Talk:International E-road network

message: It is untrue that Belgian E-roads do not have a national designation. They do, but virtually no one uses it. Thus, while the E411 is also the A4 in Belgium, virtually everyone calls it the E411. I have changed the article to reflect this. --Deregnaucourt 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unique use of E-road name in Belgium

message: Is there any reason why the numbers are not accompanied by a compass direction (North, West, ..), the same way as in U.S.? I saw few times in Scandinavia, but not in the rest of Europe. It makes orientation much much easier, especially at complex junctions. Is it just a problem of choosing a common language? Or it was it never intended that way, but why then is the numbering organized by compass direction?
:This is true, European roads are not usually referred to as going "north" or "south", but rather to "Paris" or "Bruxelles". Both systems have their advantages: while a road designated "north" would make it easier to head in that general direction, a road labelled "Bruxelles" would be sure to take you to a specific place. However, you'd have to know where "Bruxelles" is in reference to where you want to be. Having done long drives in N. America and Europe, I think the European system has the clear advantage of providing known waypoints for navigtion. A route such as Bruxelles-Köln-Frankfurt-Nürmberg-Passau-Linz-Wien is much easier to visualise and follow than E40 east to E314 east to German A4 south to German A5 south, etc. --Deregnaucourt 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually have just the opposite experience (easy to drive in U.S. following compass directions, hard in Europe, especially on complex junctions, and in places where all town names seem the same to me; also which name should I look for on round-about signs - the town 10km from here, 50km, 100km, 200km), but personal experiences are not important for encyclopedia article. The design of the system suggests that the authors had compass directions in mind. And I would like the article say if that's true (and then why it was not implemented), or not (and then why is it organized by N-S, E-W). --Jirka6 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would be good info for the article, but as with everything in Wikipedia it should be referenced.   Maybe just my imagination but I find that "roadgeek"-oriented articles often tend to rely on personal observation.   But by no means are all of them underreferenced!  - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not compass directions

message: A pity that the powers that be haven't included Iceland in the uber Autobahn system, even though Anatolia, Kazakhstan and Syria get a look in.
:How are you supposed to do that, given its isolation from the mainland?
::Presumably in much the same way as they've done for Britain and Ireland.  - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Iceland

message: How should one treat the cases of E47 (which is within Scandinavia, at least Sweden and Norway, called and signed E6) and E55 (which is within Scandinavia, at least Sweden, called and signed E4)? As of now, they are listed here as E04 and E06, which is not a good solution. Also, E4 has its own page, under that name.
I see that I missed on signing the message. But it was mine! =) The reason for listing the roads as E04 and E06 being a bad idea is of course that they are anything but west-to-east. --Jao 02:53, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you, I too was dumbfounded when noticing this fact, as I'm used to travelling the E6 from north to south and vice versa... Likewise the E4 up and down Sweden. --Wernher 14:49, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an edit war between me and a not logged-in person (latest IP 81.104.170.167) regarding this issue. The reason for having articles E4 ad E6 is that the official document [] define these two roads as full E-roads, not as any special numbering of any other E-road. They are violating the east-west principle, but nevertheless they are called E04 and E06. BIL 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that source, I now stand corrected, and of course I will gladly assist your efforts to keep the article correct, if this edit war will keep going on. -- Jao 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differing number systems 

message: I would like to propose a 'standard' for listing the roads, based on the current de facto scheme. It should be noted in the text.
* a hyphen '-' between towns; several hyphens where towns are omitted
* an ellipsis '...' denoting connections by sea
No revolution, just putting the de facto std in writing. --Wernher 14:49, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Might it not be helpful to note the design and such of the roads? --Penta 18:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List notation 

message: It would be nice to have information about signage in each country. Here's all I know:
*UK - not signed at all
*Germany - signed on newer signs and at major junctions and reassurance signs
--SPUI (talk) 04:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Signage

message: The official name of the system is the "international E-road network", which is why I moved the article here. "European route" does not seem to be in common use. That of course brings us to the question of what to title the articles about the roads. Maybe E-road E08, E08 (E-road) or E08 (road)? --SPUI (talk) 05:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention?

message: I removed the reference to the US Highway/Interstate system, since I don't see any connection that has to E-roads. E-roads are an international, transcontinental system; thus, they are most similar to the Pan-American Highway or to the Asian Highway Network. There is of course some vague similarities between international and national highway systems (heck, they are both highway systems). But then, if we are to compare international and national highway systems, why should we compare it against just the US one? The US is but one country of many, a particularly important one in many fields, but in the field of highway systems? I doubt so. -- Samuel Katinsky
I suppose the edits mentioned by Samuel Katinsky have been undone.
My reason for commenting at all is that the article does not make it clear how the E-road network was originally envisaged as comparable to the US Interstate System given that the article on that system states its construction was only authorized in 1956, which is after the date this article states the Declaration on the Construction of Main International Traffic Arteries was signed, in 1950.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.31.76 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of reference to US highways/interstates 

message: I would suggest that a high resolution map of the complete E-road Network be placed in this article. It should include all A class roads at least, and even B class if the scale permits. It should include information about which parts of a route are up to motorway standards, which are not, which are planned to be upgraded to motorway etc... Also, even though there are images of some of the roads on articles about the country they belong to, it could be useful to link them here, or even add more.   Jimzoun 12:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. It's a 1990-1991 map (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, USSR still exist; Germany reunited). Someone with more Photoshop ability than I shoudl update it or create a new one. ProhibitOnions (T) 22:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I'm about to edit the reference to signage practice in the British Isles. Two reasons:
1. The reference to roads not crossing borders with differing numbers on either side is false. Two states and a land border means that that does indeed happen.
2. E-road signage has begun to sneak onto signs in the Republic of Ireland.
3. (I lied about the number). Irish people tend not to like the term "British Isles", mostly because of the way it encourages people to assume it refers to a single country with uniform characteristics (as appears to have happened in the old text).
Mackerski 19:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: E-201 has now been signposted.  The E-201 is the N8.  It is signed on Route Confirmation Signs South of Cashel, and they are bigger than what was put on the Gorey Bypass.  I think the article should be changed to reflect this, also to keep a refernce to the new TSM, if it ever comes out.
Limbo-Messiah (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[N8 road|E-201]] 

message: In the official document pdf,  about 130 kB (any other reliable sources?) the naming is always with a space between letter and number - any reason why we don't have this space here? It's not regulated in the source to have a space (or dashes etc.) on the sign, so it may often be omitted resulting in smaller and cheaper signs - but I don't see a reason to omit the spaces here. Greetings -- 79.219.60.232 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The signs in the article do not show a space, nor does the navbox at the bottom, nor are the individual road articles named so. I wanted to add anchors to the article for roads that don't have their own article (to facilitate easy location/wikilinking from other articles), but don't know whether to include a space or not. It would also be nice to have (perhaps hidden) text with the road number at each entry to allow searching for it in the browser (i.e. the signs are nice, but aren't searchable). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaces 

message: Does anyone know of any wiki-preferred provenance for E road distances appearing in wiki entries on E roads?   Background:
I have been translating an entry on the E62 from Italian.   Our Italian friends have a total distance for the E 62 of 1290 km from somewhere (source not to me obvious) so I copied it to the intro para.
But now I am trying to compute the distance leg by leg using both (1) distances on road atlases (Ravenstein. Michelin, TCI) and (2) Microsoft Autoroute 2006 'route finder' software (applying cumulative minus previous cumulative to avoid excessive impact from roundings).
I've not finished, but I think I am finding the measured distances longer than the 1290 km by maybe 5%.
Considerations:
:For much of its length A 62 runs NOT on autoroutes - for which well established verifyable distances exist. 
:It runs through three different countries, each of which may apply different base assumptions concerning distances.
:Distances change over time.   Little by little, bits of this road get converted or supplemented into / by autoroute.   Even where that does not happen, by pass roads that avoid the town centre have been a priority with French road builders in the last decade or so.   Maps and software put the E 62 tag on the by pass routes rather than through the city centre which reduces the journey time (presumably...) but also increases the journey length quite significantly.   ....to the extent that if I were simply measuring distances from urban centre to urban centre, I'd most likely end up pretty close to the 1290 km length from the Italian wiki entry on E62.
I guess this raises quite complex interlocking questions about the 'wiki-nature' of 'wiki-truth' as it impacts route distances.   I wonder if anyone else has been through these thought processes and formed any conclusions - consensus even?   The wiki project highways group seems to be chiefly interested in stateside routes which is fine and dandy, but in Europe the distances issue seems to be rather different in a way that folks who seldom travel outside The Union probably would mostly find pretty hard to conceptualise.   Maybe that should be conceptualize.
Regards  Charles01 (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have had a difference of opinion regarding distances - inb particular regarding the E13: Doncaster - London route. Initially I used viaMichelin and specified just Doncaster and London.  I am now having second thoughts - I have looked at the specification of a E-route and now I believe that maybe I should repeat the exercise, but only include the sections of the road that permit motor vehicles - in this case start at J3 of the M18 rather than the Doncaster City Centre and end at Junction 1 of the M1 (rather than the London City centre). Martinvl (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: E Road distances

message: I am not certain of this, but I think that the E02 described here is an international long distance walking path, not a road route. I have a German road atlas which shows E routes in ins summary of Europe. It shows E01, E16, E18, E20, E30, E201 in Ireland, but nothing going to Galway and no E02. If I am right, the the European route E02 article is also completely wrong. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Further comment http://roads.goodnight.to/ appears to be a useful resource, it doesn't list E02. -- SGBailey (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This file: http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2008/sc1/ECE-TRANS-SC1-384e.pdf is the original list by the decisive authority, and it does not contain any E02. Unless it has appeared just recently. But I don't beleive that. The content in European route E02 was added by one user only, and the content in International E-road network by one ip number. --BIL (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: E02

message: Is there any reason why Rome isn't wikilinked in those long lists of cities?   I can't imagine why not (given that Rome isn't a dab page or a redirect to the Vatican or something -- it's an article on the Italian capital).   But the omission is so unmistakable that I figured I'd suppress my boldness and ask first. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done (also Berlin) Martinvl (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rome wikilinks? 

message: I saw a 1974 road map of Turkey, and it states that "the European route E5 in Turkey starts from Kapikule and ends in Hatay Province."
I want to know about "where the former European route E5 begins and where it passes before reaching the n- Turkish border? (until the mid-90s).
According to an old road atlas I have (published by Rand McNally in 1976, before the present numbering system was devised), the original E5 begins in London, via Dover crosses the Channel to Calais, turns eastwards along the Belgian coast to Oostende, then inland to Gent (so-spelled), onwards to Bruxelles (Brussels), Liège, enters Germany near Aachen and continues to Köln (Cologne), crosses the Rhine, turns southwards to pass between Wiesbaden and Frankfurt, crosses the Main, turns eastwards again to pass south of Frankfurt, continues in a southeasterly direction past Würzburg, Nürnberg, and Regensburg, crosses the Danube into Austria and proceeds via Linz to Vienna, then into Hungary and on to Budapest, from there to Szeged and (the then still-existing Yugoslavia, now Serbia). From there to Beograd (Belgrade) and Niš (Nish), where the E5 splits into the 5S, which runs south to Thessaloniki in Greece, then east to Turkey, while the 5N continues to Bulgaria and the cities of Sofija and Plovdiv, then on to Edirne in Tutkey. The 5S and 5N rejoin just to the west of Istanboul. The map shows the E5 crossing into Anatolia but there are no further maps of Turkey in Asia. i hope this hasn't been too wordy. (dsh/2015.01.16)--  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.25.50 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the 1970s, where the European route E5 begins and where it ends? 

