Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists/Archive 3

message: This was never really discussed at any point and, if it was, no consensus was ever reached. The edits in question are here and here, where rest areas and parking areas are added to the exit list. My stance is that this is an exit list and rest areas and the like are not exits, and therefore have no place in the table. Thoughts? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say only on things like Turnpikes should service plazas be mentioned (since it could be 30 miles between exits and it'd be good to know when there's fuel or something).  But that's my stance.  If so, only on Turnpikes would I accept these. --MPD T / C 00:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not an exit per se... but it fits with the concept of a guide. I'd keep them in there. Finding out where they all are is another project entirely. —Rob (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MPD (Yes service areas, no other stuff).  Rest areas would be okay (but not preferred), but I really don't see the point of listing a parking lot on the side of the road, even if it does offer a great view. -- NORTH talk 07:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose service areas can be included, but, like I said above, I don't think structures that aren't directly on the road (i.e. a toll barrier, a bridge or a tunnel) should be included on an exit list (a title that I read as "list of exits"). The lists on Wikipedia are not meant to be a "guide" like exit lists are on some roadfan sites. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. For that reason, I stand by my comments above. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% with you TMF – that it's an exit list, not a guide.  It's just that for reasons I can't put into words, I think service plazas fall into the same category as toll barriers. -- NORTH talk 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rest areas and service areas 

message: Please see Talk:List of exits on Interstate 5 for a discussion on the use of service signs (for example: ) in exit lists. -- NORTH talk 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Services? 

message: See Talk:Tilghman Street and Union Boulevard#Junction list. --NE2 00:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Junction lists and exit lists are two completely separate things.  Projects do not override exit lists, but there is no set standard on junction lists.  This guideline will not be the standard for junction lists.  Also, this has already been discussed at the last IRC meeting and at other informal chats on the channel. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 00:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we not format exit and junction lists similarly? --NE2 00:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are two different things.  We should format them similarly, for example the column names should.  However, the output needs to be different.  Exit lists contain grade-separated interchanges, while junction lists contain at-grade intersections.  We've agreed to no colours on exit lists, but not junction lists. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路) 01:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, exit lists are different than junction lists.--JA10 T · C 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (double ec) You're using circular logic.  You're saying that they shouldn't be formatted similarly because they need to be different.  I don't see why the garde-separation needs a significantly different output, and even if we agree on colors for the junction list, we can do those fine with regular table syntax (i.e. New Jersey Route 33). -- NORTH talk 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do projects override this? 

message: Since it has been moved out of the USRD project space, combined with the recent change indicating it applies to highways around the world, I think it is appropriate to discuss more widely the standards. Because different countries do things differently, there needs to be a rewriting of the guide to use more generic terms, and also a relaxing of the guideline itself. I'm opening the discussion here to see what others think about how to re-write this for worldwide applicability, or if it should be explcitly stated that this guideline applies only to the U.S.
Currently, we have columns requiring "County", "Location", "Mile", "Exit number", "Destinations", and "Notes". There is also a note about breaking up the list by state. Now, many countries do not have an intermediate administrative subdivision similar to county and that needs to go. County and location are essentially indicating where the exit/junction and can, in principle, be combined as just "Location". The U.S. situation will then be just a special case. "Mile", obviously, will become "km" in many countries. This might even be labeled "Distance from terminus" or something similar. "Exit number" is generally just a label for an exit. Some countries use "Interchange name" or "Exit name" instead of using an exit number. Some have both a name and a number. "Destinations" goes by what signage indicates so that is ok. "Notes" is also ok. 
In short, my opiniion is that the required columns should be: (1) Physical location of exit; (2) Distance of exit from some reasonable point (the milepost or kilometerpost); (3) Name of exit (usually the exit number in the U.S.); (4) Destinations (as indicated by signage); (5) Notes. Any reasonable variation, including using a separate County column for the location, or using a different label for "Location" such as "Municipality", should be deemed as within the guideline.
The section on "State highway link appearance" obviously does not apply worldwide and needs to be removed or changed. Finally, we would need examples from different countries, not just from the U.S. Also, breaking up by states (or primary country subdivisions) might not always be useful for other countries as many expressways outside the U.S. are administered nationally or by a single private corporation, even if they span multiple states/provinces/etc. 
Comments are appreciated. --Polaron | Talk 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally like this modification.  In terms of county, there's already a deviation of that in Louisiana; they use Parish instead of County.  Still good nonetheless. ([ →]vishwin60 - new age roads) 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, the guideline for settlements has a section by country for differences.  Maybe a simple solution for the table layout would be to have one for three levels of government like the US.  One for two levels and one for a single level (Singapore?).  Miles vs km should be easy to specify.  The exit # could be presented as a list of possible options based on local usage stating that all uses in a single country should use the same format.  You could even offer a table by country the lists the options used by country.  Vegaswikian 17:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No problems with that assessment. One comment, the "state highway link", even if not kept as a section, needs to be kept in some form for the U.S. section of the guide. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The county column is already optional if the road is located in only one county, the same would hold true for highways around the world, if there is not a smaller political subdivision, then the column should be omitted.  --Holderca1 21:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  worldwide applicability 

