Talk:Motorway

message: This article has become very confused, especailly as its scope is not properly defined.  I have inserted the OECD definition of a motorway into the introductory paragraph, thereby removing the need to discuss what is a motorway, what is a highway, what is an expressway and so on.  If this definition is agreed, then agreement should be sought as to what the scope of the article should be, bearing in mind that the scope must be compatible with the OECD definition.
Also, in accepting this definition, we can probably clean out a lot of unneccessary material. Martinvl (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of motorway 

message: This article is becoming rather confusing as more is added, because of the differences in laws, customs, regulations etc in the different nations that use the word motorway.  For instance, in the UK, although undertaking is discouraged in the Highway Code, it is not actually illegal.  In NZ the signs are green, in the UK they are blue and so on.  Citations and references are difficult because they tend to apply only to one specific country.  I suggest we have an article for each nation named Motorways of the United Kingdom, Motorways of New Zealand, Motorways of the Republic of Ireland etc. brought together under the Motorway article.  This could mirror the way the Autoroute article works for the autoroutes of France, Switzerland and Quebec.  This way specific prohibitions, speed limits, hard shoulder use, etc. can be properly explained without having to couch it in phrases like "in some countries...".  Also history, laws, conventions and social and cultural differences can be more comprehensively discussed.  What do others think? -- de Facto (talk). 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggestion could have merit, but I'd wonder if the similarities outweigh the differences?  --Thisisbossi 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Nice article, but one comment/correction - contrary to what is claimed, British motorway speed limits (at least for cars) are no higher than those on any other unrestricted dual carriageway (70mph). I didn't edit, since I don't know the situation in Ireland.... Cambyses 06:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: speed limits

message: I'm not quite sure why the merge flag was put on here (to merge with Freeway as, SFAICT, there are enough different concepts involved that it seems sensible to keep them apart. Freeway is very much a US-only term, 'motorway' however is translated exactly within Europe (autostrad, autobahn, etc)). Disgree with merge therefore --VampWillow 22:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: More Americano-centrism. I've been in the US. None of the various concepts there (freeway, expressway, etc.) entirely co-incide with the British/Irish Motorway. Also the article quite rightly focusses on the British/Irish road classification side of things. Merging? Crazy people. Bah! Zoney 19:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the discussion (all on merge page!) and removal of the merge flag ... I did all the merging and separating out earlier today... I'll remove the bit you added about Europe and put it over into the correct articles if you don't mind. --VampWillow 19:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge flag

message: Besides the Autobahn and autostrada, which are fairly well-known in English-speaking contexts, do the other translations of motorway differ from the average European motorways?
Peter Isotalo 19:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Autoroute is French. Freeway might have more, not sure. --SPUI (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Freeway doesn't mean "toll-free road". It can be tolled just like any other road, e.g. Riverside Freeway. Admiral Norton (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motorway translations 

message: In the UK, at least, service stations are a notable feature of motorways. Could someone write about them, please? Andy Mabbett 09:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stub now at Motorway service station. See also :Category:Motorway service stations in the UK.Andy Mabbett 13:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Service stations

message: I've removed these templates, as ten days have elapsed without a clear consensus.
zoney  ♣ talk 16:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/split 

message: In the section about UK-Specifics, it states that in the UK, junctions must have a number.  This may be the ideal, but I note that this is not always applied!  Good examples: M275, A329(M).
:That section was a mess. I've cleaned it up a bit.--Shantavira|feed me 09:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junctions must be numbered? 

message: Technically, a UK motorway is not a highway (as stated in the defining paragraph). It is a motor road. In the UK, a "highway" is a right of way, which a motorway is not. I'm not sure how (or whether) to fix this.--Shantavira|feed me 09:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for that? As far as I am aware under the UK definition a highway is any route with any form of right of way, be it a footpath, a bridleway, a cycleway, a restricted byway, a byway open to all traffic, a classified road, a principal road or a special road (also known as a Motorway). Road Wizard 12:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Highway

message: The following extract from the "Common Criteria" section doesn't quite seem to make sense to me:
The central reservation remains unbroken (an exception being [...] a section of the M40 in Warwickshire, with an unusually wide grass verge separating the carriageways).
I'm not quite sure what this bit is supposed to mean: surely a grassed area separating the carriageways is a central reservation? The fact it's exceptionally wide doesn't imply it's not unbroken. In any event, there are plenty of other places with wide central reservations: M6 close to Shap summit in Cumbria, M62 summit between Manchester and Leeds (that even has a farm on it!). Can anyone discern what's meant here? Casper Gutman (talk • contributions) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK central reservations 

message: I find the paragraphs on Irish motorways as way too detailed and esoteric. CFCF (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Esoteric"; confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle. I like the "enlightened" bit. Could you cite an example of this esotericism? Sarah777 (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: I have been adding information regarding driver location signs.  The work is still in progress, but is taking shape.  Currently I have written an article Highway route markers which has a section on driver location signs.  I might hive that off at a later date if appropriate.  Meanwhile I have also made additions to the exit lists for the M3, M25 and M26 motorways.  My own feeling is that the M25 addition is fine - it is totally verifiable.  I am not too happy about the M26 addition (identification of carriageways) as it is not verified.  I have taken a slightly different approach to the M3 addition of carriageway identifiers - I have recorded the date on which I actually viewed the markers - I believe that this is a verifiable source rather than original research since anybody can likewise go to the M3 and verify what I saw in the same way as they would do if it were a book. Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driver Location Signs 

message: To me this whole section seems out of place and its inclusion is in my mind (slightly) POV, the environmental effects of road transport are VERY well covered in numerous other articles. We don't need them going over again on every road related article in existence. Midlandstoday (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental effects 

message: Is there any benefit of moving the junction lists (at any rate of the major motorways - criteria still to be decided) onto their own pages - this will assist any readers who might like to print the junction list off. In such cases, there would be a note at the top of the article to this effect. Martinvl (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junction Lists on separate pages? 

