highways into a single article where there is a specific reason, like intertwined histories. Now, if the two highways happen to be on opposite sides of a state line, fine, but really, the STH-243/TH 243 situation between Wisconsin and Minnesota should be considered in the same light as merging M-554 into the M-553 article, or whether a business route is merged into the parent article (Bus. US 2 in Ironwood) or not (Bus. US 41 in Marquette). Imzadi 1979 → 04:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"Historic Marker" road signs in New York

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Aren't there other images of those old-fashioned directional signs in New York State that are shaped like historical plaques? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 
Because I recently captured a known sign like this in Rye, New York

Maryland Route 51

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

There seems to be an issue with what the direction of Maryland Route 51 is. The HLR has it as east-west but signage has it as north-south, and the article's route description and junction list has it as east-west while the infobox is north-south. What should be done here to resolve this issue? @Famartin and Viridiscalculus: any ideas since you both contributed to this article? Dough4872 16:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There is also a disagreement with direction for Maryland Route 244, which the HLR has east-west but signage north-south. Dough4872 16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I would think signage would trump documents, since signage is "reality". A note in the article might be useful regarding the discrepancy though. Famartin (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Rather than the north/south banners, where is mile marker 1 located? That should give you some guidance. –Fredddie™ 21:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Maryland state highways other than freeways rarely have mile markers, so basing it on physical mile markers would not work. I agree with changing the directions in the article if we have photographs of directional signage, preferably Famartin's sweet photos, but Google Street View would suffice. This would be the case even if the signage contradicts the HLR. For instance, the HLR inventories I-195, MD 216, and MD 175 as south–north, but all three routes are signed west–east. However, if you change the directions, you will also need to change the progression in the whole article, which in the case of MD 51's Route description is rewriting three long paragraphs. If you do not want to commit to that, you can just say the highway is signed south–north.  VC  22:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't appear either of these routes use physical mile markers. Maryland only uses mile markers on freeways and divided highways. Dough4872 22:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I changed the infoboxes in the MD 51 and MD 244 articles back to east–west directions and termini. We should not confuse readers by having inconsistent information. Instead, when one of us has the time, that person can make all of the changes concurrently so the article remains consistent.  VC  20:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Route logs

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am doing an article in the newsletter about route logs, and I'd like some input on what information states provide. If you can fill in any states that you know by linking to the route log and add any pertinent notes about the route log, that would be appreciated. –Fredddie™ 23:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Alabama – Milepost maps
Alaska –
Arizona – [12] Highway logs
Arkansas –
California – Postmile site
Colorado – [13] SLD's, also has milepost logs, but using a java applet that relies on individual querries, no pdf tables or anything
Connecticut – Highway log
Delaware – Traffic Count and Mileage Report
Florida –
Georgia –
Hawaii –
Idaho – Milepoint Logs
Illinois –
Indiana – Reference Post Book: See Template:INDOT ref
Iowa – Traffic Book (math req.)
Kansas – Pavement Management Information System
Kentucky – Official DMI Route Log
Louisiana – DOTD maps and LRS
Maine – Public Map Viewer
Maryland – Highway Location Reference
Massachusetts – Massachusetts Route Log Application (SLDs)
Michigan – Physical Reference Finder Application (math req.)
Minnesota – Logpoint
Mississippi –
Missouri – HPMAPS
Montana – Montana Road Log
Nebraska – Nebraska Highway Reference Log Book
Nevada – Description Index
New Hampshire – Combination of Town Nodal Maps and NH Public Roads
New Jersey – Straight Line Diagrams
New Mexico –
New York – Inventory Listing, Roadway Inventory System Viewer (if needed), Traffic Data Report (2014)
North Carolina –
North Dakota –
Ohio – DESTAPE (updated annually) and Straight Line Diagrams (updated once in a while)
Oklahoma –
Oregon – Straightline Charts (listed by named highway, not numbered highway)
Pennsylvania – Straight Line Diagrams
Rhode Island –
South Carolina –
South Dakota – Regional Highway Logs [note that the 2017 editions have different file names than in the past]
Tennessee –
Texas –
Utah – [14] Maps and Logs, some SLD's
Vermont – Route Logs (actually SLDs) and Traffic Data (with milepoints)
Virginia – [15]
Washington – Washington State Highway Log
West Virginia –
Wisconsin –
Wyoming – Highway Reference Markers
American Samoa –
District of Columbia –
Guam –
Mariana Islands –
Puerto Rico –
U.S. Virgin Islands –

Former U.S. 270

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

According to this document, the original US 270 proposal was planned for both Georgia and Tennessee. However, this page and this one only show Tennessee. According to GDOT's 1926 map, a US 270 was established from Lawrenceville to the North Carolina state line. U.S. Route 70S, to which the U.S. Route 270 (1926) redirect is targeted, only shows Tennessee. Does anyone have a more definitive answer? Thanks. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

US 16T Rapid City, SD

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Having possibly successfully identified this route correctly (see comment hidden in the wiki markup there), I soon remembered after my edit that the route is signed along I-90 to I-190/US 16, backed up by Google Street View. How should this be handled? I know that other states drop the "along for the ride" routes in concurrencies, considering such routes as interrupted even if continuously signposted, so there's precedent.

As an aside: The same log shows US 16 ending at the south end of I-190, not the north, though I suppose that's more of an issue of AASHTO vs. state DOT rather than records vs. signage. (NB: For those who don't know, and something that I just learned, two-lane and divided portions of the same numbered route are listed separately in SDDOT's logs, so read carefully.) Mapsax (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I would still count it as running concurrent with I-90, if it's signed than its a part of the route. Dough487210th 05:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The Center Line: Spring 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 
Volume 9, Issue 1 • Spring 2017 • About the Newsletter

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 on 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Secondary routes in National Highway System: Notable?

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

There were some discussions on the IRC channel involving the notability of some secondary routes that were also inside the National Highway System. For example, some of the supplemental routes in Missouri are also part of the NHS for various reasons. Are they more notable than other types secondary routes just for being in the NHS?—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Perhaps—NHS status is somewhat esoteric; most general readers would not know about it unless we inform them. I can see using NHS status as an additional reason that secondary or special routes are given separate articles, but not the only reason they would get a separate article. BL I-75 in Grayling, Michigan, is on the STRAHNET subsystem of the NHS. (It helps to connect Camp Grayling to I-75.) If we were otherwise inclined to create a separate article, that status could help justify that decision, but otherwise there's no automatic NHS = article equation at work. Imzadi 1979 → 04:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Per Imzadi1979; it may tip the balance but isn't enough on its own. --Rschen7754 05:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We should differentiate by NHS classification. I propose two levels of classification, the first of which confers notability by default and the second of which requires further support:
    1. STRAHNET Connectors, Non-Interstate STRAHNET Routes, and Other NHS Routes (light green, dark green, and red, respectively, on the NHS maps) are notable by default. These are almost all major highways. The vast majority of these routes are already U.S. Highways and state-numbered primary highways, but some are county or state secondary highways that, despite their lesser signing status, form an important part of a regional highway system.
    2. Intermodal connectors and MAP-21 NHS Principal Arterials (brown and gray, respectively) are not notable by default. Many of the intermodal connectors are ordinary streets or roads that lead to a port or transit facility and that otherwise do not serve an integral part of a regional highway system. The principal arterials seem to be an attempt to include highways that do not make the cut of the first category but that nonetheless the federal government or state declare are important corridors.
    • Concurrencies: A highway should not be notable based solely on having a concurrency with a notable highway. For instance, if Route D is an Other NHS Route, and Route E has a two-mile concurrency with Route D but otherwise is not NHS, then Route E is not notable. I call on Route D deliberately; I was shocked to discover Route D (St. Louis County, Missouri), which is an Other NHS Route between I-270 and I-170, does not already have an article.  VC  14:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe that secondary routes in the National Highway System are notable if they serve as part of an important through route in their own right. If a part of a secondary route is concurrent with a primary route that is NHS, then it would not be notable since it's just "riding along" the main route to link two non-notable routes. Also secondary routes that are intermodal connectors are not necessarily notable, especially if they simply serve as a driveway to a port, railroad yard, pipeline terminal, or public transit facility. Dough487210th 01:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • By definition, the (original) NHS is the most important 4% of roads in a state and, by extension, the country. I think that if every state had a functioning PP page, you'd find that the NHS articles manage to rise to the top of those lists anyway. So I don't think we necessarily need to go out of our way to create articles just because they're NHS. –Fredddie™ 03:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. I like the idea of creating PP pages for each state task force. Is there a tutorial for how to do that so we do not need to rely on one or two people to make it happen?
    2. We cannot measure how popular an article about a highway is if that highway does not have an article. As we saw with Route D in St. Louis, there are a few (original) NHS highways that do not yet have articles.  VC  19:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Maine Route Logs

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Well, I called the Maine DOT, and almost got some GIS data about Maine intersections, but the office closed partway through the call. I'll attempt to call the next time they're open, and possibly collect some GIS data for the jctint tables located in Maine. —JJBers 20:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's actually available online here, but requires some clicking. Chinissai (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The Center Line

Latest comment: 7 years ago33 comments9 people in discussion

I have added an introduction to the Winter 2015 (now Winter 2017) issue of The Center Line. A new issue is terribly overdue, and I hope my adding an intro will inspire other people to start working on the new issue again. PhilrocMy contribs 17:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I don't see the point of coming out with a newsletter as no one has suggested ideas for stories and not much significant has happened in USRD in the past year or so. We might as well formally discontinue the newsletter. Dough4872 17:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dough4872: Maybe an annoucement could be sent out about the newsletter needing stories to have more people come and suggest stories. PhilrocMy contribs 17:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I am still willing to write my story that I suggested... if other people will step up and write other stories. I do think that the newsletter does help promote the project. --Rschen7754 18:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering if my revamping of the List of state routes in Georgia (U.S. state) and List of former state routes in Georgia (U.S. state) pages could be mentioned somehow. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I know I haven't done any significant Lua work in a long time, so I'd really have nothing to write on that front. We could do a piece on some of the alternative WikiWork metrics I've devised, as well as any other metrics we could come up with before we have to write the story. -happy5214 22:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dough4872: @Morriswa: I have made a request (at the bottom of the page) for a mass messager to send out the annoucement I mentioned about the lack of stories to everybody in the mailing list. @Rschen7754:, you don't have to ask anyone if you want to write a story yourself. Be bold. PhilrocMy contribs 19:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really sure that we need the MassMessage; I think just starting this thread is sufficient. --Rschen7754 00:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Massmessage reaches more people (everyone in the mailing list) more quickly (it'll send the annoucement to everyone in the mailing list in about a minute) than just opening this thread. PhilrocMy contribs 00:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I certainly know what MassMessage is, but I think sending that message would just annoy people and cause them to unsubscribe. --Rschen7754 00:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: Sending it just once couldn't posssibly annoy anyone. PhilrocMy contribs 00:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To be fair, I suggested he send a call for stories for future newsletters along with an abbreviated Winter 2017 newsletter, rather than on its own. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: @Ks0stm: I was planning to send the call for stories while the Winter 2017 newsletter was being made, then send the newsletter itself once it was done. PhilrocMy contribs 00:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I would strongly prefer Ks0stm's solution. If people get too many messages that they don't find worthwhile, they will just unsubscribe. --Rschen7754 00:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: I don't think that getting one more message than usual would make a person unsubscribe. PhilrocMy contribs 01:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Philroc: in the past, we've always sent such notices as part of an issue. As the person who has nominally been the editor of the newsletter, I strongly urge you to follow that suggestion. Imzadi 1979 → 05:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: @Imzadi1979: @Ks0stm: @Morriswa: What should the production schedule be for this volume (i.e when should this issue and the next 3 in this volume be released)? UPDATE: Ks0stm and Morriswa have suggested on IRC that the issues for each quarter should be published on the last day of the last month of that quarter (March 31, June 31, etc). PhilrocMy contribs 18:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should be hasty putting out this issue. I mean, we didn't have an issue all of last year but that was part apathy and part attrition. So, I don't think it would be good optics to crank out an issue in a week and send it out. –Fredddie™ 19:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fredddie: The suggestion mentioned above would give us 2 weeks to make the newsletter instead of just one. PhilrocMy contribs 19:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's not much better. We should send it out when we have content, not out of obligation. –Fredddie™ 19:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Fredddie: How long do you think we should wait to publish the newsletter? PhilrocMy contribs 19:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
When it's ready. Simple as that. Please don't ping me any more here, I get enough notifications for this page from varying sources. –Fredddie™ 19:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I concur: when it it s ready, I will publish the issue. At this point, there is no deadline involved, ergo there is no rush to publish a hastily assembled issue. The reason I never published any issues last year was precisely because there wasn't any content to publish. I appreciate that you want to get the newsletter revived, but you're pissing people off in your tactics.