message: (I'm moving this from WT:USRD. --NE2 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I was able to do the actual length for Interstate 70 in Colorado; it differs by 0.077 miles overall from the mileposts (though it's a bit more off in the middle). Now I'm working on U.S. Route 6 in Colorado and got stuck, since the I-70 list doesn't show the mileage for where US 6 leaves. Unless someone has a way to avoid this, I'm going to use the milepost-based mileage, and recommend that others do so for everything but Interstates and possibly other freeways. --NE2 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about lengths 

message: It says exclude places where 2 interstates cross without interchange. What if they are connectable via a third road, for instance Interstate 87 and Intestate 84 are accesable from eachother via NY 300. How would that (or a similar example) be noted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyshoe (talk • contribs) 
:That really depends on signage, especially if the signage indicates a junction and doesn't say "To" then they should definitely be listed. If the intersecting road does not appear anywhere in signage, it should not be listed. --Polaron | Talk 13:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I-587 should be listed on the Thruway exit list, probably in parentheses because it's not signed from the Thruway. --NE2 17:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I put that on the notes if it's not on the signage. If it is, it gets a mention as part of the destination. —Rob (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: After flipping through the PA 39 FAC and by driving around the various highways of China, I'm beginning to see a need for kilometre posts on exit and junction lists.  Even though USRD's intended audience is U.S. readers and Chinese road articles are intended for Chinese/Asian readers, we also need to think out of the box for our international readers as well.
If this stuff were to be implemented, I suggest having an orientation where it's like an exit list that has both old and new exit numbers (Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania is a good example), only that the text "Old" and "New" are to be replaced with "mi" and "km".  Subsequent rows would have the mile and kilometre posts in different columns, with handsfree conversion handled in a template.  Comments? ([ →]O - RLY?) 03:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that's helpful if I were to be driving the road (unless it's one of those few roads signed in kms or in both mi and km).  If I'm reading an article on a foreign road, I don't see the need for km posts.  I don't know, I'm apprehensive about it and just don't see a true reason.  --MPD T / C 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Interstate 19 master sonT - C 04:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed with MPD, it doesn't seem right to put 'km' posts on roadways that don't have them in reality. It's the same logic that would prevent me from adding miles to a metric exit list. The only conceivable use I can see for this is WP:FA, as the FA folks tend to like these kind of obscure items. But for the average state highway that will never reach recognized status, this is a bit extraneous. If every article had a compliant exit list, I'd give this idea more thought, but since we are far from that day, I'd rather bring lists up to standards than spend time adding these measurements to already compliant articles. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the average user (editor) of USRD may not think that km posts may be necessary, but Wikipedia is looked at and used globally, not just in the U.S.  That means that we have no idea if international readers will read/use our articles, regardless of quality.  Furthermore, we also have no idea if somebody prefers either mile or kilometre distances, so in order to make Wikipedia as usuable as possible, kilometre posts should be included.  Our infoboxes already contain a mile and kilometre distance, so why not junction/exit lists?  As for bringing exit/junction lists up to standards, it can incorporate this. ([ →]O - RLY?) 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But will anyone be willing to make these "upgrades" to hundreds and, literally, thousands of articles? That is the better question. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over time, yes to exit lists.  Upgrades to junction lists that already utilize  and its sister and child templates () will appear in an instant, because they will automatically utitize the conversion template. ([ →]O - RLY?) 07:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'll answer my own question - based on the reaction below, on IRC, and my personal feeling, the answer seems to be no. Of course, you can do this if you feel it's necessary, but I'd never do this on an article. I'm more worried about getting articles to standards than something extraneous like this. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As an addendum, here's a thought I had last night. If I was a Canadian looking at an American road article, knowing that the U.S. uses the imperial system, I wouldn't expect to see distances in kilometers except for the overall length, as distances in kilometers in the U.S. do not serve any purpose. Likewise, as an American looking at a Canadian road article, knowing that Canada uses metric, I wouldn't expect to see mileposts for any distance but, again, the overall length, as distances in miles in Canada do not serve any purpose. And the same thing applies to every other metric country out there. I also take offense to you calling my stance a "walled garden" mentality just because I don't agree with this idea - I'm disagreeing because I think it's a bad idea. Nothing more. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly the point I was trying to make.  If I go to China, what good do I get out of having the distances between interchanges in miles, none.  I would either need a car that has an odometer based in miles, or a GPS to use those distances.  --Holderca1 19:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There are way too many numbers.  If e do do this, we need to put the exit numbers first.  It wasn't too bad when the two numbers were generally similar, but we should re-order the numbers.  New exit no., old exit no., mile, km IMO. --MPD T / C 11:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Us road editors may not find them useful, but we really need to think about everyone else, since we are not writing these articles for ourselves or roadgeeks.  We are an encyclopedia, and to that end, we should provide as much accurate information as possible for all readers.  How come we include the km distance in  as well as mi?  And even more, why are you guys discussing in such a walled garden state?  This is why I am requesting wider input from the community at large, because this issue isn't really for us to decide. ([ →]O - RLY?) 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please reread my comment, specifically the part where I said I wouldn't find mileposts for an overseas road useful.  --Holderca1 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If I-19 is dropping the metric numbers why even consider adding this information there?  Vegaswikian 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It will years before ADOT changes the numbers, the only portions that have been changed are where construction projects are.  They both should be listed since the exit numbers are based on km.  --Holderca1 19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just added the mile and km to the I-19 exit list.  I think this is the best way to handle this.  --Holderca1 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Modifications to  are starting to sound more and more useful to this cause... —Rob (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't use , there isn't an option to not list the units, which would be extremely redundant through everyline of the exit list.  Also, due to the complexity of the template you are going to ping out your template limits rather quickly.  Especially is you are using some of the other templates in exit/junction lists.  --Holderca1 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  would be a much better option if we go the template route (much simpler), I can work with it to leave the units off as well.  --Holderca1 18:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I took that a step further and created template limit friendly , the output is miles (km) with no units listed.  --Holderca1 19:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find it funny when a U.S. road exit has a metric unit (and international road exits have an imperial unit). It's like saying you want to get off the the highway on exit 10 mi, so you write down on your direction sheet "get off the highway on exit 6.2137 km". It's just absurb. But if you are stating the overall length of the road/highway, then it's useful to have both units. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it seems that everywhere else on Wikipedia, editors provide the SI unit for the corresponding Imperial unit. Which makes it convention, if not common courtesy. —Rob (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't think anywhere else has this specific situation.  We give the conversion for the entire length, but what use is it to give the conversion for a mile based exit number?  I don't think anywhere has this specific issue, so convention exists.  --Holderca1 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the mile-based exit number, I can understand. But for the milepost, we can provide a conversion. —Rob (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No, with the exception of the roads like Interstate 19. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say I-19 was going to be the an exception to this.  Delaware Route 1 could possibly be another exception since it uses kilometre-based exit numbers.  The exception(s) should be noted if this is agreed to. ([ →]O - RLY?) 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Hawaii state highways list kms, too.  Of course, the only limited-access highways are Interstates.  But for junction lists, they'd be used.  If they actively use them, it's perfectly fine to list them, too.  I do have a comment on I-19 though, I'll be on IRC in a few to discuss that and then post it here. --MPD T / C 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kilometre posts 

