Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Washington/Archive 1

message: I was quite happy to find this WikiProject. I will start adding relevant content from my Washington State Highways site, which I haven't worked on in years because it got to be a pain to manage. Better that it should live on as a collaborative effort than continue to be neglected.
One thing that I've been doing as part of that effort is creating maps showing the route of each state highway, like this one for SR20. (The interstates are also shown for context.) Unless there are objections, I'd like to modify the routebox template to show a route map for each Washington highway, approximately the size of the route shield and perhaps located between "Highway in Washington" and the RCW statute. This would of course be a slight departure from the routebox format used for other states' highways, like California's, but maybe if enough people think it's a good idea it'll be adopted for other states as well.
I use Adobe Illustrator to create the maps and should be able to generate maps pretty quickly for all of the Washington highways that currently have articles. Please also chime in with any comments or questions about the colors, format, line thickness, etc. --PHenry 23:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd love to have the maps, but I'm not quite sure if they should go in the routebox due to size. Maybe at the top or bottom of the article? I'd have to see how it looks though to make sure the routebox isn't too big. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 02:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The routebox is 225 pixels wide, so I was thinking that maybe 180-200 pixels wide for the map would be appropriate (example). At that size it would be about as tall as the route shield is, and wouldn't cause the routebox to get any wider. --PHenry 02:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For routes like Washington State Route 102 is there any way to zoom in on the map? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 04:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I typically do for short highways is zoom in on the region to the extent practical, with a locator map in the corner showing the area in relation to the rest of the state. See the SR-520 map for an example (this, too, would appear much smaller in the routebox). My source file is a PDF map from nationalatlas.gov that shows most of the state highways, so it's pretty easy to arbitrarily zoom in on part of the state for a better look. --PHenry 05:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Route maps

message: I have been creating SR signs using AppleWorks, and the Road Geeks Fonts (Similar to FHWA) at .  
TEG 19:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About WA-SR Signs

message: The article on Transportation is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Vote for Transportation there.--Fenice 09:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: I've been thinking (a dangerous thing) and was wondering why this WikiProject is called Washington State Highways.  Shouldn't it be Washington State Routes, since State Highways have not existed since the 1970s.  I think it might make us look a little more organized to do this, and change the bottom of the route box, because it says Washington State Highways as well.
TEG 20:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the law, they're still called highways.  --PHenry 02:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're "state highway routes" called "State Route X".  --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say leave it because the other projects are called the same thing. But it doesn't really matter to me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the WikiProject 

message: I have just created Portal:U.S. Roads.  If you have any feedback, please place it under "Portal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads.Rt66lt 03:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal

message: You may have noticed that several highway WikiProjects are gradually converting shield graphics to SVG format because SVG graphics scale better to both larger and smaller sizes. I have created a sample route shield and map in SVG for your inspection and, hopefully, approval. 
     	    	    	     	
190px	75px	20px	190px	100px
I'm using Adobe Illustrator CS for both images and can create SVG versions of the rest of the graphics fairly easily, though it will take some time to do them all. If you have any feedback for me, post it here. --phh 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GOOD the GIFs scale like crap, I had to make them 30px in my exit lists to be readable! Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But if you could upload them to the commons, It would be appreciated :) Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. I'll do that. Thanks. --phh 21:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SVG is a good idea as we're moving to that across the board. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Instead of listing for IFD, tag them for speedy deletion with  Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, I wish I'd known about that tag before I'd tagged all 200 shields with ! (Actually, the  tag is probably more appropriate anyway, because the new shields aren't pixelwise identical to the old ones.) --phh 16:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SVG maps and shields

message: Any comments on User:SPUI/SR 599 vs. Washington State Route 599? Any reason I shouldn't start using the smaller one? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. There is no consensus. Also, this is simply the continuation of SPUI's edit warring from California. There is much loss of information in your template. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er... what? Why the hell do you think I asked here? TO GET CONSENSUS THAT YOUR SHIT IS TOO BIG. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, when you say stuff like "TO GET CONSENSUS THAT YOUR SHIT IS TOO BIG." it just tends to bring in people to oppose you, blindly or not. I know it's perhaps like asking the tide not to come in, but if there is any way you could be more civil and less confrontational, it might get things done faster and with less turmoil. On the specifics of these two, I like the smaller size shield and map in your version, as well as the ends, but think mileposts and the "RCW 47.17.808" are useful things to have from the other version. I'm not sure how a state route can be a child of an interstate so am not sure about that part. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 02:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The smaller shield is fine. I'm not sure about the map though- as long as people can see the whole red line without squinting and stuff, maybe. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The 5XX routes are all numbered based on I-5 (which is of course officially SR 5). 599 itself is also numbered from 99, but if it was mainly from 99 it would be 995. Can you explain why you think including the mileposts in the infobox (rather than a separate table in the article body) is important? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a visual person. I like having all the important things in the infobox. I think mileposts are important. YMMV. ++Lar: t/c 04:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand that at all. How do the mileposts help you to visualize where the route goes? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't help visualise WHERE the route goes, that's the job of a map. But they DO help me visualise WHAT the mileposts are and HOW they relate to each other. Ever use Hertz NeverLost? I swear by it's "next five exits" view... this is like that. I'm a visual person. I like spreadsheets better than numbers in text, I like pictures better than prose. I'm a fan of big, detail rich infoboxes in general. You may not agree, which is why I said "YMMV" (your mileage may vary) ... Maybe show/hide would be useful here? ++Lar: t/c 05:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't get it, but whatever. Note that I'm not at all opposed to a table in the article body that includes junctions and mileposts, just including that in the infobox. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not in the infobox? It's just going to be somewhere else on the page if you move it. Why does it matter where it's presented? Afterall infoboxes are there for a short overview. Mileposts fit that definition IMHO.JohnnyBGood 21:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mileposts make it a long overview, and don't do all that much to help see where the road is. Putting them elsewhere on the page puts the more important stuff near the top. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: <-- (shift) What about show/hide though? That would put it all in the box but not cluttered. ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Seems rather hackish. And the junctions themselves are a lot more useful than the mileposts. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: How is that blind opposition? I'm not blind. In fact I knew that this was coming long before. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blind opposition as in not thinking, just opposing because you dislike my actions. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they're controversial and are confrontational. And because your infobox has less information. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My infobox has all the important information. We don't need mileposts in it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um yes we do. And I'm not blindly opposing- look at the changes to  I'm making. Just because I dislike your infobox doesn't mean that everything is bad about it. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mileposts, and listing every junction on long routes, makes the infobox too long. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It provides a good overview of the route. And there aren't any exit lists for the WASRs anyway. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah that sr20 is way too long as well.  Maybe we can just move the junctions list out into the main article as a compromise?  That will both shorten the infobox and make the article longer, making it more pleasing on the eyes. atanamir 02:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, the junctions need to stay in the box. Maybe on SR-20 we should move the smaller junctions out into an exit list, but only for the extremely long ones. Most WA highways are short compared to their CA counterparts. And I've made many drastic changes to the box already. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those "drastic changes" weren't very drastic, just some minor tweaking. There is no reason to have (a) every junction or (b) mileposts in the infobox. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The color coding? Removing of red links? Shrinking the map and shield? Added "formed" field? Removed "Highway in Washington"? Removing the legend? And we need the stuff in the infobox because it gives a complete quick summary of the route .... where people expect it. In the infobox. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My box provides a quick summary; yours provides useless details. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: why "must" the junctions remain in the box? atanamir 05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They expect it because they're used to it.  Give any format some time and i'm sure people will end up expecting it as well. atanamir 07:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: erm, you want the "principals" (that is, SPUI and Rschen7754) to leave the floor. but please, let us all stay firmly rooted in our "principles", that is, what is best for the readers? (and to a lesser extent, where it makes a difference, best for the servers, best for the editors (and in the case of, for example, copyright, libel, et al, best for the foundation)... I think we all can agree that both proposed boxes have a lot of merit, help the reader out a lot, and in the absence of alternatives, would be considered quite good. What we're talking about, presumably, is which version takes things farther in the direction of "best" rather than it being "icky" vs. "awesome". At least I hope so.  Signed, (with some considerable glee at having caught Aaron in a typo!!!) ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's twice in recent memeory, dammit! - brenneman{L}  04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediator response or comments are probably good. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, I like the shortened routebox as well, but we need to have a consensus. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I like some of the improvements, however fighting about these changes is not productive.  I feel that keeping all the current information in the routebox is important.  I say this, as it makes these pieces of information more accessible, and for some routes, they can be completely summed up in the route box. (Washington State Route 525 Spur) as an example.  I also like SPUI's idea of having a special field with the West/South and East/North Termini information.  I'm beginning to think we are trying to over tech this project.  I also feel that including the 'year formed' in the routebox is a stupid idea, since 90%+ of all WSR were created after the 'Great Highway Renumbering' from 1963 to 1971, with the first "new" signs going up in 1964.  Therefore I suggest that that field be removed from the routebox, and suggest that we expand the main article for Washington State Routes to include this information.  TEG 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find the year formed useful. For instance, one might assume that State Route 14 has always had that number (post-renumbering) east of Maryhill (where US 830 ended), but it was actually State Route 12 until 1967, when US 12 was extended into Washington (taking over what had been SR 14 from I-5 to Naches). So the box would list 1967 rather than the 1964 renumbering, and someone browsing through would quickly see that something interesting happened. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shrunken infobox

