Talk:List of state routes in Washington

message: I can't find an "official citation" I'll look for one later, but this shows up on a simple google search .
I have a few pics of beach "street signs" but they are too foggy to read, and plenty of pics of my car sitting on the beach, but that isn't a cite.  I'll find a WSDOT page later, because they used to have a good one about it. SchmuckyTheCat 08:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, a WSDOT reference would be better - the law says nothing about them being state highways, just public highways. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: public highway = state highway.  cite from ocean shores police dept . SchmuckyTheCat 19:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "(b) "Public highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel." "Public highway" means every street, road, or highway in this state. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beach driving

message: *The "eastern strip" of two-digit highways should start at U.S. 97, not the Columbia River.  SR 22 is entirely east of US 97 and west of the Columbia River, as is about half of SR 24.
*In the second paragraph of the "Numbering Pattern" section, I propose we use the phrase "child route" instead of spur route, in order to differentiate between (for example) SR 160 and SR 16 Spur.
*US 101 Alternate is a current route, not former/proposed.  It's a short route near Ilwaco, bypassing the section of 101 that runs west to Long Beach and back.
*SR 168 is listed under current routes when it is actually proposed (as is SR 704).
*I propose we list SRs 161, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168, and 169 as children of SR 410 (functionally SR 16) instead of directly children of SR 16, since none of them connect to SR 16 and they all connect to SR 410. Highways of Washington State follows this logic as well.
*SR 397 is listed as a child of US 95; it should be listed as a child of US 395.
Just some thoughts. -- Northenglish 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes for if we ever get this page unprotected. 

message: Do you guys feel like you are ready for unprotection or not? --Woohookitty(meow) 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not until a decision on naming convention has been made one way or the other, IMHO. -- Northenglish 13:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh that's ridiculous.  This page has been protected for weeks and weeks and weeks.  I'm unprotecting and if people start being naughty they'll just have to take the consequences. --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maturity is lacking from the people involved in the move war, and now the arbitrators and admins, too.  Why was it necessary to call me/what I said "ridiculous"?  I didn't change any of the links that were already there, except for one that mistakenly linked to State Route 410 (California).  I did, however, put my new links at Washington State Route 410 because that is where I humbly believe they should be.  The text of the article is not an issue because I piped them.  Why was this edit necessary?  To quote SPUI, redirects are cheap. -- Northenglish 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: SR 237 was originally numbered SR 537 when the segment of SR 20 west of the current junction with SR 536 was part of SR 536.  When the North Cascades Highway was completed, the western segment SR 536 was renumbered as an extension of SR 20, and SR 537 was renumbered to SR 237, as it no longer connected with a 5XX route, and did connect with SR 20.  The 3 was kept to minimize confusion. -- Northenglish 22:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Washington State Route 237|SR 237]] 

message: If you have an opinion on the changes proposed in the above two sections, please vote in the poll on WT:WASH. -- NORTH talk 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decision making time 

message: I don't get the section of bridges being part of the highway systems. Of course they are, right? And why list these obscure bridges instead of well-known ones such as Tacoma Narrows, Evergreen Point, Deception Pass or Squaw Creek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.220.63 (talk • contribs) 
:Agreed.  Deleted.  Travisl 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridges as highways