message: I revoked the changes for a number of reasons:
* The OECD definition is a legal, internationally recognised definition which describes all the features of a motorway in a concise manner while the new definition of “three of four carriageways” is incorrect – most motorways have two carriageways consisting of between two and six lanes in each carriageway.
* Since the OECD is a legal definition, it should be included as it stands – the original text has the French translation which is why it has been included.
:Martinvl (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, in Afrikaans there is an alternative term, perhaps older and less frequently used now: motorweg. My old Cape Peninsula A-Z labels the Cape Flats Freeway (then under construction) as Kaapse Vlakte Motorweg. In my opinion seperating motorway from freeway makes as much sense as insisting a railway and a railroad are completely different things or a lift and elevator are different etc. One could start insisting that a railroad was different from a railway because it had a different guage or a different platform height or some other feature of construction, or you could say a lift was a lift and not an elevator because the floors were numbered differently or used different types of equipment etc etc, but it still wouldn't make any sense. People, I think, have conflated "motorway" with British motorways and "freeway" with US or North American freeways and lost sight of the broader picture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revocation of 5-Jan-2010

message: I've moved this in based on Talk:Semi-highway. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intermediate forms 

message: The use of dual units in the section on speed limits makes for disruptive reading.  I have inserted a conversion table which I hope will remedy this problem.  Are people happy for me to remove the dual units from the text and to place the statement The units used for speed limits in this section are those displayed on the roads concerned at the start of the section? Martinvl (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed limits - Dual units 

message: My removal of the pseudo-hatnote/disclaimer regarding why units are not converted on this article was reverted. I don't understand the rationale behind why we're not converting units anyway, but even if that's what's been decided we should not be inventing new ways of telling these things to users. Hatnotes have a specific styling and a specific purpose: that should not be co-opted for random editorial comments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason why WP:MOS requires that both systems of units be used is an aide memoire to assist the reader who is unfamiliar with one or other unit of measure.  In an article such as this, speed limits are repeated so frequently that seeing the conversions every time that a speed limit is mentioned destroys the flow of the text. Until now, nobody has commented on the arrangement in this article.  Given that the consensus is that a conversion table is acceptable and that if there is no hat-note some smart-alec will object to conversions not being in-line, what do you propose? Martinvl (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Smart-alec here. Most probably the article should just have inline conversions and format them for minimal disruption. Having said that, if there's general support for doing things the present way, the answer is to just document this on the talk page and then add an editnotice referring to the talk page consensus. Information that's only useful to editors, and not to readers, should not be presented to the readers who make up most of the audience for the encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the preceding section. Martinvl (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Readers should not be expected to look to new conventions on a per-article basis. MOS:CONVERSIONS allows for repeated conversions of the same value to be omitted; that would work well here IMO. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you examine the article, you will see that 90% of the speed limits are in one section and the speed limit conversion table is clearly visible to readers (at least on my PC).  There are two or three other instances of speed limits and the hat-note refers to them. Martinvl (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This still isn't an appropriate use of a hatnote. Perhaps the best solution would be to move the note to the appropriate section and use the normal conversion code for speeds found outside of that section. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake hatnote regarding conversions 

message: What is happening with the merge proposal that seemed to have been agreed?
As it is, this article is a mess. It appears to be at its core a "Motorways in the United Kingdom" article with information about sundry other countries tacked on. The other countries appear to have been chosen either solely because they use the term "motorway" rather than another word (ie is there anything inherently similar about an Irish and a Pakistani motorway that belongs here, but not say a Japanese expressway, other than the actual name used) or for no reason at all (eg Spain, Germany, Hungary etc, which could equally well go under "freeway" under this arbitrary division between motorway  and freeway)
We need a single article that covers grade-separated limited access roads on a world scale and all the country-specific stuff can go into separate articles such as Motorways in the United Kingdom, Freeways in the USA, Expressways in Japan etc.
Lets not get too hung up about the precise definitions, which differ slightly from country to country or jurisdiction to jurisdiction, or exceptions to the general rules such as bicycles being allowed on US freeways in some states etc. There are lots of concepts that do not have absolutely hard and fast definitions that apply in all cases, yet it doesn't stop us from having articles about them. No-one can come up with a definition of railway/railroad that draws a precise line between them, metros, subways and trams. The dividing line between tree and shrub can be a little hazy, but everyone still knows what a tree is. Booshank (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100%. Sarah777 (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reason why there are "Z" instead of "S" in this article; What language is it in? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 03:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment it is to be written in Oxford English, which offers a compromise between British English (which Motorway was written in) and American English (which Freeway was written in). However, most of it is copy/pasted from various parts of each article and so at the moment there will very likely be parts in AmEng and parts in BrEng. There's some more info at Talk:Freeway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for my ignorance, I didn't know Oxford English was American. Until the article is written, and a Motorways in the United Kingdom will probably have to be written to expand on the section for the UK (and all other countries in the world) and in English (by English, read English English), the article is American. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 03:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note "is to be written in", and not "is written in". Many countries should already have an article dedicated to their national highway system (ie the Motorway System in the United Kingdom), if not a section of their Transportation in X article. There is no reason to create a separate article though for countries that currently only have a few paragraphs of information. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Controlled-access highway which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 06:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress