Talk:British Columbia Highway 7

message: Okay in the article it states that Lougheed begins again after Ottawa St.  Not so, I say, not so.  Lougheed essentially 'begins' at the corners of Johnson, Barnet, Lougheed and Lougheed.  Basically, if you were coming Northbound on the Lougheed, you would have to take a right turn at Barnet (across from Coquitlam centre mall) to continue on Lougheed.  If you went straight you would be on Johnson.  It is at that point that if you were coming East Bound, on the Barnet, that the Barnet ceases, and the Lougheed begins.  Consequently, I think that the map is wrong, and in fact the whole article is wrong, because highway 7 is actually continuous and not terminal in coquitlam.
TotallyTempo (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this is wrong. 

message: Lougheed runs all through out Burnaby, and I think highway 7 actually carries on as Broadway, though I'm not sure of that.  In short, this whole entire article is wrong, because I am very very very sure one can drive on highway 7 all the way to Vancouver, from Hope, without using a road that is not indeed, highway 7.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TotallyTempo (talk • contribs) 03:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furthermore 

message: Route 7 begins at Broadway and Granville in Vancouver. It goes east where at Cassiar, where the Vancouver portion of Broadway ends and it goes onto Lougheed Highway. There is no connection between Route 7 and Route 1 where they cross. Route 7 follows Lougheed Highway until its termination in Hope at Route 1.
Between Chilliwack and Hope it is also called the Haig Highway. 99.199.35.58 (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the MOT's website, the highway is now in two sections. It ran from Kingsway to Haig before the change in 2006.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: For whatever reason, the MOT inserted new signs for Highway 99A/1A on Kingsway in Vancouver complete with reflective backing. I remember them not being there in 2007. I think all of the Highway signs are still up, even though it doesn't exist anymore.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 03:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This isn't right. 