message: Why don't we get the principles to leave the floor for a while and see what the peanut gallery has to say?  
*I haven't looked at the status quo on these infoboxes is yet, but how about we leave it like that until everyone is equally unhappy.  If it's half way done, whatever, that it just gets left for a couple of days.
*It's clear what SPUI and Rschen7754 want, and they've had a chance to make their case. *hint*
For aesthetics alone I like the smaller template, but I'm going to have to look over the arguments to see about the other ways to present the information.brenneman{L}  03:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: erm, you want the "principals" (that is, SPUI and Rschen7754) to leave the floor. but please, let us all stay firmly rooted in our "principles", that is, what is best for the readers? (and to a lesser extent, where it makes a difference, best for the servers, best for the editors (and in the case of, for example, copyright, libel, et al, best for the foundation)... I think we all can agree that both proposed boxes have a lot of merit, help the reader out a lot, and in the absence of alternatives, would be considered quite good. What we're talking about, presumably, is which version takes things farther in the direction of "best" rather than it being "icky" vs. "awesome". At least I hope so.  Signed, (with some considerable glee at having caught Aaron in a typo!!!) ++Lar: t/c 03:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's twice in recent memeory, dammit! - brenneman{L}  04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediator response or comments are probably good. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, I like the shortened routebox as well, but we need to have a consensus. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 07:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I like some of the improvements, however fighting about these changes is not productive.  I feel that keeping all the current information in the routebox is important.  I say this, as it makes these pieces of information more accessible, and for some routes, they can be completely summed up in the route box. (Washington State Route 525 Spur) as an example.  I also like SPUI's idea of having a special field with the West/South and East/North Termini information.  I'm beginning to think we are trying to over tech this project.  I also feel that including the 'year formed' in the routebox is a stupid idea, since 90%+ of all WSR were created after the 'Great Highway Renumbering' from 1963 to 1971, with the first "new" signs going up in 1964.  Therefore I suggest that that field be removed from the routebox, and suggest that we expand the main article for Washington State Routes to include this information.  TEG 03:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I find the year formed useful. For instance, one might assume that State Route 14 has always had that number (post-renumbering) east of Maryhill (where US 830 ended), but it was actually State Route 12 until 1967, when US 12 was extended into Washington (taking over what had been SR 14 from I-5 to Naches). So the box would list 1967 rather than the 1964 renumbering, and someone browsing through would quickly see that something interesting happened. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accord 

message: What kind of information do you want? Raw mileposts? Mileage from the beginning of the route, adjusted for milepost equations? To me, the first seems somewhat useless, and the second seems somewhat "impure". Putting that question aside, what do you think of something like User:SPUI/SR 599, combining mileposts, junctioned routes and cities? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the 2nd type exist in WA? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to tell with a short route like 599. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There are milepost equations - I had to take one into account when I calculated SR 500 (on User:SPUI/onthecaca). There are also cases of routes not beginning at zero, though I can understand wanting to keep that information. More troublesome is something like SR 18 (), where it begins at 2.20, runs to 2.73, and then resets to 0.00. Basically, the question is whether to use the real milepost, which matches what is posted on the road (see  - that's MILE 1 on the right), but is rather useless otherwise in cases like SR 18, or to use the "accumulated miles". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'd like to see Milepost Information from Start to End, placed at each intersection with each State Route, US Route, or Interstate.  Based on actual milepost Info.  Like for SR-900 it would start at 14, not 0, because SR-900 used to start near downtown Seattle, but now starts in Renton.  An estimate of the mileage if an actual value is not available would be acceptable.  I would like to see the deleted color and the removed color combined, since they should be the same.  Only add unbuilt intersections, if they cross, or if there is evidence that there was to be a connection originally.  At least the mileage in WA is a lot easier than Oregon (with their state highways and state routes, with no standardizations).  TEG 05:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at Washington State Route 10.  It is close to what I'm talking about. TEG 05:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The part about including every intersection doesn't work on long routes like State Route 20. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm thinking is do a route-by-route exception there for like 2-3. SR 20 should only have the major ones. Just like CA 1 and CA 99- there are exceptions there because otherwise the routebox would be too long. But the other ones should have all junctions. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're willing to do it for those, why not the others? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only on those is there way too much info. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  06:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already refuted that.  - still TOO BIG. Combining the cities with the routes, and removing a few of the many US 101 intersections, solves that, and makes it MORE USEFUL, as you know where the intersections actually are. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for those who want milepost information