message: OK, so, in ECE/TRANS/SC.1/384, E65/E80 portion of the road trough Montenegro goes from Dubrovnik,Croatia - Petrovac - Podgorica and so on, and E851 starts at Petrovac and goes to Albania. My problem is, that this is somewhat old document, and since then, from Petrovac to Podgorica there is much, much safer route. In time of the document, you would go over the mountain, but today, you can go a bit more down the coastline to the south to Sutomore, and then trough 5 km Sozina tunnel towards Podgorica. Using google maps, I can see that the distance is actually exactly the same, but living here, I can tell you that this is main route with most traffic, and other is only alternative, and not maintained as good as before. Speaking of google maps, it is in line with what I said, and considers Sozina tunnel route as E65/E80, and E851 now starts at Sutomore.  Also, on Sozina tunnel article, it says it is part of E65 route. So my question is, should we go by de facto situation (Sozina tunnel route), which I believe is better, or de iure (over the mountain route), which is 100% in line with ECE/TRANS/SC.1/384. I am not that good with wiki rules, so I hope more experienced users would help with this. Note: I understand that E65/E80 does not specify the route between Petrovac and Podgorica, but the fact that E851 starts at Petrovac, and there should not be overlapping of the routes, means that the mountain route is considered by the ECE/TRANS/SC.1/384 official E65/E80 route.Requiem mn (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We should describe E80/E65 as it really is, based on sources, and that is the Wiki rules. First UNECE describe them as going Dubrovnik–Petrovac–Podgorica. Then, the government of Montenegro decides the exact alignment. We only describe them as Dubrovnik–Petrovac–Podgorica which is true even if it use the tunnel. In fact articles E80 and E65 write that they pass Sutomore and therefore the tunnel, so there is nothing to change. If you wish a change of the alignment of E851, you should ask the government of Montenegro, which the requests it to UNECE, that is the process. Wikipedia can't change things.--BIL (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem is, I changed those articles, before asking the question here, and was planning and reverting depending on consensus made here. I can access all Montenegrin laws, but to be honest, I sincerely doubt that I will find anything in regard to this. For example, our (Montenegrin) Directorate for transport has on their website map of roads that is outdated by at least 15 years. But I will look into it. Problem with the ECE/TRANS/SC.1/384 is that it was published in 2008, and that makes it also outdated. Only other source I looked at is google maps, which I don't think can be looked as official, and is conflicting with ECE/TRANS/SC.1/384. Requiem mn (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it enough to 1. follow the UNECE list and 2.use available road maps as reference. I have looked for road signs in Google Streetview, but it appears that national or European road number signs don't exist exist in Montenegro. So it is hard to know any info. Viamichelin.com has E65/E80 along the curvy hilly road and E581 from Petrovac, while Google Maps and Bing maps in the tunnel. E581 should be written to begin from Petrovac, because UNECE writes that in their definition. For E65/E80 whichever, beacuse UNECE does not define that.--BIL (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, E65/E80 should go to Sutomore, but it kind of isn't in line with "... branch, link and connecting roads, called class-B roads..." from UNECE document, as E851 is B-road, and as such should not overlap with A-roads. But unless someone disagrees, I'm with you. As for sign posts in Montenegro, I started thinking about them, and could not remember I have ever seen sign with road E-numbers, but I wasn't sure if it is because they don't exist, or I selectively don't remember because I don't really need them locally. But you are right, even the newer ones don't appear to have any numbers. And as for local numbers, I found out that last year Government recategorised roads to reflect actual situation, which means a whole bunch of Wiki articles are now wrong, and should be rewritten and/or deleted. Not sure how to proceed with that too. Here is a link to bylaw in official gazette of Montenegro. Good thing is, in researching this, I found out that there was official update to the ECE/TRANS/SC.1/384 document.Requiem mn (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  E65/E80 and E851 trough Montenegro 

message: The article mentions that roads were renumbered in 1992. AFAICT the new numbers were agreed in 1975 and ratified over the next two decades and more. dewiki mentions that the renumbering happened around 1985. So was it 1985 or 1992? Or did it perhaps change gradually country by country over many years?C960657 (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1975/1985/1992 renumbering 

message: I would love it if a knowledgeable person could update the article to explain the post-Brexit consequences (if any) upon E-roads in the UK. I have not read round it extensively but it is sounding to me a bit as if there will be no change, as it is UNECE rather than EU, though to be fair I have no idea how the funding and influence works, who is doing who a favour, etc. Who or what "makes" the UK comply and why do we want to? I dunno, please educate me, encyclopaedists!
I do realize that this is hardly a topic of a setting-the-Thames-on-fire level of urgency. I don't think we can see them signed anywhere in the UK and I'm only aware of it because my Tomtom GPS software announces the A1 and E15 every time I point the car at Northumberland or wherevs. So in a slightly confused and elderly way I find myself wondering if that will change; I don't think it will; it would be great if the article covered this point. 
Thanks and best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  E-roads in the UK post-Brexit 

message: Can the history table be made collapsible, please, and collapsed by default? It seems wrong to have huge tracts of the page, near the top, spent on something that is historically interesting but was true yonks ago. It should still be there, but optional to open and read, I feel. I'd do it myself but would probably break the table! Thanks DBaK (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History table - make collapsible?