message: An anon and I are arguing where the highway starts. See the above discussions for more details.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 18:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read much of the wall of text above, but my suggestion is to say something like, "The most westerly route sign for Highway 7 is located at point X, but certain maps [give citations] show the highway starting at point Y." This gives both sides of the argument (as long as there actually are reliable maps showing the highway beginning somewhere else), and at the same time tells the reader that there is ambiguity. Getting a letter from the MOT, however, is skirting dangerously close to original research. Have either of you checked the main branch of the Vancouver public library's local history collections for official MOT maps? I only ask because I've found the Winnipeg library to be useful when searching for official route maps for city highways here. --NellieBly (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of you might remember me; I mostly design diagram-style exit lists in various highway articles, sometimes working in a sort of collaboration with Emarsee on some of these.  In my opinion, I think this article should be kept generalized; Wikipedia is a popular resource checked by millions every day, and to post something completely accurate might confuse some people (especially about where highways begin and end).  Not everyone knows how highway systems work in BC, and we don't want to confuse anyone.  My proposal is to keep Highway 7's length continuous within this article (as it is considered for most other people, esp. Lower Mainland residents like myself and anyone interested in this article), but keep within the guidelines of stating facts derived from accurate sources by adding a [short] paragraph stating what sections the ministry of transportation actually maintains and which sections are officially designated as Highway 7.  Just my opinion, feel free to reply or share your other opinions.--Deltanalliance (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more or less along the lines I've been saying. I checked out the library today to get some more details. I searched through maps and all sorts of official technical data on highways, all of them show Route 7 going as far as Boundary and also show highways 7A, 10 west of 91, and 99A. Could it be that maybe it's simply a matter of the BC MOT not taking care of these routes but having the number remain? I'm absolutely flummoxed at how hard it is to get what should be an easy answer. 24.86.118.7 (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of Wikipedia is to be as accurate as possible, even if it confuses the reader. Quite frankly, I'm amazed at how hard it is to find where the highway begins. The BCMOT's website is confusing and contradicts itself. The WSDOT's website is much more organized and easier to understand. Look at this map of state highways in Seattle. It's up to date and easy to understand. There's also a log of all highway data showing all of the exit, where the highway starts, etc. The BCMOT has nothing like this.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying we should blame the BCMOT for these inaccuracies, rather than blaming ourselves for denying this article to be clear to the reader while using clear sources, even if they are not under Wikipedia guidelines? (Guidelines that confuse me as it seems that only certain sources are permitted and those that may still be valid are not).  This is Wikipedia, an open community of people collaborating to combine resources to create a better source of info; not a Britannia Encyclopedia that's professionally maintained by researchers and has to be completely accurate and sourced.  Also, keep in mind I did post my idea of how this article should be handled: "My proposal is to keep Highway 7's length continuous within this article (as it is considered for most other people, esp. Lower Mainland residents like myself and anyone interested in this article), but keep within the guidelines of stating facts derived from accurate sources by adding a [short] paragraph stating what sections the ministry of transportation actually maintains and which sections are officially designated as Highway 7."  <<Using this idea the article can be kept both accurate and clear to the reader. Deltanalliance (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes we should be blaming the BCMOT for providing unclear sources, since they're pretty much the only "reliable" source we can depend on. WP:RS is not something to messed with, Wikipedia strives to be as accurate as possible, although WP:RS can screw up the accuracy. WP:RS is very anal about what sources can be used and what sources can't be used and those that count as original research. So if the article is "wrong" because a reliable source says it is right, I believe the article must be "wrong" until another reliable source comes up. I don't know if accuracy should trump reliability, but WP:RS implies that reliability should trump accuracy. My opinion on the continuity of Highway 7 has been changed due to conflicting reports within the BCMOT.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote: "So if the article is "wrong" because a reliable source says it is right, I believe the article must be "wrong" until another reliable source comes up." Well then, how come you still argue that Highway 7 does not run to at least Boundary even when the anon's reliable sources (including phone calls from BCMOT officials) have proved that the highway is continuous? Deltanalliance (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you put a little effort into this yourself, Emarsee? So far, you've done nothing but dance around with that same unreliable BC MOT source since the beginning of the article. For someone who wants to own the article, you don't appear to be making much of an effort in researching sources. Did you know I even preened through the list of railway crossings and overpasses because those are sorted by route number when they cross a numbered highway? I went to libraries, called city halls, spoke with an official at the BC MOT (Who gave me the answer we needed) What have you done? The answer has been quite clear for some time, even if it wasn't from the BC MOT. 24.86.118.7 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Phone calls are not reliable sources, they count as orignal research. I'm all for reliable sources, unfortunately the IP's phone calls don't count as reliable sources. I have been looking for reliable sources on the Internet regarding this, but I haven't found any that wouldn't contradict another. I would love to see that rail crossing list, if you have a link, IP. MOT from the library are reliable sources. If you have a reliable source that proves 7, (in a earlier post you said the map in the library still has 10 west of 91, 7A existing, etc. so that wouldn't be considered to be reliable) starts at Boundary, I will believe it. So far I have seen nothing reliable. How would I know if you are not lying? How would I know the phone calls happened, how would I know you spoke with city halls? Even if you did have transcripts, how would I know they weren't altered to favour your opinion? You need to provide reliable sources, which I've been asking for, and you have not provided anything.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'd like to ask why original research is not counted as providing "reliable sources?"  All contributors go through research to find these resources be it original or not.  These same people from the MOT go through "original research" in order to publish their "reliable sources."  I'm glad to see you may have found an acceptable source, though.  -Deltanalliance (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does allow users to preform their own research, see WP:SELFCITING, however they have to be published in/or as a reputable publication. Phone calls really aren't reliable sources, because pretty much anybody can imitate another person and claim their facts. I'm really starting to think of the MOT's website as a questionable source. Their sources conflict with each other and not up to date, unlike the WSDOT.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to sound like a broken record, but I don't see how calling the BC MOT would hurt this situation. It would at least make you aware of what really is instead of running around like a chicken with its head cut off because you're only using the BC MOT's website. Why not be open to getting all the facts? We can work on sourcing in the meantime, but avoiding calling the BC MOT just because it wouldn't count as a source seems as if there's a definitive will to be oblivious to what the real deal is and seems to work against us as I know what's what (and a few others appear to be onboard). 24.86.118.7 (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is not going to be a reliable source, but I'm going to fire off an email to the BCMOT sometime later today.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I received a response to my earlier email to the BC MOT website about it linking to Wikipedia. The lady who responded is going to be taking the links to Wikipedia down. She said that the BC MOT should not be linking to Wikipedia. I noted that there wasn't any up to date information source on the highway system and pointed out that the "official" page is rather vague. I'm waiting to hear back again from her, but I'm optimistic that the Wikipedia links may get replaced with some information that would sort out this article once and for all. 24.86.118.7 (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good to hear. I've been doing some research for MOT publications at my local library. Unfortunately none of them has anything do with Highway 7.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: *If BC is anything like the UK, the designation is made by some public authority.  The respective views of different map books, websites, etc are derivative sources.  The only reliable source is likely to be something derived from a national, provincial or county authority.  I am not a Canadian and know nothing of the system in BC, and thus cannot comment.  I also have read none of the foregoing, and so not intend to, nor am I adding this page to my watchlist, so that I will not return to it, nor have I read the arricle itself in any version.  If there really is doubt as to the start point, the best solution is to set out both views (with in-line references), ideally with a statement as to which is the best view or the modern view, etc -- but only if a "best view" is possible.  This was the solution adopted on Earls of Clare where there was edit warring over whether this had existed as a medieval title.  
*I will add, that it is a great help if editors can sign in to WP, so that the rest of us have some idea of who you are, so that we do not get you recorded as (for example) 24.86.118.7.  From Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: An outside view