message: FA criteria requires that everything be compliant with standards.  So from this discussion here, I'm seeing that we should add a bit to the current guideline that says that only the official units used in the country for which the route lies in should be displayed (U.S. would be miles, China uses kilometres).  Any objections? ([ →]O - RLY?) 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, with the exception of the roads like Interstate 19. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say I-19 was going to be the an exception to this.  Delaware Route 1 could possibly be another exception since it uses kilometre-based exit numbers.  The exception(s) should be noted if this is agreed to. ([ →]O - RLY?) 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Hawaii state highways list kms, too.  Of course, the only limited-access highways are Interstates.  But for junction lists, they'd be used.  If they actively use them, it's perfectly fine to list them, too.  I do have a comment on I-19 though, I'll be on IRC in a few to discuss that and then post it here. --MPD T / C 02:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New: Require one unit only

message: OK, I was under the impression (from the Archived discussions and from a discussion on Interstate 4 yesterday when I made changes to the exit list) that directionals are definitely a no-no.  However, GA's like Interstate 95 in Pennsylvania, Schuylkill Expressway, and Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) all have not only directionals, but "To" signs as well listed above the shields.  Once and for all, what is the correct procedure.  I think everyone's really confused as to what's right and what's wrong with these, myself included, and I want to make sure everything's as seamless as possible.  Personally, I think they belong because they appear on BGS at times (so does , but we all know how people feel about that one), but that's just me.  What's the rule? EaglesFanInTampa 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline is pretty clear: Directional exits should be formatted in the following pattern: "(road shield) (link to road article) (direction)". Example:  NY 252 east.  Those articles you listed need to be corrected to conform to the guideline.  Also, the exit lists are not meant to replicate exit signs since we are building an encyclopedia and not a travel guide.  --Holderca1 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "To" signs are acceptable, though, based on prior discussions. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It makes sense from a legibility perspective. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directional clarification 

message: What do you think of this anon ip's addition to the exit list of Interstate 580 (California)? The anon ip is referring to the left exit from the HOV lane from eastbound I-580 to westbound Interstate 80. However, the exit list on the article also has the primary exit from East I-580 to West I-80. My only concern is that if this addition is kept, we might as well add all of the similar, seperate exits from the HOV-lanes; all the seperate exits from each truck-only lanes, and list each individual exit from both the local and express lanes like the ones on Interstate 80 in New Jersey. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At what point does the level of detail cross over into a travel guide?  Vegaswikian 08:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question.  If we do this, then yeah we would have to do exits from local and express lanes, including HOV and such to mainline roads, and all that.  Then it comes into a whole nother realm.  I think we'd have to make a different exit list, but then we have to add the express lane exits, and more and more questions are asked.  I really don't know how to go about this.  --MPD T / C 11:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do these have separate exit numbers?  --Holderca1 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Virginia State Route 267 (express-local roads) does not, Interstate 270 (Maryland) (express-local) does not, and I-95/Interstate 395 (Virginia) (HOV roadway) does not.  Google does not show exit numbers on Interstate 279 (HOV roadway) either.  Some, however, may.  Though I'd assume not. --MPD T / C 18:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think those separate exits need to be mentioned. My reasoning stems from three sources: (1) the fact that no such exit exists in upstate New York, (2) the reasoning above, and (3) these are specialized exits for the mainline, "normal" exits and listing them is a bit on the redundant side. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding seperate HOV exits in addition to the primary ones