On another note with which I also heartily concur: knock it off with the pings and talkbacks, Philroc. Some of us have very real lives outside of Wikipedia. Just last night I was ripping up waterlogged carpeting and thoroughly saturated carpet padding after a furnace malfunction allowed the temperature to drop in my childhood home. As a result, a pipe fitting broke, flooding an upstairs bathroom, the adjacent bedroom and closets and sending water pouring through the floor so hard that it knocked the lighting fixture off the ceiling the in kitchen below. Almost all of the cast iron radiators have frozen and cracked, sending black water spraying onto walls and floors in most of the rooms of the house as well. So right now, I don't have the patience to deal with impatience on the part of others who feel a need to constantly ping or notify me about a discussion of which I'm very much aware already.

The TL;DR version: when we have content, the next issue will be published, but be careful in how you're approaching people because you may find that your efforts backfire and result in the permanent discontinuation of something that's just dormant at the moment. Imzadi 1979 → 23:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: Oh, well, I'm sorry for trying to be nice and letting you know that I responded to your comment. PhilrocMy contribs 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Philroc: This edit does not ping anyone. You have to include a link to another user (the {{ping}} template does just that) in an edit that also contains a new signature for the Notifications system to pick up on it. That is on purpose to prevent archiving comments from pinging everyone. I think all of the principles you've been pinging have this talk page on their watch lists, and probably have had this page watched for years, so pings are not necessary. Imzadi 1979 → 00:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I can understand how the newsletter may not have enough content for publication, and how we shouldn't really impose a deadline. There's one thing that I'm concerned about, though. The state of having enough content is subjective. Different people might think different amounts of content is enough. How are we going to deal with this? PhilrocMy contribs 02:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The featured stories are probably the hardest to get people to write. The rest is almost mechanical. --Rschen7754 03:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Traditionally, I'd write the "From the Editor" section at the time I prepared the issue for publication, and it would normally be written right into the issue instead of posted on the newsroom page. The goal was usually 2 or 3 featured stories, and we'd ask Floydian if he had anything for his regular Maple Syrup Report. Then I'd ping someone on IRC to get a leaderboard put together. The rest of each issue is usually just a matter of summarizing and assembling the basic content from other sources, and we'd have an issue. Since I have the MMS right, I'd publish it myself after assembling the distribution template. Unless you're planning to usurp my role as editor of the newsletter, just worry about getting the featured stories solicited, and I'll handle the rest when we have enough for an issue. Imzadi 1979 → 06:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be realistic here. Updates to the projects, policies, discussions, templates, FAs/TFAs, etc., are best handled with input from any or all WP:HWY members. Pieces on how state/country/province X is improving its articles are meaningless to anyone but the author (the whole maple syrup thing falls under this umbrella as well), and as mentioned, are the most difficult to write. What we need is a template for highway updates that can be easily added to all involved highway editor's talk page. With any trickery, we can make changes to this template trigger a "You have new messages" notification. This serves the functional purpose of the newsletter in updating members, without requiring scheduled releases or needless editorials. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

First off, we did it. Publishing a new issue of The Center Line for the first time in over a year was a very big accomplishment. I still can't believe we actually managed to get three stories for this issue. Secondly, I've read the new issue. In it, I wasn't credited for anything I did for that issue. Why is that? PhilrocMy contribs 15:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, of what's on the issue, what did you contribute? Once I started writing the second story, the third one came around organically, which is how it should work. I asked Imzadi1979 if he could talk about making contacts at the DOT, since he has experience doing just that, and he willingly obliged. Anyway, yes, you got the ball rolling, but was anything that you wrote included in the issue? –Fredddie™ 20:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
No. Nothing that I wrote ended up being included in the final issue, but I think that I should be mentioned somewhere, even if it's not in the contributors list. PhilrocMy contribs 21:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 95 in Maryland

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed an inconsistency in how the Interstate 95 in Maryland exit list handles independent cities. The first instance using {{MDint}} displays it as "Baltimore City" while the second instance using {{jctbridge}} displays it as "City of Baltimore". Is there any way this inconsistency can be fixed? Dough487210th 13:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed: Used MDint instead of jctbridge. Chinissai (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Dough487210th 02:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

New Jersey Route 495

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:New Jersey Route 495#2012/2017 discussion New Jersey Route 495 exits for a discussion on how the location for a river crossing should be handled in the junction list. Dough487210th 22:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Concurrency ends

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I've come across a junction in Kansas (US 56 and K-177 in Council Grove) where the two roads overlap for all of two blocks, which measures 0.168 miles. Typical practice is to list both junctions separately, but this seems wasteful. So I'm seeking a clarification for our RJL rules. At what distance should concurrency endpoints be listed on separate lines? Quarter mile? Half mile? Never? –Fredddie™ 22:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Generally I would list any concurrency in separate lines with the mileage for each endpoint as to clearly convey there is concurrency. Dough487210th 00:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree that they should always be on separate lines provided that they are actually separate intersections (and not an interchange that stretches a quarter-mile, for example). There are two examples of these short concurrencies on Connecticut Route 4, and I don't find they make the RJL pedantic, just precise. "Pepper" @ 00:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I've combined them when they are adjacent intersections involving a one-way pairing, or if the overall concurrency is so short. See M-35 for the later case involving an overlap of ~163 feet. I agree that it can be wasteful to use two lines of a table when one works just as well with the |mile= and |mile2= parameters. Imzadi 1979 → 06:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yet the concurrent road County Road 492 (Marquette County, Michigan) has them on separate lines. Maybe I just like the separate lines better because then all the decimal places line up nicely. As another note, what is wasteful about using two lines of a table when a single line will have to be twice as tall to accommodate the increased character count in the mi/km columns? "Pepper" @ 19:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I support two lines if the two junctions are not part of the same intersection or same interchange. Separate lines is less confusing to the reader.  VC  00:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I have never heard anything official about this from USRD. I just keep seeing other editors (on the fringes of the project) reverting and changing things on different articles. Are former highways supposed to be put in the navigation in the infoboxes? What about putting them in the transportation categories? If the answer to either question is no, then lots of articles need to be changed, especially in Georgia. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

They should be included in both. Imzadi 1979 → 01:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I generally think former routes should be included in the infobox navigation, though there can be problems with doing this. In some cases, a route number may have been used multiple times for different roads. In this scenario, I'm not sure how we should handle including former routes in the browse. Should we use the most recent instance as the route in the navigation? Should we maybe do navigation to a dab page? As for including former routes in the transportation categories, I see no harm in including them in the "Transportation in X County" categories as they once existed in that county. However, for the "State highways in X" categories, we need to keep current and former routes in separate categories. Dough4872 01:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
There are editors going around removing transportation categories from former highways. They are also tweaking the browse in the infoboxes to remove former highways from being included. I was mainly wondering, because with the major revamping of highways I have been doing in Georgia recently, this would make things very difficult to keep up with. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd personally tell them politely to stop removing things and point them here to join the discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 20:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
One rule I've implemented for Nevada articles is that all route numbers from the current numbering system are included in the infobox browse, whether active or decommissioned—but routes in the pre-1976 numbering system are not included in the browse (unless still active with the same number). This is primarily because most of those old route numbers redirect to current route articles (or could redirect to multiple current articles), and some of the older number articles are still not created (mostly those that wouldn't redirect), so the browse experience doesn't align with user expectation. -- LJ ↗ 16:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
That touches on my concern, and it's not just Nevada. For the states that have done mass renumbering (which is most) including former designations from the old system of numbering introduces too many opportunities to lead people down rabbit holes (i.e. browsing from route 1->2->3->4, but route 3 redirects to route 456, etc.) I think you're on the right path, i.e. ok to include former routes, provided the number has not been reused, or due to mass renumbering browsing to that route would lead to a maze of redirects. If we need a more simplistic standard to codify due to people who can't handle that standard, I'd vote to keep former routes out altogether. Dave (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Michigan has a few numbers that have been reused, and working with the disambiguation terms means we can navigate M-55 → M-56 → M-56 → M-57 without too much confusion. Jumping back to the categories piece of the discussion, that's a separate issue and even if former highways are committed from the browser order, they could/should still be included in categories. Imzadi 1979 → 19:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject and related task forces have signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Popular pages and the subpage /Popular pages of each task force with a list of relevant most-viewed pages over the previous month.

Here are the reports for the task forces that are currently subscribed:

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding reach of WikiProject Philosophy, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at meta:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, The Community Tech Team, through Johan (WMF) (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 75 in Kentucky

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I would appreciate some help in finding historical sources for Interstate 75 in Kentucky. The article is currently almost nothing but a route list. I know that "Cut in the Hill" was a notable part of the route's history, but there's got to be a lot more out there. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have access to newspaper archives through The Wikipedia Library? A quick scan of Newspaperarchive.com gets me hundreds of articles, though I haven't verified that any of them are any good. –Fredddie™ 01:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's some sources: Cut-in-the-Hill#History, How I/71-75 evolved from a dream into a nightmare, [16], & [17]. This publication may be useful, but is currently only viewable in snippet mode, but should be in the public domain in the US and thus fully viewable. I submitted a request through Google Books for its copyright status and viewability to be reviewed, so hopefully it will be viewable soon. AHeneen (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation templates

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could y'all clear up a bit of confusion that I have? I know that there is {{Road disambiguation}} and {{Road index}}. What exactly is the correct usage of each template? I want to make sure I used the correct ones for the Georgia disambiguation pages that I make. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me like {{road disambiguation}} is intended for pages that are "pure" disambiguation pages (like Interstate 295) while {{Road index}} is meant for pages that are technically lists, like List of highways numbered 295. It looks like the distinction has been lost to many, though, so there's some cross-pollination between the two. Perhaps we should consider merging them unless there's a good reason to keep them separate. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up for me. That suggestion sound good to me, but the categorization will need to be tweaked, as well. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to San Diego wiknic and bonfire

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Meetup/San Diego/July 2017 Wiknic . RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:County routes in Genesee County, New York

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 Template:County routes in Genesee County, New York has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mitch32(The many fail: the one succeeds.) 20:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Watershed navboxes?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:U.S. Route 101 in California#Watershed navigation bars. --Rschen7754 07:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinions on task forces? (Signpost request)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The Signpost is looking to publish an article on the state of task forces (or subprojects of other projects) and issues they face in 2017. As a project with lots of task forces, many of which were originally WikiProjects themselves, editors here might have some intriguing insights. Would anyone be interested in giving their thoughts/opinions, to be included in the piece? (It doesn't need to be long – just a paragraph or two will be fine, unless you want to write more.) If so, can you please leave a link to your submission at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions § The state of taskforces in 2017. Thank you, - Evad37 [talk] 03:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

US 20A NY shield

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone please fix the infobox coding to get the shield for U.S. Route 20A (New York) to display File:US 20A (NY).svg? I thought I figured it out but guess I was wrong. Dough4872 02:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Would it be possible for each task force of USRD to have a popular pages report, or is it only for certain ones? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Morriswa: there's no reason why not now that the bot is taking new request for such pages. It's a matter of someone setting up all of the requests though. Imzadi 1979 → 03:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Community Tech bot/Popular pages config.json is the page for setting it up. I went back and fixed all the reports that existed before the changeover but someone would have to set up the rest. --Rschen7754 03:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Since some states don't get enough views to get many pages on USRD's popular pages report, I would think it would be good to have those pages for all of the task forces. I just have no idea how to set it up. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Since I got the time, I'll manually add them in. —JJBers 17:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

{{Welcome-roads}} is one.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 03:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome-roads is integrated into Twinkle and applies to the WP:HWY umbrella, not just USRD. –Fredddie™ 10:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, CycloneIsaac, Fredddie! I wonder how does the project invite or recruit new editors now? If recruiting new editors is something you would be interested? I am a PhD student from the University of Minnesota. We are working on a study to help project recruit new editors. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
We haven't really needed to recruit. Typically, people just show up and those of us who have been around kind of show newbies the ropes. That being said, I'd be open to recruiting, though I don't speak for the project. –Fredddie™ 16:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeh, understood! Thanks for letting me know. Our goal is to help projects. Now we are trying to collect more feedback/suggestions for what projects need, and how to best help before we launch our study. It's totally up to project's need. :) Bobo.03 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I stick with personalized messages to IPs and unfamiliar (to me) users I see making edits across several articles. Templates are like when you call a company and get the dial-in system. - Floydian τ ¢ 22:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Floydian. The reason I ask about templates was trying to know if or how projects recruit new editors now. I also prefer something personalized, and it's been proven by some study as well! I am not sure if IPs would be something most interested to us, as those accounts might not be dedicated enough, but editors who made related edits should definitely be identified by our algorithms. Bobo.03 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Is the purpose of your recruitment efforts to recruit editors to perform routine tasks, or do you want editors to passionately and thoroughly update and create articles in their area of passionate interest?  VC  01:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
It'a good question, Viridiscalculus. We haven't thought about the specific type of tasks the recruited editors will work on in the project. The match we will recommend is mainly based on the interest (or some other trait) between the editors and the project, but not on the type of potential tasks. We create the matching opportunity, and will leave the further collaboration to the editors and the project members. So I think it will depend on two things, (1) the interest of editors as you mentioned, and (2) the guidance project members would provide to the editors. Do you think this will be helpful? Bobo.03 (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

When road signs and the state law code and DOT disagree

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

If numerous road signs (as can be shown on Google Maps Street View) show that a highway's southern end begins at one location but a state law code and DOT state that that highway begins in another location, further north, which should be used for the article? I am working on an article for Mississippi Highway 603. The state law code and DOT state that the highway begins at the intersection of Highway 43 in Kiln, MS, and goes north to Highway 53 in Necaise, MS, for a total of 13.76 miles. However, numerous road signs indicate that Highway 603 stretches further south to an intersection at Highway 90 in Waveland, MS, for a total of 25.0 miles. Road signs at an intersection with Interstate 10 in Bay St. Louis, MS, indicate that you can continue south on Highway 603 and this intersection is south of the southern end of the highway, according to the Mississippi state law code and DOT. The road signs indicate that Highway 603 does not end at the Highway 43 intersection but overlaps with Highway 43 south to the Highway 90 intersection. Also, for what it's worth, the local population mostly refers to the entire route as Highway 603. I just wanted to know what the proper convention was in a situation like this. Thanks.--GTheTigerFan (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I would go for the actual location of the road, the state code's not very reliable for this. Mississippi Highway 607 was described very poorly in the code, but it's clear in street view.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 03:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
And if it's significant, you can always discussion the differing definitions. For example, the FHWA considers Interstate 275 in Michigan to end at an interchange with I-96, while MDOT overlaps it northward. Most mapmakers follow suit, and our article discusses this situation. Imzadi 1979 → 04:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, CycloneIsaac and Imzadi for your helpful suggestions.--GTheTigerFan (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
When there is a disagreement I usually use DOT logs (if they exist) for listing termini and length in the infobox and exit list guides. However, I almost always state the legal termini in either the route description or history (depending on where it fits best for a given article) and if the discrepancy is notable (rather than technical or historical), in the lead. I tend to rely on field signage and Google street view as a last resort, after the above mentioned sources plus any historical maps I can find, but have had to resort to field signage on more than one occasion. I should note that for most of the states I work on, the states are very hesitant to sign concurrences, even when one is obviously required for continuity. That is probably a factor in my not wanting to rely on field signage if literally anything else is available to clear it up. Dave (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

definitions wanted

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices #contradiction?.. Explicit definitions quoted from or based on the Manual would save many readers some confusion or distraction. Thnidu (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 70 Business Routes and BL-70; Columbia, Missouri

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been working on a list of Business Routes of Interstate 70 since April 2017. If I complete it, how likely is it that the current Interstate 70 Business (Columbia, Missouri) article will be redirected to this list? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that it's unlikely to be merged because of the district section at the bottom of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Good to know. I'm still making the list. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Article titles of state route lists

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

So, I don't know if I'm the only one who noticed this, but many titles for lists of state routes are very inconsistent. To start off, some are formatted as "List of state routes in ______", such as List of state routes in New York, while others are formatted as "List of State Routes in ______", such as List of State Routes in Pennsylvania. Does anyone know if there is a reason for the uppercase/lowercase difference?

Additionally, why are some state route lists titled "List of state highways in ______", such as List of state highways in Utah? The routes are referred to in the article as both highways and routes. Is there a difference in how they are defined by state legislature or something like that?

If we find, for my first question, the articles should either be uppercase or lowercase, I would be happy to move them myself. Not sure what to do about the second one yet. Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@RES2773: I agree that we should be harmonizing the capitalization in the titles. However, we don't need to harmonize the terms, and in fact, should not because different terminology is in use between the states. For Michigan, it's the "State Trunkline Highway System", so the components are called "state trunklines" or "state trunkline highways". (The former term is used on regulatory road signs, in fact.) That's why the list is called "list of state trunkline highways in Michigan", but that isn't to say we wouldn't make "list of state routes in Michigan" as a redirect. Imzadi 1979 → 17:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I was just thinking about this the other day as Iowa's list is List of Iowa state highways, which is different than the USH and IH list nomenclature. Can we agree that "List of <highway noun> in <state>" is the best construction independent of whether they're state highways, state routes, or trunklines? –Fredddie™ 17:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fredddie: agreed on my end. Imzadi 1979 → 17:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fredddie:@Imzadi1979: So should the titles be lowercase? I think that makes sense, as it's not an offical title anyway. RES2773 (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:TITLECASE they should be lowercase unless they should be capitalized for other reasons (such as proper nouns). I know we treat "Interstate Highway" as a proper noun, due to AASHTO putting a trade mark on the shield and standards behind the name etc. However, does that apply to the terms "state route", "state highway" or "state trunk line"? To the best of my knowledge they are common names, not proper nouns. Anybody know for sure? Dave (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
One argument against the specific term "List of <highway noun> in <state>" is that it does not specify that we are referring to state-numbered or state-maintained highways. Someone could interpret it as all highways, including county and town highways. So I think it should be "List of state <highway noun> in <state>. The <highway noun> in the title should be lowercase because a group of highways is a collection of things, but specific routes (and if the highway system has a formal name, the set of highways) would be proper nouns.  VC  15:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Based on this conversation, I will be moving all articles with the highway noun capitalized to a new title with lowercase highway nouns. The titles themselves will not be changed otherwise. I'll do my best to fix any double redirects. Thanks everyone. RES2773 (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@RES2773: can you help update the appropriate links in Template:Infobox road/browselinks/USA so that the bottom of the infobox in affected articles still links to the right page? For example, List of state trunk highways in Wisconsin now has a link that redirects back to the page instead of having "State" appear in bold. Also, I reverted the Alaska page move for now because "Alaska Route" is an actual proper name, yet you moved things to "List of state highways in Alaska", thus breaking your statement that you weren't otherwise changing the titles. Imzadi 1979 → 02:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice if you could update the links at WP:USRD/S&L as well. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding sooner, been busy. I will try to get right on that. RES2773 (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Template needs updating

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please can someone who knows how to amend the project template update New York to New York (state) for both the article and project. See Template talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#New York renamed for more details. Timrollpickering 10:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: we don't append "(state)" to the categorization and naming for Washington, so I don't see a need to do so here. Our project is organized purely on state/territorial lines, and we don't have task forces for cities. Imzadi 1979 → 00:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

what are biggest road interchanges in your state?, and esp. about Fremont Interchange in Portland, Oregon

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

New list-article, List of road interchanges in the United States, could use help. Are there any major interchanges, at all, in Alabama, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, or Washington?

There is ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fremont Interchange which prompted me to create the list-article, and now there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of road interchanges in the United States, which may be of interest to editors here. --doncram 18:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

WSDOT (Washington) doesn't name their interchanges, and only a handful might be notable enough to warrant a nickname mentioned in the road articles, but not a separate article. I don't recommend creating new interchange articles in general unless there's strong sources from both local and regional/national publications and enough information to flesh things out. SounderBruce 21:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The most basic thing that we need before creating a separate article on an interchange is a common name. Without that, I wish you luck finding the "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" necessary per WP:GNG to sustain notability. Imzadi 1979 → 00:33, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hatnotes for Auxiliary Interstates

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What's the rule here? Interstate 610 (Louisiana) and Interstate 610 (Texas) have a hatnote pointing to each other, but after perusing a number of articles from the List of auxiliary Interstate Highways, I don't see this practice elsewhere. The use of a hatnote does makes sense to me, but I'm inclined to revert for consistency's sake. Britinvasion64 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The hatnotes are really unnecessary since we have Interstate 610 as a disambiguation page. Dough4872 16:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
That's kind of what I gathered from WP:HAT as well. Britinvasion64 (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Delaware shields

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

I think we need to make some changes to the state route shields for Delaware. It appears newer shields for 3-digit state routes use the ellipse sign rather than the elongated circle sign (see Delaware Route 279, a route assigned a few years back, as an example). However, the 1- and 2-digit state routes can continue using the elongated circle sign as the newer signs use series C fonts. In addition, it appears the circle design used in Delaware starting in 1971 but before the current design uses the ellipse sign (series D fonts) for 1- and 2-digit routes and the elongated circles for the 3-digit routes. We should probably create a type in {{jct}} and {{infobox road}} that calls the 1971 specifications. Dough4872 18:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you spell out what you need with pictures? –Fredddie™ 19:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
For the current shields I need   for the 1- and 2-digit shields and   for the 3-digit shields. For the 1971 shields I need   for the 1- and 2-digit shields and   for the 3-digit shields (Delaware Route 14A should use the elongated circle shield for the 1971 routes). Dough4872 23:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure it's 1971? There is a DE 1970 type that calls for all circle signs    . –Fredddie™ 02:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually it appears 1978 was around when Delaware started using elongated circles for 3-digit state routes. So the type for Ellipse sign for 1- and 2-digit routes and Elongated circle for 3-digit routes should be 1978 not 1971. Dough4872 02:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way, we need to add the DE 1970 shields to the {{infobox road}} templates. Dough4872 03:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
DE
     DE 1 / DE 10 / DE 100 / DE 896
DE 1978
     DE 1 / DE 10 / DE 100 / DE 896
DE 1970
     DE 1 / DE 10 / DE 100 / DE 896
Everything including the infoboxes should work now. –Fredddie™ 03:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Dough4872 03:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
We need a switch so 1A, 1B, 1D, and 9A use the proper shields in the infobox, right now they are coming up as errors since they are calling the ellipse signs and not the elongated circles. Also have a banner error here. Dough4872 03:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Instead of a switch, I went with image redirects, which works just as well if not better. I also edited Template:Infobox road/banner and the error is gone. –Fredddie™ 05:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again! Dough4872 05:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #Should we ask for mapframe to be turned on?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #Should we ask for mapframe to be turned on?. <mapframe> makes a slippy-map, similar to <maplink> (previously discussed here), but embedded in the article - Evad37 [talk] 00:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 87

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

It appears that Interstate 87 (North Carolina) is now signed. As a result, we're gonna need to make some changes. Interstate 87 needs to be moved to Interstate 87 (New York) in order to make room for the dab page as neither Interstate can claim to be the primary topic. But before the page move is done we need to make sure all links for "Interstate 87" are pointed to "Interstate 87 (New York)", it would help if someone with AWB or bot access can do this task. Dough4872 23:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Correction, it should be Interstate 87 in New York, after all that is how we been titling these articles for primary routes, like Interstate 95 in New York. I'm currently trying to get @Jayron32: or anyone to make the correction now to Interstate 87 in North Carolina. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
No, that naming convention is for state-detail pages of longer Interstates. For national-level articles of separate Interstates in different states, we use the state name(s) in parentheses, such as Interstate 88 (Illinois) and Interstate 88 (New York). Dough4872 00:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dough4872: What is the standard to make the difference from "(North Carolina)" to "in North Carolina"? I mean there will eventually be a Virginia page too, so it will be more than two states... we have a three-state interstate called I-26 that uses the "in North Carolina" format. So what is the official standard here or is it honestly being inconsistent. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dough4872: Okay, I see what you are saying now, every split interstate is setup that way, which means one day it will become "(North Carolina-Virginia)" once it is completed. Okay, fine... I will stop pouting about it. So can you or maybe @Cards84664: can move the Talk:Interstate 495 (North Carolina) to Talk:Interstate 87 (North Carolina)? Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Cards84664: I noticed you moved the I-87 page but it was not done properly. Talk:Interstate 87 was not moved to Talk:Interstate 87 (New York). We need someone to delete the latter so the former can be moved. Dough4872 00:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dough4872: I was aware of it, was about to throw a speedy deletion on it. Cards84664 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Washuotaku: Tagged Talk:Interstate 87 (North Carolina) for CSD so it can be moved. Dough4872 00:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The articles should be Interstate 87 (New York) and Interstate 87 (North Carolina). This is no different than the two Interstate 88s. –Fredddie™ 00:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The articles are now at the correct titles (the talk pages need to be moved pending some CSDs), now we just need to change all the Interstate 87 links to Interstate 87 (New York) before we make Interstate 87 a dab page. We need either AWB or a bot to do that as there are a lot of links to change. Dough4872 00:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

History section of Interstate 90 in Ohio

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

After finally doing research which I had been contemplating for years, I've been able to find out most of the various opening dates of sections of I-90 in Ohio. (It doesn't help that my primary sources have no indeces.) However, I discovered that the highway opened in more numerous relatively short sections than I had anticipated when I recently created the article's history section. I really don't want to have the section read "This stretch opened at this time then this stretch opened at this time then...." I thought about a table, but I'm not sure that that wouldn't add undue weight. Assuming that it would, I also thought maybe to just mention the first and last sections independent of the Ohio Turnpike and pre-existing Cleveland freeways to open, such as "I-90 opened in sections between 1959 [here] and 1978 [there]", but for completeness, there would probably need to be at least as many footnotes for that as individual sections that opened. I looked at other state-level articles and didn't see any consistency (my sample: Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania; Interstate 5 in California; Interstate 94 in Michigan) so I'm not sure how to approach this. Mapsax (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 8 might be another example to look at. --Rschen7754 18:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not really necessary to list when each section opened sequentially. You're right in that you shouldn't want to write that and none of us want to read it; it makes for pretty boring prose. You'd be better off saying when the first and last sections opened, then mention that the sections opened up with some degree of regularity. If one section took much longer than the others, or was better covered in the press, talk about that one and be sure to mention why it took longer or why it was important. –Fredddie™ 20:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
A lot of my FAs do list each date, but generally there was something significant to say about most of the sections that broke up the monotony. If I were to do it again, I would probably have cut out some of the sentences such as "it was scheduled to be complete by X in X, but actually it was completed in X" and some of the extra dithering like that. --Rschen7754 00:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
If you do not want boring prose, perhaps use a list to detail the opening dates or when each section was constructed? I suggest you get all of the information out there and then refine it. Based on the current History section, it looks like you are using newspaper sources, which is great. You should be able to glean more interesting information from those sources to incorporate into the section to make it more than just a list of opening dates, and you may also be able to group sections by trends you discover in your research.  VC  03:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, everyone. This might take a while due to not only the number of segments but the possibility that it might have briefly run with not one but two segments of SR 2 where it doesn't run now, plus there's the ambiguity of how it got between the Ohio Turnpike and the SR 2 freeway early on, complicating where the "first" purpose-built section was...I'll raise any specific concerns on the article's talk page. Mapsax (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Junction list colors

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have concerns with the junction list colors that need to be addressed. The colors for ETC and toll are an identical shade of purple, which can be confusing if a road has both ETC only tolls and traditional toll facilities. Is there a way we could differentiate between the two and use two different shades of purple? Dough4872 21:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss changes like that. –Fredddie™ 13:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Where should we discuss this then? Dough4872 00:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
WT:RJL, as this applies across the Highway project. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Discussion moved there. Dough4872 01:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Are SC Connector Routes really "unsigned"?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've noticed that passages on connector routes in South Carolina typically state that they are "unsigned" (e.g. here and here). While this is technically true, SC connector routes as a rule are never signed as "Connector" (and never have been). However, they are in many cases pretty consistently signed with "To" signs toward the terminus route. (This is why there are often concurrencies, reflecting the US parent routes at either end of the connector.) For example, on US 21 CONN/US 76 CONN in Columbia, there are reassurance/turn sign assemblies eastbound (here, here, here, here), westbound (here, here, here) and on side streets (here) This amount of signage compares favorably to other urban routes in SC where signs tend to get knocked down and not replaced until 15 years later. On the other hand, US 25 CONN/US 276 CONN really is unsigned. Is there a better way to reflect this in the text? (Pinging another editor.) —  AjaxSmack  01:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record, South Carolina does have connectors that are signed, like the US 29 Connector in Williamston. However a majority are not signed like this as the state has a laissez faire attitude of them; sometimes their are markers that direct to the highway, sometimes just a random green sign to cities with no routing, sometimes nothing, and in one case labeled a business route while in fact a connector (US 78 BUS). The only reason we know for fact they are connectors is thanks to SCDOT marking them all on official state maps and in some cases also black street posts at locations. As to your question, are they "unsigned?" Yes, because we also have signed connectors in the state and it is just unfortunate that the state does not have a consistent system in place. North Carolina does the same thing too (some signed, some not), so the only method is to identify them as either signed or unsigned. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. My bust. Haven't been there in a while. But note that except for one "CONN" sign at either terminus, the rest of the route is marked in normal SC practice with intersection signs lie this and reassurance signs like this, all with "TO". —  AjaxSmack  23:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Slow-simmering edit war

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

There is a slow-simmering edit war between myself and Chaswmsday on U.S. Route 34 in Iowa regarding this interchange (link). The disagreement comes whether or not it should be called a "one-quadrant interchange" (which this intersection is specifically mentioned in a couple sources) or a "quadrant interchange" (which merely drops the number). Any input is welcomed. –Fredddie™ 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned at my last edit of the article, if Fredddie can find a RS for the term "quadrant interchange", I will gladly stop reverting, otherwise, its use is OR, or just wrong. Additionally, such a term would have to be added to the prose at Fredddie's redirect target, quadrant roadway intersection#Variants. --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
What I've been trying to suggest all along is that the number, especially in this case, does not matter. This is an idiosyncrasy of the English language issue, not a WP:RS issue at all. It's similar to saying someone has "a thousand dollars" versus "one thousand dollars". –Fredddie™
No, there are "one-quadrant interchanges" contrasted with the somewhat poorly-named "two-quadrant interchnanges". --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not well-versed on interchanges, but a quick search on Google turns up reliable sources for three variants of the term: "quadrant interchange" and "single-quadrant interchange" in this FHWA report and "one-quadrant interchange" in The Civil Engineering Handbook. Britinvasion64 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
In the first, I find an undefined "quadrant interchange" & in the second, "one-quadrant interchange". I HAVE found just "quadrant interchange" in some state DOT documents, but these seem more like a description of parclos, while the quadrant interchanges mostly seem to require turns across traffic... --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This PPT appears to show the exact interchange in question on a slide titled "Grade Separated Quadrant Interchange," then uses the more specific "one-quadrant" term to compare it to a "two-quadrant" example. Britinvasion64 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't bother listing the interchange type at all, thus solving the issue of what to call it. That's interesting only to limited audiences, not to the generalist audience we ascribe to serve. Imzadi 1979 → 23:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not just say the two U.S. Highways are grade separated (US 75 crosses over US 34) and are connected by a two-way ramp?  VC  23:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Why not link Wikipedia together by referencing the most correct articles? A generalist reader will see "interchange" and might not investigate further. Other readers might appreciate more detail and follow the link. --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Baldwin Beach Express shield

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone add the newly-made shield file File:Baldwin Beach Express.svg to {{Jct}}, so it will show up when called? Thanks. I added the "marker_image" parameter to the Baldwin Beach Express page. Was that correct? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi everyone I just want to say hello. I am Christopher Thompson. I heard on this website y’all like to talk about the highways in the US. I’m so interested because I know a lot about the highways in the US and where they go in fact I want to be a map maker when I grow up, so I love to know more about the highways. So hi everyone Christopher Thompson (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

👍🏾 Christopher Thompson (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome! --Rschen7754 00:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Welcome, @Christopher Thompson:! We always welcome new users to the Project. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Proposed A-Class Review rule changes

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There have been some proposed changes to the A-Class review process at the discussion above. --Rschen7754 20:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? (lists)

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just think, you re writing a compendium, not an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia has an overview and synthesis ofa asubject, not just a collection of lists149.254.234.236 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Blanket statements like that are rarely correct all the time. This project and others has lists and articles with varying degree of prose content. --Finlayson (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Less than 3% of content under this project's banner are lists. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Transcription project

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm starting up a transcription project on Wikisource with the current archive of AASHO/AASHTO minutes uploaded to Commons. As each page is transcribed through OCR, it needs to be proofread by a second editor and then validated by a third. Each transcribed page comes together to form a single document.

A group of us worked on File:AASHTO USRN 1985-06-26.pdf at Wikimania and put together Route Numbering Committee Agenda 1985-06-26. The eventual end goal is transcribe the remainder of the minutes and switch {{AASHTO minutes}} to link to the validated transcriptions. (Each document on Wikisource links back to the original PDFs on Commons as well.)

The steps are fairly easy, so if anyone is interested in helping out, just let me know! Imzadi 1979 → 11:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

A unconnected editor started Portal:American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials over on Wikisource to collect all of the documents as well. Imzadi 1979 → 23:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I've just finished the initial pass transcribing the Report of Joint Board on Interstate Highways October 30, 1925 over on Wikisource. There's some interesting stuff in there, including drawings. Imzadi 1979 → 15:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I wrote up a detailed set of basic instructions at Wikisource:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Tutorial based on the process I followed to transcribe U.S. Route Numbering Sub-Committee Agenda 1970-11-06. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_U.S._Roads

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 19:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Secondary Virginia state routes

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

An editor, @Famartin:, has made pages like Virginia State Route 610, with multiple secondary state routes in Virginia on them. Is this a proper way to do this? Shouldn't they be put on the List of secondary state highways in Virginia page? On User talk:Famartin#Secondary Virginia state routes, I have been discussing it. This editor says that there are "tens of thousands" of secondary state routes in that state. Is this true? If so, could they be put on multiple pages? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If you review the talk page for the List of secondary state highways in Virginia, you'll see several comments I made in the past regarding the need to break up the page. Yes, there literally are tens of thousands of secondary routes in VA, since VDOT maintains nearly everything outside of cities and towns, and numbered them all. You should review the Byrd Road Act for some background, as well as the VDOT traffic counts to see how many numbers there are and how many are duplicated over and over again in the different counties. In any case, these routes are of the same level as county routes in other states such as New Jersey, so truthfully they only need minor list coverage, not something more descriptive. Famartin (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe split it into just a few? Similar to List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas? --Rschen7754 05:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Assuming the numbers on that page are representative, there are still significantly more SR's in VA than Farm to Market Roads in Texas. I'm really not kidding - route numbers in VA's secondary system go over 10,000. Famartin (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Possibly split them into something like List of secondary state highways in Virginia (600–699) or something to that effect or separate them based on each individual city/county. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Because the lower SR's, particularly the 600-699 range, are almost all duplicated in every county, that would result in a page with well above 500, likely close to 1,000 entries. For some counties, doing individual lists by counties would also result in some pages with thousands of entries. Just look at Fairfax County. I would be OK with consolidating some of the higher numbers in group pages once they get much less commonly duplicated. I'm not exactly sure at what number that would be, but likely at some number higher SR 1000. Famartin (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Something that hasn't perhaps been realized by everyone here yet, but I probably should mention: Those pages I started aren't done... I've only gone through the counties starting with the letter A. There are dozens of routes that still need to be added to EACH of those pages.Famartin (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I think Virginia State Route 610 works very well to handle this, and I'd just suggest that the table needs to be formatted along the lines of WP:USRD/STDS in the future. We would probably want to create a variant of {{routelist row}} that displayed the county name instead of the highway marker and name because each row would be redundant in such a table. Imzadi 1979 → 06:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate the edits you already made to the pages. Famartin (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. If this concept were developed fully, then I think that List of secondary state highways in Virginia should ultimately become just a list of the numbers that have pages, and the inboxes at the tops of these new lists would navigate between them. Imzadi 1979 → 06:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I don't want to do that yet of course since there remains material listed there which isn't duplicated yet. Once the first 11 pages are complete (Routes 600-610), I intend to link them to the main secondary route page, and then start 611-620. Famartin (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

When is a route a route?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We are having a discussion on Talk:Interstate 269 regarding designation and when it officially is and what not. I would appreciate others opinions on the matter since this started from an edit battle on simply where I-269 ends in Tennessee. Thank you! --WashuOtaku (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible vandalism on Interstate 95 in Maine

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Could this edit be considered vandalism? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Instead of wondering if it's vandalism, why not talk with editor and work it out? @DeepcoverEditor: –Fredddie™ 02:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I made it because no exit can be exactly on a county line. DeepcoverEditor (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I can give examples of interchanges that are bisected by county lines, and intersections that meet at county tripoints, so that is incorrect. –Fredddie™ 02:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I will not revert. DeepcoverEditor (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

MUTCD I-7 variants

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Since this isn't for a route, but it is for a road sign, I thought I'd take the issue here. I've been wondering if we should have a separate category or even new diagrams of Amtrak and local variants of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices official I-7 sign for train stations. I've been known to capture a few on my photography crusades involving Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North and other commuter railroad station crusades, and even saw one on Queens Boulevard near the Briarwood (IND Queens Boulevard Line) reconstruction project that has been going on for years. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

 
If you don't know, this is the sign I'm talking about, and it either has a logo on the top or bottom
I would say no since many of the transit agencies logos are fair use. The generic train station sign works fine in the junction lists. Also, you would be barely able to see the logo. Dough4872 02:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so what about a genetic space for specific logos? And would a specific commons category still be acceptable? I'm thinking something like "Train station guide signs," or something like that. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Pardon me for being dense, but I even with a picture, I still don't know what you're talking about? –Fredddie™ 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking about a generic blank space attached to the sign for any logo you want, without having to use the logos for Amtrak, LIRR, Metro-North, Metra, SEPTA, MBTA, MARC, ACE, NJT, etcetera. I'm also addressing the categorization of these signs. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I think making train station shields with a blank space for transit logos is a waste of time, the logos are copyrighted and the generic train station sign is fine. Dough4872 04:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Route 17 Alternate Truck

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Earlier, I found out that there is a truck route for U.S. Route 17 Alternate. Is there any way to add functionality to the {{Jct}} that will allow the highway to be called? It is shown on Google Maps. I have started a rudimentary junction table on this page of mine. I need to go to bed, or else I would work on it more. Thank you for your help. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need to list truck routes since states like South Carolina sometimes randomly establish and abandons them? --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Signed roads, etc

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

There is no such word as signed to indicate that a route has been posted but WP does recognize signage which indicates sign(s). Is it proper to use signaged as the action of having marked a route, road, street, freeway, etc.? Signed is an indication of a signature, have communicated in sign language or use in mathematics but not the act of having indicating a particular roadway.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6: I don't know where you got that idea. The word signed has the intended meaning. See Dictionary.com under the verb heading:

18. to mark with a sign, especially the sign of the cross.
19. to communicate by means of a sign; signal

I think that covers it. Imzadi 1979 → 23:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. "signage" is only a noun, and not also a verb, so "signaged" is not a word. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@IP, you referenced in another edit summary the Oxford dictionary, the Oxford dictionary's use of the word in a sentence contradicts your statement. —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 23:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised that no one brought up the word "posted"2605:E000:9143:7000:ADF3:5457:D866:C0E6 (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Routelist row

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Can functionality for special routes for South Dakota be added to the template? I tried to do that in my User:Morriswa/sandbox3 page, as I'm attempting to templatize the List of state highways in South Dakota page. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to be changed in {{routelist row}}, Morriswa. It already supports whatever types of highways are supported for a state. Imzadi 1979 → 23:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Before jumping too quickly... can you show us examples of "special route" shields that would need to be changed? Preferably in Gmaps where you can show that it is signed as such, given the multitude of misleading oil company maps in the US. After all, We're using specialized shields with no issue in Ontario where there are many official/signed examples. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
And not to simplify things, but if it works with {{Jct}} it will work with {{Routelist row}}. –Fredddie™ 00:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
When I use "subtype=Spur", the entry is added, but it is shown with just the mainline shield, no "spur" plate? If I used "type=SD-Spur", that entry is deleted in the render, and the previous entry has a Lua error that it doesn't exist. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, the truck route I added shows as a truck route, but the link is trying to go to a business route. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
On User:Morriswa/sandbox2, I tried {{Jct}} for SD, for each main special route type. Only the Business and Truck ones work. The Alternate, Bypass, Connector, and Spur don't. Can these be added to the template? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need all those types? –Fredddie™ 02:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I was just preparing for if and when I find them in the field. That's all. So far, Spur might be the only one that is needed. I will be checking more on Google Maps, just to be sure. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Streets in Portland, Oregon

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

And now, a list of redlinks for any project members who are interested in creating new articles. I've created 1st Avenue, 2nd Avenue, and 3rd Avenue, and identified some streets in Portland, Oregon that may qualify for articles:

Keep in mind, many streets have north and south, or east and west counterparts, covering multiple parts of the city. All help is welcome (especially from road enthusiasts), otherwise I'll chip away at these lists over time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This is under the scope of WP:USST, which is pretty inactive. I'll chime in, since I've been planning similar street articles for Seattle for a while. I don't think regular downtown streets warrant their own articles, but would look best in a listicle (see Los Angeles streets, 1-10 or List of north–south roads in Toronto). Unless the street has some very well defined characteristics and is recognizable as an independent piece of the city's culture, it won't survive deletion attempts. Major arterials like Burnside, Division, Sandy, Broadway, and those covered under the state highway system are definitely deserving of articles. SounderBruce 05:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe any of those meet Wikipedia's notability standards, not even the more specific guidelines mentioned at the (effectively inactive) Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets, and as far as I can tell, you have made no effort to establish notability in the (brief) text of the three you already created. Personally, I don't feel any of the streets in the above list warrant standalone articles on Wikipedia. The ones mentioned by SounderBruce, on the other hand, probably are, but notability should be established by sources before any WP entries are created, not left to other editors to (possibly, but probably not) do. SJ Morg (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

IRC

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – This is a known issue for some users. Just say something here and we'll get you in. –Fredddie™ 01:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Why am I banned from the channel? I don't recall doing anything wrong. Dough4872 00:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You're not on the ban list, so I don't know what's wrong. Can you get on the server but not into the channel? –Fredddie™ 00:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I try to log into wikipedia-en-roads using Dough4872 and get the message "#wikipedia-en-roads Cannot join channel ( b) - you are banned". I don't know why this is happening. Dough4872 00:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Have you tried another channel? –Fredddie™ 00:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I've tried wikipedia-en and wikimedia-ops and have been able to get into those channels. Dough4872 00:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Try it now. –Fredddie™ 00:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm in! Thanks very much Fredddie! Dough4872 00:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Naming convention discussion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please particiate at WT:USSH#"U.S." vs. "US" in article titles in a discussion about whether or not to update article titles to use "US" instead of "U.S." in line with current MOS guidance. Imzadi 1979 → 16:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, another USRD article selected for TFA

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

FYI, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 8, 2018. This article went through the FA process about 10 years ago, and a lot has changed since then, it's possible it wouldn't pass an FAC nomination in its current state today. But I think it would. I've been going through the article trying to fix it up, any help is welcome and encouraged. Dave (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The KML file for U.S. Route 50 in Nevada has not been updated to reflect the re-route from downtown Carson City to the I-580 bypass. Anybody up for the task? Dave (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 Y Done. Also added a little tutorial on editing existing KMLs (surprisingly easy, but clunky). SounderBruce 06:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you kindly sir. Yes, I'm sure with some studying I could have learned it myself. But nice to know there are people willing to help for when time is short

. Dave (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Services in exit lists

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Services in exit lists. Dough4872 19:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment (editor review)

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I have been considering this for a while, but I really think something must be done with all of Alexlatham96's edits. Except for those on Texas pages, almost none of his edits, across the entire USRD project (nearly every state), have been unreferenced. What do you think? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur, but I think it's best to tag him so he can take part in this discussion. @Alexlatham96: this is not the first time that an editor has had a complaint about your editing. How are you going to address it? –Fredddie™ 02:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
My edits need to be double-checked, at least. New Mexico highways; e.g. need maps to confirm, so info is scarce here.Alexlatham96 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Why are you making those edits if someone else has to check them again? --Rschen7754 03:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought they were right; I thought roadgeek sites were sources, but they are not right sometimes. Probably should mass revert. Maybe we should warn people to prevent errors like this. Alexlatham96 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Who will do the reverting? And why were the messages on your talk page not sufficient? --Rschen7754 03:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I can do most, if not all of the reverting. It may take me days, though. It can be hard to find sources, however. I need help finding old maps (for North Carolina; South Carolina). Also, I don't usually see highway list pages with sources. I'm moving my renumbering pages I made to drafts until someone can confirm this information. Alexlatham96 (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Reverting has started.Alexlatham96 (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Added more references, and move some of the unreferenced renumberings to drafts. If there is something else to revert, point it to me on my talk page. Question: WHERE was Georgia 345 and North Dakota 64? Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I was editing the Georgia pages. I had to stop due to real-world issues. I never found SR 345. It may have existed, but I didn't see it. I am involved in different USRD projects at the current time (SD and FL county road pages), and my editing may drop over the next few weeks (out of town), so GA will slow down for now. I strongly urge you to revert all of your GA edits unless you reference them. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Interstate 66 still alive?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to this article, the Interstate 66 in Kentucky proposal might still be alive in that state. I know the article is from 2016, but could this be true? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Routelist row

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can {{Routelist row}} be used to make a table of unnumbered roads (like streets)? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so, and I don't think it would be amended for that use case. Imzadi 1979 → 04:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Just use a hardcoded table. Routelist row is custom made to generate lists of numbered routes from templates, which is its intention. Dough4872 04:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up. I thought there was some sort of template capability on Wikipedia, whether {{Routelist row}} or some other template(s), for unnumbered roads, though. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikisource update

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All of the documents at commons:Category:Minutes from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials have been transcribed and initially proofread at wikisource:Portal:American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. They still need to be validated, however I can't perform that step myself if I did the proofreading; that step has to be done by another editor.

The process is simple for anyone with an eye for detail to match up the transcribed text to the original text.

  1. Click on the link on the portal page for one of the documents. This will load the total document.
    • A status box at the top will be proportionally colored yellow and green to indicate the status of each individual page; yellow is proofread, and green is validated.
  2. Click the source tab at the top of the page to go to the Index: page for that document.
  3. Each of the constituent pages of the document will be listed and linked at the bottom of the page. Each should have a colored background to indicate its status. Click any yellow page to open it.
  4. Compare the transcribed version on the left to the original document page on the right.
  5. Click edit, even if the document matches up. Make any changes necessary. Click the green option for Page Status under the edit summary. Save the page. This is what validates the page.
  6. Click the > tab at the top to navigate to the next page in order and repeat the comparison and editing steps.
  7. Click the ^ tab to navigate back to the Index: page. All of the pages should appear in green now.
  8. Edit the Index: page and update the status from "To be validated" to "Done".

One note: if the original document has a typo, we actually want to preserve it. Wikisource uses a {{SIC}} template to mark these. Use {{SIC|original text|correct text}} to mark the typo. Additionally, Wikisource mimics the formatting of the original, but it doesn't slavishly copy it. For instance, we don't indent text on WS or force the text to have line breaks in the same places, although we are using tables to copy the overall format of the pages. Imzadi 1979 → 16:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Bot flagging Colorado highway articles with dead links.

