Talk:Freeway

message: Many rural expressways offer unrelieved monotony. Unless such a highway is in a scenic area it can hardly be "fun" to drive. Easy and swift? Sure. But most are much flatter than the roads that they supplant, much straighter, and of course without the courses through town, one sees little local character. Even the commercial development along freeways is homogenized.
I thus removed the "some find driving an uncongested freeway fun" concept from the freeway article. One ordinarily uses a freeway to get from one place to another quickly, and the highway is rarely a destination in itself. Shunpiking simply to avoid a monotonous stetch of bland expressway happens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul from Michigan (talk • contribs) 06:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute your deletion.  I just opened a similar dispute with another editor over the Transportation in Los Angeles article.  I believe both disputes can be resolved with a citation to the L.A. Freeway book by David Brodsly.  The book is widely available (see WorldCat) so I should be able to get to a copy and get the page cite in a couple of weeks.  --Coolcaesar 11:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This may not mean much, but, anecdotally, I certainly enjoy driving on uncongested freeways. A drive need not be 'scenic' in the usual sense to be inspiring. I know plenty of people around here who (used to) drive on freeways simply for the sake of driving or getting away, rather than with a particular destination in mind (back when gas cost less than $1.00/gal.) That said, I'm not sure what place a statement of whether or not freeway driving is considered to be enjoyable has in this article, anyway. --71.123.221.4 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   Fun to drive an uncongested freeway? 

message: I just deleted the above text from the lead paragraphs.  This is totally inappropriate.  First of all, Streets & Highways Code section 257 (which is already cited in the right place in the article) is the more appropriate code section.  Second, we should not be leading the article with a section that represents only one part of the United States when we are trying to take a worldwide view on Wikipedia.  The article, as I've drafted it, already cites and discusses the MUTCD federal definition, which is much broader and more widely accepted.  We should move from the general (federal) to the specific (state), not start with a very state-specific quote and then waffle back and forth between the specific and the general.  --Coolcaesar 07:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad bad quote, why I took it out 

message: I think the use of the word in Canada is fairly restricted. The Gage Canadian Dictionary gives the word freeway the label Esp.U.S.. Personally, — I'm from Quebec — I've never heard anyone use anything other than expressway and autoroute. I think people in Western Canada use it, but the most common word in Canada, when people don't just say highway, is definitely expressway. I think "Canada" should probably be changed to "parts of Canada". Joeldl 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: All of the images in this article are of freeways during the day.  I think it would be neat to have one of those night-time long exposure images, where you can see an few minutes's worth of traffic streaming by, indicating the volume of traffic during that time. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. Pick your favorite from  and upload it. --NE2 06:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are those released under GFDL? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are, I like Freeway on p. 3 best, but if they are not, maybe we should pick an image from wikimedia commons.--Sefringle 23:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images at night 

message: Are we supposed to have an image gallery in the article? Isn't it prefered to just link to a Commons gallery? (Besides, what kind of freeway image gallery doesn't have a single photo of a Southern California freeway? Honestly.) -Branddobbe 20:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image gallery

message: "In major cities, guide signs are often mounted on overpasses or overhead gantries so that drivers can see where each lane goes.[citation needed]"
Citations are hardly needed when a fact is common knowledge. Anyone driving on one of these highways can confirm the above claim to be true. Let's cease with the rather liberal use of the "citation needed" tag.Jlujan69 (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations??

message: I suggest more information about allowed freeway speeds by country.--Mac (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already got Speed limits by country. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed 

message: Why?Synchronism (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move from freeway 

message: This article seems to list 90% stuff ONLY relating to the USA, nothing about other countries?
Huh?
--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: This posting appears on the Talk pages of Motorway, Expressway and Freeway.  Please respond on the Motorway talk page.
An install-delete battle is breaking out on the Motorways article regarding the description of Pakistan’s motorways.  I do not want to take sides, but I would like to resolve this problem and also, at the same time resolve the larger problem of Motorway, Freeways and Expressways.
My proposal is as follows:
:1) The section on Pakistan’s motorways be allowed to stand for the time being.
:2) A new article entitled Motorways, Freeways and Expressways be written.  This article will explain the difference between the various terms using the OECD definition as a starting point.  The choice of the OECD definition will ensure a neutral standpoint.
:3) Merge the Freeways article and Motorways articles into one, removing country-specific items unless they are noteworthy outside the country concerned.  The combined article (which would have the title OECD-preferred name of Motorway) would have a short introduction to the various country-specific articles which would serve as an introduction to the article List of highway systems with full control of access and no cross traffic.
:4) Finally point redirect the Expressway article to the Motorway article.
 
Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have incorporated the OECD definition of motorway into the "Legal Definitions" section of the article. Martinvl (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm countermanding your edit immediately because it confuses readers (that is, the question it brings to mind is "What the hell is this doing here in an article on freeways?") and makes this article even longer than it already is.  The freeway-expressway definition mess is discussed in both articles because of the massive internal confusion on this issue within the United States (which is a common problem in many areas of American law because of the unique dual-sovereign nature of American federalism).  In contrast, there are no countries where both motorway and freeway are in simultaneous use as legal definitions.  Anyone interested in the motorway definition can read it there.  Also, you haven't responded to the points I made at Talk:Motorway almost a month ago. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming there's nothing sketchy going on with on List of OECD countries by road network size, the OECD does use "motorway" to include U.S. freeways. Given that, and their definition, they're definitely talking about the concept covered in this article, and not the one in the motorway article ("roads specifically called motorways", which is more analogous to an Interstate than a freeway). --NE2 06:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article is about US Freeways, what is the discussion about South African and Canadian freeways doing in it?  If it is about freeways worldwide, does a better authoritative definition exist to link the various article than the one that I published?  Regarding Coolcaesar's question of confusing readers - the article currently covers three countries, the United States, Canada and South Africa.  Having spent almost half my life in South Africa, I can assure everybody that no South African reader would be confused by equating the two words.  I cannot however speak for US or Canadian readers. Martinvl (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Coolcaesar's stated there are no countries where both motorway and freeway are in simultaneous use as legal definitions.  May I cite South Africa.  A search on Google using the filter ".gov.za" revealed the use of both terms, with the N3 usually being referred to as a "motorway".  There are historic reasons for this that I can go into, but won't.  Moreover, the Afrikaans word word (which has equal standing in South African law) is snelweg - the Afrikaans word snel meaning "fast" or "express" and weg meaning "road" or "way" (cw with the Dutch word autosnelweg).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 12:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Motorways – Freeway – Expressway debate (again) 

message: This unsighted comment is merely propaganda:
and growing popular support for high-speed mass transit in lieu of new freeways.
This is merely opinion without a poll, study, or at least something.  People need to keep their personal beliefs out of Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.244.253 (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: Feel free to goad your perusal click-clicks into this eye candy for the brave. I'm a lawyer, ho-hum. Tee hee hee, I like ancient Rome but cannot understand what an alphabetical prefix is on an English Motorway. oops! This one's dedicated to the Hume Freeway and it's prestige as the supreme freeway (or autoroute) in Victoria, Australia.
When is the road classification "freeway" no longer a "freeway"? Well, it either is or it isn't. For instance, if the democratic and statutory authority for road classification declares a road a freeway, then that road becomes a freeway. This is especially credible when the roads authority operates under the auspices of a democratically elected government; a stable and envious one moreso (such as a Westminster-style government). These political procedures conquer roads classification in social and political legitimacy all throughout the world. Oftentimes there are many different roads that meet the classification of "freeway", however the most common occurence is that of a limited access road with no adjoining private properties that consists of grade-separated intersections with all other roads. However, often enough this is not the case: In the state of Victoria, Australia -there is a section of the Mornington Penninsula Freeway that is a two-lane, two-way road that spans two round-a-bouts. There are freeways in the United States that have traffic lights and private properties abutting them too. It remains that the roads authorities are those that classify the status of a road; as they are the officials and are emboldened by legal resolve. For a mere spectator that is otherwise an insignificant part of the government body to dictate the terms of this legal classification; it is at worst opinionated drivel and at best as an agent provocatuer.
119.161.71.12 (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality Somewhat Defined 

message: I saw Australia confusing here. What is the term do Australians consider? Motor way or free way? Or both? I don't want to remove the Australia here in this topic because it will earn criticism. Just an explanation. Kiddie Techie Talk 06:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal confusion 

message: I've made a good start on the basic framework for the proposed merge. User:Floydian/Controlled-access highway is the result. Feel free to fill in any countries you are familiar with. Thoughts / comments? There is a lot of rambling across several articles to compress into useful to-the-point information, so I'm finding it troublesome to progress at a reasonable speed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The draft article will do me, and well done Floydian. I like the title, which can be compared to Fixed-wing aircraft (to avoid the airplane/aeroplane argument). I note that many of the comments on this talk page are about what a combined article should be called, not disputing that there should only be one article about a type of road with a diverse range of names.Nankai (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :) I've actually already performed the merger (just to be bold and bring people in), but left these talk pages because there is a lot of discussion on both. I hope the title sticks, as unlike Fixed-wing aircraft, controlled-access highway is the actual engineering term. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performing this transition