message: Please see Primary State Highway 7 (Washington) and Child routes of Primary State Highway 7 (Washington) for my ideas for covering the PSH and SSH system that existed from 1937 to 1964. Some points:
*The routebox should be fairly self-explanatory. "Signed with" refers to any U.S. or interstate routes the highway multiplexed with at any point. "Succeeded," where applicable, would refer to any pre-1926 named auto trails posted along all or part of the route. It'll look something like this:
Succeeded:	
Yellowstone Trail
National Park to Park Highway
*The map is similar to the routebox map for today's highways, except that the old U.S. routes are shown in gray instead of the Interstate routes. The appropriate primary state highway is shown as a heavy red line; branch routes of the PSH are shown as thin red lines; and secondary state highways are shown as thin blue lines. To help restore some sense to this ridiculous system, I've added labels to the maps, which unfortunately aren't legible unless you view the map at full size. I hope it'll be possible to change this in the future.
*The design of the old PSH shield is taken from a photograph I found on the Web years ago; I can't remember where. The design of the old SSH shield is taken from here, the only photo of such a shield I've ever seen. Please let me know if you have a better one.
*I uploaded a US-10 shield for Washington that uses the original U.S. route shield design. I used the old, blocky typeface that was used on American road signs until the late 1940s, because it's more fun that way. :) (The typeface is called US Highway Old Style). I also created a PSH shield using the blocky typeface as a proof of concept, though I don't think it works as well at the small sizes and don't intend to keep using it for PSH shields. If you have an opinion. let me know.
*As you can see, I've grouped all of the SSH 7X routes into a single page, instead of having a separate page for each one. I don't think having a separate page for each silly little SSH cowpath is justified, as none of them are around anymore and it's hard to imagine any of them ever warranting much more than a few sentences.
Hope you like 'em. Any feedback is welcome. —phh 21:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool looking! Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Many of the secondary routes were replaced by a single number in 1964 - how about redirecting those? --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 15:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical primary and secondary highways 

message: Better question is, have any state highways been converted to interstates recently? It's so vital to the economy of the area, more so than I-705 in Tacoma. Wonder why it's not I-305 or something so we could get federal funding. Or are we getting federal funding for its rebuilding anyway? --Lukobe 06:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be an I-something; but alas it isnt. I also think 405 should extend past I-5 in Tukwilla to the airport (which it use to do...) Admrb♉ltz (t • c • [ log]) 07:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was to become an Interstate, as it's already been built, federal funding probably wouldn't be affected - it can get it, but so can non-Interstates. Where federal funding is really increased is with proposed roads becoming Interstates. --SPUI (T - C) 19:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SR 520 doesn't meet basic construction standards for Interstates. "Original" (1956) standards dictated a 2-foot left shoulder and 6-foot right minimum; current standards dictate 4-foot left and 10-foot right, while many states prefer 10- and 12-foot lefts as well. SR-520, which possesses *no shoulders* for much of its length, would not be eligible. Other issues (merge, ramp lengths) would also need to be resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.39.223 (talk • contribs) 12:16, July 3, 2006
I think SPUI's right about the funding.  The other reason is that 520 simply isn't up to interstate standards.  From I-405 west across the bridge, the roadway has virtually no shoulders.  This may be corrected in the next decade after they replace the Evergreen Point Bridge.
I think better options for an interstate designation would be 512/167, and SR-18 (although I'm not sure what the status of the SR-18 upgrade project is). -- Northenglish (talk) -- 04:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SR 520--why isn't it an interstate 

message: Rschen7754 has temporarily left Wikipedia for the summer.  As per his talk page, I have taken over as "leader" of this project.  As I said on his talk page, however, I don't view the leader position as in any way official, and would be happy to share the position if someone would like to be my co-leader.  Feel free to contact me on my talk page or this talk page if you have any questions, or would like to help lead this project. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 21:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New project leader 

message: And for my first act as unofficial leader, I propose thistemporary compromise.  The fact is that for the time being we have two naming conventions.  Please do not move any articles between the two conventions, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on.  -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary compromise