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

FYI, the dead link bot is flagging Colorado Highway articles. It appears CDOT is re-organizing their website, and the java based tool for retrieving milepost logs has been moved. It appears the tool will still exist and reside here: [18], but the link isn't working (yet?). Dave (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Moabdave: Probably the best thing to do is when it is working, come back here and we can do a bot replacement. --Rschen7754 00:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

List of streets in Portland, Oregon

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've created List of streets in Portland, Oregon, if project members see immediate improvements that could easily be made. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The content in the list could also be covered by the navbox below it, right?Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It could be in danger of being deleted per WP:CSD#A1 - there is zero prose. Also, for the record this falls under the scope of WP:USST, not USRD. --Rschen7754 00:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

New York State Route 390 merger proposal with Interstate 390

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Please see Talk:New York State Route 390#Merger proposal with Interstate 390. AIRcorn (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

BUS 80/US 50 overlap in Sacramento

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I would appreciate any input/comments on Talk:U.S. Route 50 in California#Bus 80 overlap. The issue is that Caltrans, as part of a re-signing project, has begun to remove Bus 80 shields from this segment and only mark it as US 50. The problem is that both the Caltrans bridge logs and the Cal-Nexus exit list still reference it as a BUS 80/US 50 concurrency. So what exactly is the official current status of this that can we cite? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Interstate business routes are at the whim of the States and not cataloged by AASHTO unlike US business routes are. Only Caltrans has the answer here, but in all likelihood the route is being retired. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Utah State Route 129

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I posted this comment on Talk:Utah State Route 129 and thought that somebody here may be able to assist:

It seems that a new Utah State Route 129 was designated back in 2014, and yet no article exists for this current incarnation. I do not really have much information to go off of to create a new article (but that one link I shared), but if anybody else has more information, it may be worthwhile to create. I actually stumbled upon this when trying to address this disambig page having links directly to it from article namespace (see WP:DPL#March_2018), where this table describing UT-92 seemingly references the new UT-129 but links here.

Thanks! -- rellmerr (talk page • contribs) 07:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This Google map shows the routing of SR 129. For future planning, whenever the article is created, the disambiguation page should be moved to Utah State Route 129 (disambiguation) and then the new article created at Utah State Route 129. Right? –Fredddie™ 22:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I don't know why I didn't think about using Google Maps like that. But yes, re: planning - that's how the pages should be set up. -- rellmerr (talk page • contribs) 16:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Route map problem

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

U.S. Route 129 in Georgia has something wrong in the route map at exit 14. There is a |name1= used twice here and the fix is a little more complicated than changing one to name2. Can someone fix this. MB 01:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Take a look now. I think I got it, but you really didn't say what it's supposed to say, so I just took a guess. –Fredddie™ 01:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say because I don't really work on roads articles and aren't really sure. But looking a google map and the detail in these route maps, I would say that at Exit 14 you can have to exit to continue on Route 129/15 North, or you can exit to take Route 15/Prince ave south, or just continue with no exit and you will be on Route 10. I have no idea the normal way to handle this. At a minimum, it should say South is Prince ave since North is Jefferson Rd. MB 02:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I've noticed recently that {{Maplink}} utilizing KML files created are being implemented on many USRD articles now. Are we at a point on the project where the .svg/.png map files are being depreciated in favor of the interactive maps? —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 12:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say yes. Personally, I've been waiting for years to be able to add interactive maps to articles. It's been my experience that they work on mobile, which is something that KMLs do not do (easily). They're really easy to update, and if we use the OSM method, we don't have to update anything ever. As far as I'm concerned, the benefits outweigh the risks. –Fredddie™ 05:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
One thing of note is that they don't appear in the mobile app, at least not in the iOS version. Additionally, articles that have the traditional fixed maps show the map as the preview image for the popups and those with interactive maps do not. Imzadi 1979 → 13:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I can confirm that it does not work in the Android app as well. My gut says the app is not widely used on any platform, but I've been wrong before. –Fredddie™ 22:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's something that'll be implemented in the future, as it just came out for the English Wikipedia. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with NY Thruway re Seneca Nation lawsuit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:New York State Thruway#Seneca Nation lawsuit
Mapsax (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Automating P:USRD

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

In recent years, there has been less interest in suggesting articles, pictures, and DYK hooks for P:USRD, which has led me to have to find stuff to update the portal every month. There has been a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/RfC: Ending the system of portals that has talked about getting rid of the entire portal space Wikipedia-wide. That discussion has been trending toward no consensus (which would keep portals), as there has been a lot of opposition of getting rid of portals. One of the ideas I, along with other editors, tossed around in that discussion is automating portals in order to reduce maintenance. With the decline in suggestions for content at P:USRD, I feel this may be the best way with continuing forward with our portal. Under this scenario, P:USRD would randomly display articles, pictures, and DYK hooks, which would change every time the portal is refreshed. P:MDRD uses this setup for its pictures and DYK hooks, and that helps reduces the maintenance of that portal. To do this at P:USRD, we could pick a predetermined amount of articles, pictures, and DYK hooks that could be randomly rotated every time the portal is refreshed as opposed to it changing every month. This would reduce the need to having to manually update the portal every month and editing time can be devoted to articles instead. I wanted to start a discussion here to see what project editors think about this proposal and whether we should go forward with it and to get ideas for what content we should have rotate on the portal. Dough4872 01:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong support. Perhaps a seasonal content drive to replenish the portal would also be useful, as a way of keeping it topped off with new content without being a burden. SounderBruce 01:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Partial support. I don't support the automation like P:MDRD, but I do support pre-loading months and having content drives like SounderBruce suggests. –Fredddie™ 01:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support - An annual (or seasonal) update to the portal will be much less work.Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose—we have such a wide depth of articles (literally thousands) that we should be attempting to constantly bring fresh content to the page. Seasonal drives to pre-load several upcoming months of content would be a good alternative; we could schedule articles right now just from the unused FA-/A-Class articles, and we'd have years of them by looking at the GA-Class list. We have a gallery of good photos that haven't been selected that could be pre-loaded to get another couple of years of content prepped. That leaves DYK, which could also be pre-loaded in advance for a while, even if it meant recycling hooks. Imzadi 1979 → 05:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Leaning Oppose - It appears the Wikipedia wide portals are waning in both popularity and importance. I've seen several that are cobwebs, or at best have only one active maintainer. Automating the portal content merely masks this by giving the appearance of periodically changing content, it truely doesn't provide fresh content. With that said, the few portals that are being actively maintained do serve a purpose, more or less a "what's new" newsletter to those that use Wikipedia as a platform for their hobbies and interests. In our case USRD has both a news letter and portal that serve similar purposes. If the point is to save labor, why not combine the two and include things like a featured picture, or "in the news" with the newsletter? That would mean shutting down the portal completely, or making it be the "newsletter archive"? Alternatively we could shut down the newsletter and move project articles to the portal. Dave (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Belated but I would support it. --Rschen7754 17:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

From the consensus I'm starting to get, it seems most editors do not like the idea of automating the portal similar to P:MDRD. However, there seems to be a consensus that we should do seasonal/annual content drives to suggest content for the portal versus suggesting content on a month-by-month basis. If we were to do content drives, with what frequency should we do them? Should we do them annually, semi-annually, or every three months? Also if we were to do content drives, would we be able to assure editors would suggest content for the portal during those drives and not have the same issue we are currently having? Dough4872 03:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce, Fredddie, Nova Crystallis, Imzadi1979, and Moabdave: Your thoughts on starting a content drive for P:USRD? Was hoping to get one set up soon. Dough4872 14:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's do it. Since we have over 1000 GA articles in the project, I created Category:U.S. Roads portal waiting list to list the ones we haven't used yet. The logic behind it is that when an article is selected for the portal, it will fall out of the waiting list category automatically. –Fredddie™ 18:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
As I indicated above, just looking at the new category at this moment while it's still filling, we have almost 20 years worth of potential SAs to choose from, and the list will continue to grow as new articles are promoted and the existing candidates are filled in as the job queue works its magic on the template update. Imzadi 1979 → 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Similar categories for the remaining state portals were created and added to the P:USRD waiting list for convenience. –Fredddie™ 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

CFD

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 5#Category:County routes in Atlantic County, New Jersey. Dough4872 02:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Routelist row

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Some of the U.S. Highways on the List of U.S. Highways in Georgia page need 1926 or 1948 shields. However, when I try to change the "US" code to "US 1926" or "US 1948", I get Lua errors. Is there any way to modify the template or Module:Routelist row to display them correctly? Thank you. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Routelist row itself has nothing to do with these errors. The US 1926 and 1948 types have to be added to the Georgia module. If you try it out, these types will not work with {{Jct}} as well. –Fredddie™ 23:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I saw that last error a long while ago. I have no idea how to edit the modules. If I did, I would have changed it myself. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I've just added the "US 1926", "US 1948" and "US 1961" types to the module for Georgia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Graphics will be needed if they don't already exist:
Imzadi 1979 →
@Imzadi1979:, could you show me how you added that functionality to the Module (like posting a link to the diff)? Thank you for your help. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Morriswa: I think this diff is the one you're looking for. -happy5214 22:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, @Happy5214:, for your help! Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

List of divided U.S. Routes

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shouldn't the List of divided U.S. Routes page be renamed as "List of divided U.S. Highways" (or other similar title) to conform to naming conventions (or at least to match other U.S. Highway page titles)? I would have tried to move it, but I wanted to get a consensus of the project. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible vandalism on Vermont pages

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An IP editor is removing the Interstate 289/Vermont Route 289 connections on the List of state highways in Vermont and VT 289 pages. Can someone who knows more about this state and knows more about the highway situation take a look and decide if this is vandalism? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

FM lists

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Speaking of FM RCS lists, weren't we going to add routelists as well? I don't know if we quashed that. I know I haven't been adding them to my lists. -happy5214 04:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

In theory, I'd like to see a master list table someplace that lists all of the FM/RMs. The idea being that if executed well, someone can sort the list to see which is the longest/shortest/oldest/newest/first decommissioned/etc. That's the point of the tables generated with the route list templates on pages like List of U.S. Highways in Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 05:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
From a technical perspective, that surprisingly might be feasible. The FM entry in the Texas string module has no ifexists test, so we probably won't run into the expensive PF limit. It might run into time and/or size limits, though, and it would probably be quite uncomfortable to navigate. -happy5214 00:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

road missing from table/too much on other table

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I’m really not good at messing with these fancy tables, o thought I’d bring this here so one of you road experts can have a look. 2 things:

  1. The table in the article on the Sterling Highway does not mention the junction with the Kenai Spur Highway, it just lists the start and end points.
  2. Conversly, the table in the Kenai Spur article has too many “major intersections”, further discussion is on the talk page but basically there is wrong/overblown information there.

Thanks for your attention to this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Texas loops and spurs

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Ages ago, we agreed to merge the FM articles into lists. We're almost done with that (I have a draft that's almost ready to move to mainspace, and there are two more list redlinks), and some editors have been improving the sections in some of these RCS lists. Now, I think we should merge the loop and spur articles as well. In Texas, loops and spurs seem to have the same general notability as FMs. Take Spur 471 as an example. It's basically the fragment of FM 471 (same article) in Leon Valley when the latter was truncated to Loop 1604 and the portion in San Antonio relinquished. It's no more notable now than it was as part of FM 471 (which is more than most FMs, since it's a pretty significant arterial around here). Many signed loops could quite as easily be business routes of Interstates and U.S. Routes. We could easily merge most of these articles in a way similar to the FMs. Thoughts? -happy5214 04:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to that, with the obvious exception of major loop/spur routes in urban areas that are actually notable. I want to say there are some loop/spur freeways out there, for instance. There are some major arterial loop/spurs in urban areas that may also be worth having an article on. The minor ones can be RCS'd. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
One response? That does not produce consensus. More replies requested. -happy5214 21:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
If most of these loop and spur roads are short (less than a few miles), I say we merge them into RCS lists, with loop and spur roads with enough content for a standalone article allowed to retain their articles. Dough4872 22:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Scott's response is essentially the MO behind WP:USRD/RCS, I would say in this case that silence is consensus. –Fredddie™ 00:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Citing Google Street View

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Did I do this right? Is a template in order? It's especially concerning when an approximate address number isn't included with the street/road, not to mention that there's no accounting for direction/tilt. Mapsax (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used that configuration/attribution of parameters. First, Google would be the author, and Google Street View would be the work. Google would also be the publisher, but otherwise it looks fine for a citation. Imzadi 1979 → 20:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't {{google maps}} work for the template? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
We really shouldn't use that template because it's set up assuming we're citing the mapping side of things, and GSV is really a photo archive. Imzadi 1979 → 02:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
If you're citing signs and just using Google Street View to facilitate easy viewing/verification, then it would probably be better to use {{cite sign}} with whoever is responsible for the sign as the author/publisher (presumably a department of transport or something?), and put Google in the |via= parameter. E.g. on Eyre Highway I used 
{{cite sign |author=Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure  |title=Eyre Highway |url=https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-32.4802999,137.7529529,3a,75y,173.65h,76.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1Dt205ZZptBwgU4o7y_-xw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 |location=Port Augusta, SA |publisher=Government of South Australia |accessdate=15 October 2015 |medium=road sign |via=Google Maps Street View}}
- Evad37 [talk] 04:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I would use {{cite maps}} (since I usually use ACME Mapper for this sort of thing, and it allows you SV access, with an added note that this is visible in Street View.