message: (I didn't read any of the above.)
This sort of contradiction is more common than might be thought. We're lucky enough here to have an unambigous description of what the province maintains, although it is slightly unclear as to whether Highway 7 actually includes "the portion of the Lougheed Highway from Coleman Ave to Kingsway, via Broadway in Vancouver". The main thing to remember is that there are several reasons for route numbers. The primary one should be for the convenience of the travelling public, meaning the marked route is continuous and both ends are at logical places. But often the highway department will conflate the numbered routes with the highways it maintains. So what happens when a portion of a numbered route is removed from provincial jurisdiction? The highway department no longer cares about it, unless they are responsible for installing signs - and even then they may keep separate records, or just not care, relating to where they should put signs on local roads.
So what we have here is a case of the two purposes disagreeing. We have sources for public signage extending at least west to Kingsway:  (but there seems to be a 7 WEST after Kingsway, so either it's supposed to go beyond Kingsway or that sign is wrong). We have a very clear source for maintenance ending in Port Coquitlam.
Are any of these facts in dispute? --NE2 09:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the IP and I agree that the signs after Boundary are not supposed to be there. They were installed by the City of Vancouver, not the BC MOT. The MOT would not likely use those rectangular signs.   єmarsee  • Speak up! 22:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On another note I have checked travel guides on Vancouver in my library and all of them (from 2008/09) still show Highway 1A, 7A and 99A. They still have Highway 7 to Kingsway so travel guides can't be used a reliable source.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 22:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a "sources" or "references" page in the travel guides you checked?  Highway 7's true length could be in one of those sources, you never know. -Deltanalliance (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't check the source or reference section if there is any. I only checked the maps.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

text: What do you mean by "not supposed to be there"? It seems to me that they are useful for navigational purposes, one of two reasons for route numbers. There's no reason Vancouver can't post signs; New York City, for instance, posts the signs on its portion of US Route 1. Unless you have a source for them being incorrect, all we know is that it is signed west to (or beyond?) Kingsway. We shouldn't speculate about whether Vancouver was right to put up the signs. --NE2 00:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP and I both have come to the conclusion that Highway 7 doesn't exist past Boundary Road on the Vancouver/Burnaby Border. According to the IP, he made a phone call which states that the signs installed after 2006 are wrong and should not have been installed in the first place. There are new signs for Highway 99A/1A near the intersection of Clark and Kingsway , but 99A has been defunct since 2006 or 2003 and Highway 1A doesn't exist past Downtown. Here are the official MOT signs, . Notice the difference. Just because it's signed doesn't mean the highway still exists. I believe there's a 3 digit interstate (Not I-180 Wyoming) that's still signed on an arterial road in somewhere in the US, even though it ended when where the freeway ended.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that those signs are not the same style that the province uses. That means only one thing: they weren't made to specs. There is no single definition of where a numbered route goes; the various definitions usually agree, but in edge cases like this we can't state definitively where it ends because there is no definitive end. We can only state where provincial maintenance ends and where signage ends. The world is not always black and white. --NE2 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The provincial maintenance (possibly not the highway itself) is broken up into two sections in a short section in Coquitlam and another section from PoCo to Hope. Translink may maintain the sections in MOT gap and from the Coquitlam section westwards. I believe signs still exist until Oak and Broadway (Do a 360), but the terminus until ~2000 was Granville and Broadway  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Quote: "According to the IP, he made a phone call which states that the signs installed after 2006 are wrong and should not have been installed in the first place."This confuses me somewhat, because I thought (until recently) that phone calls were not valid sources. -Deltanalliance (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Phone calls are not reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. Phone calls may be valid depending on who you're talking to.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This sign intrigues me. .  єmarsee  • Speak up! 02:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this is entirely recent (I can't really tell if that's a Clearview-font sign as specified on all new signs in BC) but this sign might also interest you. -Deltanalliance (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Clearview, I believe Clearview was used in BC on new signs after 06/07. Makes me wonder why the MOT or Translink would install signs stating Highway 7A still exists? The sign on the opposite site has the old fonts. .  єmarsee  • Speak up! 04:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact they may merely may not be made to spec is an interesting hypothesis. But, allow me to add to this. On Kingsway in Burnaby, 99A/1A signs are posted with the proper shield and direction; not the square box we've seen elsewhere. Now here's where it gets interesting, I have seen no routing signs of any kind on the New West side of 10th ave nor any portion of McBride in New West (I need to double check McBride). I think the signs are posted up by the city. Based on what we're seeing, it seems to match up with what Mr Ginsburg was saying about the cities being responsible for signage in places the MOT doesn't take care of. The next time I take a trip down Kingsway, I'm going to check and make sure that those rectangular signs are only in Vancouver. That would seem to confirm that signage is city controlled. What I'm most confused about is why Mr Ginsburg from the BC MOT and TransLink both say Highway 7 ends at Boundary Road. Somehow, I think the BC MOT has some kind of internal official signage thing going on that even the cities don't know about. 24.86.118.7 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're giving them too much credit :) Signage on city streets is probably near the bottom of things they care about, somewhere between submitting TPS reports and maintaining abandoned bridges. It wouldn't surprise me if it's de facto up to whoever's drawing up the plans. --NE2 16:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what do we put on the article? Maybe say it's signed out to Granville and managed by the BC MOT in the sections in red? I can't say I have much to add at this point. The facts have pretty much been laid out, and it doesn't look like we're going to get any further than we already have. It took a few pages, but at least you know where I'm coming from now, Emarsee. No hard feelings. 174.6.228.216 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, just the facts - it's maintained by the province to Foo but signage continues to Bar. For the infobox, which can't really deal in shades of gray, you'll want to use the length_notes parameter if you add a length. --NE2 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside view 

message: Hi hi.
I have access to Highway General circulars and looking at a 1968 circular, it says that Highway 7 ended at Kingsway. I can confirm that this was the case until 1991 based on a circular from that year.
Here is a link to a screenshot from the circular (Imgur) https://imgur.com/a/Qu9FN7K
To sum, it says: "From junction of Kingsway and Broadway in Vancouver via Broadway, Burnaby, Essondale, Port Coquitlam, Haney, Mission City, Agassiz to Ruby Creek."
Cheers Allthecows (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highway 7 End(ed) at Kingsway, not in Vancouver