Of course, the most elegant solution might be for someone to rewrite the template so it can accomodate this sort of cite (and isn't a direct link to the SV images possible?) Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Or create a new cite template at {{Google Street View}}? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

IRC ban?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I keep getting this message on my IRC client while I'm in the "wikipedia-en-roads" channel: "You are banned from this channel." I use ChatZilla. If I click on the "IRC" menu, and select the "Reconnect to wikipedia-en-roads" option, I'm back in the room. Later on, I will look at the client, and I will have that message again. What is going on? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried something other than Chatzilla? Your IP is not on the ban list at all. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 19:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Jerusalem Plank Road in Southern Virginia

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Today, I was working on some route descriptions of the list of highways for Sussex County, Virginia and mentioned the fact that Virginia State Route 35 was named Jerusalem Plank Road. However, I also found this line in the article on the Battle of Jerusalem Plank Road;

"The Union Army of the Potomac, commanded by Maj. Gen. George G. Meade (although closely supervised by his superior, Grant), entrenched east of the city, running from near the Jerusalem Plank Road (present-day U.S. Route 301, Crater Road) to the Appomattox River.

It's a safe bet that both routes were part of the same road, and I'm wondering if we can and should add this to the history sections of both articles. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

US 111

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi everyone, good to be working on some US Roads-related stuff again. I have taken a recent interest on improving the U.S. Route 111 article. Right now the route description and junction list is describing the road as it was in 1945. I want to change it so there's also a route description and junction list for the part of 111 that existed from 1928-1937 between Harrisburg and the PA-NY state border. So my question is, should I make the changes I want to make, or should I leave the route description and junction list focused on 1945 like it currently is?

-- hmich176 12:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The route description was probably written for 1945 to describe the final alignment of US 111 before I-83 started being built. I know @Viridiscalculus: wrote the US 111 route description so he may be able to provide more reasoning as to why he chose that date for the route description. Dough4872 18:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I'd leave the RD in 1945. On a few articles I've written (U.S. Route 75 in Iowa comes to mind), I've talked about truncated sections in the history section. Usually, I'll write a paragraph MAX about the truncated section and then talk about why it was truncated. The why is usually more interesting than the what anyway. –Fredddie™ 18:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I chose 1945 for the Route description mainly because USGS has a series of topographic maps created by the Army Mapping Service during the latter years of World War II. I also use 1945 as a Route description snapshot for US 140, US 240, and a US 213 article in my userspace. A snapshot of 1945 captures the U.S. Highway's form between the initial construction and improvements and the post-war construction programs in both states that resulted in what is now I-83. You will also notice the Pennsylvania section of the Route description is more detailed than the Maryland portion because the Maryland portion remains a state highway (with its own article) whereas the Pennsylvania part is mostly a series of non-primary highways, some of them not even state maintained. The 1928–1937 extension is now part of the US 15 corridor, so any details about the routing of the extension road and changes in that timespan should be in U.S. Route 15 in Pennsylvania.  VC  13:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That all sounds good to me. I'll continue working on the article as it is, going with the 1945 Route description snapshot. After posting this question, I had realized that I overlooked the fact that the 1928-1937 Lemoyne-to-New York segment (I wouldn't call it an extension since it was part of the original route) is just part of US 15 (which is silly since I was researching for references about US 111 being replaced by US 15). I agree that it's better to leave all that detail in the US 15 in Pennsylvania article and leave anything else for the truncation section in the history as it is now. But I was still interested to know why 1945 was chosen, so good to know. Thanks for the responses! --hmich176 02:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be good to figure out why it was extended and then brought back, so I wouldn't not research it just because it's part of US 15. –Fredddie™ 02:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorting of Florida county roads

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Redirects/Florida/County, the Florida county roads that begin with a "0" (such as "0338") are sorted with other four-digit roads. However, on pages like List of county roads in Leon County, Florida, they are sorted as though the zeroes don't exist (such as 0338 going between 267A and 0340). What is the proper way to sort them? Would this be used for category sorting as well? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I would think that four digits is a proper way to sort, especially since {{Routelist row}} does it that way automatically. You are using the templates, right? –Fredddie™ 12:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just a reminder that we do have a venue for those looking for feedback before going to the featured article process. --Rschen7754 19:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Sub-articles detail needs updating

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The part about sub-articles needs to be updated. Currently, it says I-77 and I-70 have subarticles for some states, but not others. However, this is incorrect as they appear to have subarticles for every state. Also, perhaps we should have a line about redirects in cases where there are no subarticles. Typically we redirect those to the parent article about the interstate, for instance Interstate 287 in New York or Interstate 684 in Connecticut. However, on rare occasions we redirect them elsewhere - for instance, Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia redirects to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge article, as the entire very short portion of I-95 in the District of Columbia is on that bridge. Perhaps add something about that. Smartyllama (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and update those articles listed. I can think of a few U.S. Highways (US 59, US 69, US 71, among others) where some states have state-detail articles and other states don't. –Fredddie™ 15:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Do we want to add some language about redirects? Smartyllama (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Mapframe map best practices

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Now that we're getting into the swing of utilizing {{Mapframe}}, we should put together a list of best practices and then use that to edit WP:USRD/MTF to reflect current practices. Feel free to add to the list. –Fredddie™ 02:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

  • stroke width of 3
  • don't be afraid to use frame-height in order to zoom in

Comments

My only caution for frame-height is that we should try to keep it at 290px (a square map) or under. I think one of the reasons that map sizes were set at 290x172px (which seems arbitrary) was that it would make the infobox unwieldy and long. –Fredddie™ 02:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

if I recall, back when we created the Maps Task Force, we had a discussion on what size the maps should be and I think we were shooting for a 1.7:1 ratio, which in an infobox turned out to be around 290x172. I think we went with a 1.7:1 ratio because that was about the ratio of the US Route maps I had created before the task force, which was the ratio of my map area in ArcGIS. So, you're right, it was mostly arbitrary :) Strato|sphere 21:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
So I've figured out, roughly, what zoom levels work at 290px. It's fairly easy to grasp, but here is a handy chart: –Fredddie™ 04:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Zoom Miles km
3 1280 2048
4 640 1024
5 320 512
6 160 256
7 80 128
8 40 64
9 20 32
10 10 16
11 5 8
12 2.5 4
13 1.25 2
14 .625 1

I was about to ask about usage of the template. It just seems so more proficient given knowing its limitations (MediaWiki is currently not focusing on the usage of maps). I'm unsure of any solid standards and the Maps task force doesn't list usage of the template. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right that the MTF page doesn't mention the template simply because we haven't updated it. I created this thread in order to have people to write down what works for them with the intent of updating MTF. When {{Mapframe}} was introduced, we (especially myself) were more interested in rolling it out than anything else. That being said, most Interstate Highway articles now feature these maps. Some national articles and just a handful of other Interstates remain. –Fredddie™ 18:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

"U.S." vs. "US" in article titles, again

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)#"U.S." vs. "US" in article titles. The discussion was started in January 2018 and could use additional input and resolution. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Minnesota Road Research Facility

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Minnesota Road Research Facility is now the last stub that falls under MNSH. I managed to add a little bit to it, but I'm having a difficult time finding information and sources on it beyond Mn/DOT's overview. Most of what I can find are test data and intricate detail on pavement types and such, but nothing really suitable for an encyclopedia. Does anyone have any suggestions on expanding this article? --Sable232 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's outside the scope of USRD, I've removed the {{USRD}} off the talk page and replaced it with a {{WikiProject Transport}} one. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - I suppose since it's more of a research lab than a highway per se, that stands to reason. --Sable232 (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

NJ 23 versus Route 23 in text

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'm sure this has been discussed out the yin-yang, but I feel I must insert my thoughts. I don't think its appropriate to refer to New Jersey State Routes as simply "Route xx" in the article text, but to call Interstates and US Routes as "I-xx" and "US xx". Its inconsistent. To New Jerseyans, they are all simply "Route xx" while to NJDOT they get their prefixes (SLDIAG's all list the state routes as being "NJ xx", for example). Anyway, I'd argue that they should either all be simply "Route xx" (including the US and I routes) or that the state routes should be "NJ xx". Famartin (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

This is per WP:USSH. --Rschen7754 19:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the undo Famartin, I think this is worth the discussion. –Fredddie™ 19:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I think it's important to use a consistent nomenclature nationally with the two national systems. In Texas articles, even though TxDOT uses "IH 10", we use "I-10" to match the other 47 mainland states. Along with that, I would not change the abbreviation nomenclature for I/US in New Jersey to be inconsistent with the other states. I'm totally neutral on the abbreviation to use for the state routes, and I'd defer to what reliable sources use.
As a side note, Famartin, I'd either shift the comments here to WT:USSH, or I'd refactor your posting there to point editors here. It's a bad practice to open the same discussion in two places because you could end up with two conflicting results. Imzadi 1979 → 02:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Imzadi1979 I had intended to open the disco at one location, and after I was notified above by Rschen7754 that WP:USSH was the place to discuss it, I deleted my comments here and put them on that talk page. Perhaps Fredddie did not realize I had done that, but he undid my removal of my initial comments here.Famartin (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
That's correct; I didn't see it. It's still a good idea to link to the discussion at WT:USSH so more people can jump in. –Fredddie™ 12:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Alaska state routes template

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated a state route template Template:Alaska state routes for deletion, due to past precedent. Comments are invited here.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 01:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

RCUT: Michigan left or Superstreet feature?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See discussion here. Mapsax (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yahoo! Maps citations

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The website went dead over three years ago. At the time that Yahoo! announced the shuttering, I modified {{yahoo maps}} to deprecate the template. There are still 63 articles that still use the template with unrecoverable dead link citations. Earlier, I modified the template so that it no longer displays a map citation. Instead it tags the article as "citation needed". Please replace these citations as appropriate. By the end of the year, I intend to nominate the template for outright deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 04:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to do a bot replace by extracting the GPS co-ordinates and map span from the URL and swapping for an equivalent URL with Google/Bing/OSM? Additionally I can see if/when Google maps does a major change that invalidates previous URL's this having a massive effect on USRD articles. I notice someone has created a Template:Google maps, could that facilitate bot repairs of URLS? or are we better of sticking to Template:cite map as I usually do? Dave (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There is no way to convert the Yahoo! Maps urls over to another mapping service that I know. In short, the links have been dead for years and won't be coming back. As for {{google maps}} vs. {{cite map}}, the former template fills in the appropriate details in the latter, thus simplifying the output by only requiring the URL, a title and an access date to render a fully formed citation. You could accomplish the same ultimate result by remembering to add the specific details manually. Imzadi 1979 → 01:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Are there any GAs or above that still use Yahoo? Those should be higher priority. --Rschen7754 01:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
The rest are all B-Class or lower, or List-Class. Imzadi 1979 → 02:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Future vs History section

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Question. Should reliably-sourced future plans for a road be included under the "Future" section? Or should they be included under the "History" section since plans for the future were, of necessity, made in the past? Per @SounderBruce:. --Chaswmsday (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Up to the eye of the beholder. It's optional for a reason. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Chaswmsday:, if you ask a question like this, please link to the discussion so that editors have some context for your question. Regardless, this is a judgement call and I think I have done both ways in my articles. --Rschen7754 06:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Nova Crystallis, the information in question *is* included in the article, it's just a question of where.
Rschen7754, I considered my question to be about the *general* understanding of the use of the History section vs the use of the Future section. WP:USRD/STDS describes the History section as containing "any historical information known about the highway" while the Future section contains "any concrete future plans regarding the future of the route" - "reliably sourced". --Chaswmsday (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Depending on the article, I include information about future plans either in the History section or a separate Future section. The determining factor is how long the information about future plans is, as I do not want future information to overwhelm the History section or for the Future section to be short and stubby. Just make sure any information about future plans is certain and is reliably sourced, do not include unsourced speculation. Dough4872 15:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I personally don't like the future section because it encourages people to add speculation. But I don't have a strong enough of an opinion that I've deleted a future section in an article. However, I will say this. Be careful. Just because it's a reliable source doesn't mean it's worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. State departments of transportation are routinely asked to conduct feasibility studies of projects that are little more than a senator's wish list. And those studies may be covered in mainstream media, but have a snowball's chance in hell of actually being built. It's also well known that when a DOT is asked to do a corridor evaluation study they will, in addition to the viable corridor options, include corridor options that aren't really viable, as to make viable ones seem more attractive from a cost-benefit analysis. As a specific example, I had so smite information from an article about a highway in Utah (I don't remember which one) after someone included a UDOT proposal to build a bridge or causeway across Utah Lake to better connect the small communities on the west side with those on the east. For some context, that is an effort similar to building another crossing of the San Francisco Bay, to benefit a handful of communities of 10,000 people. But it was included as a serious proposal to show the benefit of improving capacity on the existing corridors around the lake. We should try to avoid including such proposals, IMHO.Dave (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I tend to think that a "future" section makes more sense on the basis that it isn't yet history, but on the other hand it will inevitably become obsolete (I recently moved a "future" section to History because the project had been completed a year prior). I think the risk of inviting speculation exists regardless of whether there's a separate section or not.
I'd consider anything that's on a DOT's construction schedule to be worthy of inclusion ("A four-lane bypass around Lake Wobegon is scheduled to be built in 2021"), while something that's merely undergoing feasibility studies or still in the proposal stage ("Community leaders have advocated for an expansion") would not be, except in unusual cases. If there's safety issues prompting upgrade proposals, that's probably worth a mention in the route description, but until it's confirmed that the project will actually be built it shouldn't be written as a fact of the roadway's future. --Sable232 (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I would further counter-argue that if there is a problem with editors adding purely speculative prose, having it a separate Future section would only serve to shine a spotlight on it for correction by other editors. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Probably the best option is to limit it to the most recent DOT's Adopted Five Year Budget. That prevents any speculation as it's projects funded and bigger projects (like I-4 Ultimate) would already be acknowledged in its own regards. – The Grid (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Interstate 464 (Kentucky)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The redirect Interstate 464 (Kentucky), which currently targets New Circle Road#History (AKA Kentucky Route 4), has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment in the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 21#Interstate 464 (Kentucky). Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Component highways best practices

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

So what is the best use of using "Component highways" for a roadway? I ask because sometimes it appears very helpful, like the Great Smoky Mountains Parkway, to the redundant, like the Greensboro Urban Loop. There are also examples when "Component highways" is not used, like the Trans-Manhattan Expressway, which also ignores another highway overlap.

I ask the question because I am working Roadsguy to revise Interstate 40 Business (North Carolina) to the Salem Parkway. Soon to be decommissioned I-40 Business and US 421 completely overlap this stretch of freeway; however two additional highways overlap it, but they are not big factors in it. So, do we use "Component highways" to list all highway numbers, just the ones important or simply omit it?

Also, if anyone wants to help on the revamp page, you are welcome to it. The goal is to have it replace existing Business 40 page on November 11, when NCDOT begins it first shutdown of the freeway to be rebuilt by 2020. Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If you are talking about using the "allocation" parameter in the infobox, then I definitely think it should be used, at least for the pertinent highways (and maybe the other ones). Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I think you should include any highways that overlap with a road. The allocation section for the Salem Parkway article has it right. I do not see the need for the US 421 shield at the top of the infobox though since its referred to in the allocation section. Dough4872 15:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It feels so naked without a shield there though. --WashuOtaku (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me take a step back. Why do we need a new article? If the original construction of the road can be covered in Interstate 40 Business (North Carolina) and future construction could be covered in U.S. Route 421 in North Carolina, a Salem Parkway article seems redundant. Just make it a DAB page and move on. –Fredddie™ 17:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm including a lot more information that was not covered on I-40, when done it will show how critical this freeway has been for the development and continue to be for Winston-Salem. Trust us on this one. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I totally trust that you're not going to make a turd. I'm just concerned that we'll have 3 articles on the same stretch of highway. That's all. –Fredddie™ 18:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned, it is to replace Interstate 40 Business (North Carolina), which is planned to be decommissioned. Interstate 40 in North Carolina will mention it only because it was the first stretch of interstate in the state, while U.S. Route 158, U.S. Route 421 in North Carolina and North Carolina Highway 150 will mention it because it overlaps it in part or full. There is real justification for this stand alone article; which makes me ask a new question, is there a way to show the history of exit numbers in the junction list (this freeway will have three sets)? --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Another option would be to merge all the information to U.S. Route 421 in North Carolina, since the entirety of the Salem Parkway is part of that route. The route description of Salem Parkway would be part of the larger US 421 in NC route description, the historical information related to Salem Parkway being the former alignment of I-40 and I-40 Business can be covered in the US 421 in NC history (with the historical background also presented in the Interstate 40 in North Carolina article), and the exit list of the Salem Parkway would be part of the larger US 421 in NC major intersections table. Dough4872 23:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Salem Parkway.
I just wrote an entirely new history section, which is still in progress, and its own wikimedia commons folder. While the junction list would basically be the same, everything else about this article would be focused to this particular stretch of freeway and the city it serves. We have countless articles that do the same thing in Wikipedia, majority are bridges but serve the same purpose. I'm not sure why I'm defending this, it as if you want me to abandon it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I recommend merging the information you are preparing for Salem Parkway into the I-40 Bus article. Salem Parkway can redirect to I-40 Bus. Once I-40 Bus is decommissioned, the article can be moved to Salem Parkway and I-40 Bus can be the redirect. As for the I-40 Bus that was in Greensboro for less than a year, that can be discussed in the I-40 NC article. For the three sets of exit numbers, I suggest creating a table. You can show old numbers in an exit list, but that functionality is intended for highways whose numbers were switched recently and is not supposed to be a permanent solution.  VC  01:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
The plan was to replace I-40 Bus article with Salem Parkway (as mention before) on November 11, when NCDOT will close the downtown section of the freeway for reconstruction. We are incorporating I-40 Bus (including the Greensboro section) into the History section. Thank you for the table recommendation. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

To answer the question posed by the section title, I'd say that the best practices are to only use the infobox feature to list the highways numbers that follow a named highway. So, on Ohio Turnpike, we'd note which numbered designations are routed along the length of that facility with be. Because no one number applies to the full length, that's the only place we'd show the numbered markers. If the facility itself lacks its own marker, no marker should appear above the name of the road at the top of the infobox. In this regard, Ohio Turnpike gets it right.

For the Greensboro Urban Loop, those markers need to come off the top of the infobox, and the component highways should have some brief notes about where those designations are routed. Imzadi 1979 → 11:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

So, for the Salem Parkway, we would list I-40 Bus (till decom) and US 421 as components because they overlap the route completely? Ignore any short overlaps with other highway numbers; also no image above the name. Correct? --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Interstate 95 in Delaware

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We have an issue with the Interstate 95 in Delaware article, where an IP keeps adding an unsourced section about controversies (like here). The section has no sources, even though the IP claims the information is from reviews on Google Maps. Also, the unsourced controversies section is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The IP keeps reverting to add the information back. I wanted to get input from project members on what to do about this issue. Dough4872 23:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It's unsourced crap to be sure. If the IP has violated 3RR the path of action should be obvious.Dave (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
The IP has been blocked and the page has been semi-protected, so the issue should be resolved for now. Dough4872 14:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Routes less than 1 mile listicles

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Q: I was about to delete the article List of Utah State Routes shorter than one mile outright, but thought I'd ask the project first. In this case every road listed on on this list of short routes already has a separate article. Most of these articles have existed for years, and there has been no effort to delete them. So is this list entirely redundant (my original thought)? Or is there value in having a listicle of "short routes" even if the entries all have articles? Dave (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no need for a listicle if all the routes under one mile have separate articles. The purpose of these listicles is to hold information on routes under one mile if the articles would otherwise be extremely short, such as most of the routes in the List of state highways in Maryland shorter than one mile listicles. Dough4872 05:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Long time listener, occasional caller. I've looked at the articles of the relevant SR's this listicle refers to, as I was concerned that it was just start or stub quality articles; however, as all of them are at least C class to my understanding, I'd have no issue with deleting this article. The problem presented by the deletion would be in the infobox for all of the other Utah SR's due to the "Short" link in the Highway System section — but I say this as the nuts and bolts of templates are not my forte. Additionally, I wouldn't want the deletion of this listicle to set a precedent. -DyluckTRocket (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Removing the infobox link is easy. I'm not necessarily advocating this, but if there's nothing more that could be said about these routes and the articles are all fairly short, would it be beneficial to utilize the listicle and redirect the articles to it? –Fredddie™ 03:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

1926 Rand McNally maps

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I have searched and searched, but I can't seem to be able to find an online copy of a 1926 Rand McNally map, specifically an Auto Trails map, of North Carolina. Does anyone know where I can find one, especially if it is citable for Wikipedia articles? I need verification of some points on a map from that period. Thank you so much in advance. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a terribly specific request and in my experience, cartography around that time wasn't that great. Have you tried searching for books/newspaper articles about the auto trail you're looking for? –Fredddie™ 01:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
No. I didn't think of that. I know that a US 270 (not the current one nor the former one) was at least proposed for Georgia and North Carolina. GDOT has it on at least one road map. I can't seem to find NC maps from 1926. It is listed on the highway proposal list, too (here is the link). Also, the NCRoads Annex has a copy of the 1926 Rand McNally Auto Trails map here. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I've had the best luck with these sites for finding old maps:
I've never seen maps from the 1920's there, but one of them has a 1934 atlas I've used a few times.

Dave (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moabdave: thank you for the links. I had seen the first one during my searching, but I couldn't find the map I was searching for. I found the same map on both sites, but the second link is harder to use (and didn't have an option to download it). The map, although I can't tell the year (not listed on it) is at this link. It clearly shows US 270 in western North Carolina. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That map is just a page from the 1927 Rand McNally Junior Auto Road Atlas. If you plug in some of the sidebar details into the site, you can pull up other pages and the cover. SounderBruce 16:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing shield?

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

On my sandbox page, the shield image for the page (in the infobox, obviously) is missing. How can it be corrected? I know that I could manually force it to show File:US 270 (1926).svg, but I want to know how to input the proper syntax into the infobox. Thanks. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Because the 1926 shields were state-specific, the infobox wants to call up a state-specific marker. However, you've got |country=USA set, so it can't. Now you've found a generic variation of the shield labeled for city use. You'll have to use |marker_image=[[File:US 270 (1926).svg|x70px|alt=US 270 shield]] to display it. Imzadi 1979 → 17:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@Fredddie: I think what I said above isn't quite right because List of United States Numbered Highways is calling the other shield variation with |country=USA and |type=US 1926. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 17:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The list uses the string modules, where Module:Road data/strings/USA has the proper code, while IBR (still) doesn't. We need to migrate IBR over to the string modules, but where do I find the time?... -happy5214 20:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
That was something I could never figure out. It's not very elegant, but redirects are cheap; I redirected the redlink shield to File:US 270 (1926).svg so it will now show up without using the marker_image parameter. –Fredddie™ 13:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_23&oldid=1149920292"