Talk:Expressway (limited-access road)

message: The problem with expressways is that the word is formally defined as essentially a kind of super-arterial road at the federal level in the U.S. but is defined as a freeway-like road in many U.S. states as well as several countries.  Arterial road should not be cluttered up with all this confusion when this article already serves the purpose of explaining what the hell is going on.  --Coolcaesar 00:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It kind of is already. However the information above the disambig part of the page is actually useful and wouldn't fit IMO in the arterial article. Perhaps it could be moved or merged elsewhere possibly a new article? JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 22:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I oppose the merge 

message: Im sick of this user. I have seen many of the articles he or she has edited and it's all biased information. Half of this article is about California, which coolcaeser added. un-responsible and an un-mature user. Please re read the Wikipedia policy Cool.
:I am reverting your edit because deleting my comments constitutes vandalism and acting in bad faith.  Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism, particularly the paragraph entitled "Talk page vandalism."  If you disagree with my points, you should say why, rather than summarily deleting them.
:Furthermore, the words you are looking for are "irresponsible" and "immature."  Also, you left an apostrophe out of "I'm" and you forgot to elide "reread" into one word.  I've left my opinion of your writing ability at User talk:Decimal10.  
:Finally, you failed to counter my argument, which is that we should consolidate all general freeway-related information into Freeway, the more specific term, so that this article then becomes a general pointer to both arterial road and freeway.  User:SPUI agrees with my position although he has taken it much farther recently by merging material on freeways around the world into freeway.  I suggest you consider cutting out the ad hominem attacks and start focusing on real issues. --Coolcaesar 07:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coolcaeser 

message: For what it's worth, in the greater New York region, virtually all named, controlled-access highways that are not "Parkways" are "Expressways." (Cross-Bronx Expressway, Long Island Expressway, Deegan Expressway, etc. ...even the Atlantic City Expressway, which is of course more in the Philadelphia region, where "expressway" is similarly common). Let's not forget the  John F. Fitzgerald Expressway in Boston, or the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago, just off the top of my head. In short, I think this article is rather narrow in its scope, since "Expressway" is the preferred term to "Freeway" for describing the same type of road in much of the US, and is considered an interchangeable, if less-used, term in other areas. The type of arterial "expressway" described here seems to be a use of the term peculiar to California.--Mjj237 21:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Types of road (primarily researched by me), which explains the situation with the MUTCD and the five other states that share California's terminology.  Also, all professionally trained American civil engineers use MUTCD terminology.  --Coolcaesar 01:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expwy v. Freeway 

message: See the months-long discussions at Talk:Freeway and Talk:Types of road if you're wondering what I'm doing with the article this weekend. --Coolcaesar 23:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am doing the revisions right now.  Too much lawyer work in the past week.--Coolcaesar 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still too much lawyer work (preparing for and taking depositions is VERY time-consuming).  Anyway I saved a local text copy.  I will edit this when I have the spare time (probably on the road) and come back and upload it later.  --Coolcaesar 17:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally got around to the rewrite and it is going to the Wikipedia server in 2 minutes.  If you have an issue with the rewrite, take it up here. --Coolcaesar 11:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's getting better.  It needs to read a little less like a legal document, but that polish should come now the framework seems to work! Nfitz 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning this up 

message: Why do these need to be merged?  Dual carriageway is generic while Expressway has certain legal definitions.  If this were merged, then all divided highways would also need to be merged.  Maybe a better question is does dual carriageway better fit into one of the other articles?  Vegaswikian 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *OpposeI agree, although some similarities exist, they are very different articles and shouldn't be merged. --TFoxton 23:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose - I also agree. It looks like the user proposing the merge is a non-native speaker of English and does not understand the subtle differences between expressway and divided highway.  Namely, that divided highway is a broad category that can cover roads of any size with a center divider, while expressway is a subset of that definition with a very complex legal and technical meaning. --Coolcaesar 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose - There us loads of details on how Epressways and Dual Carriageways are diffrent. The whole merge idea must have been proposed by someone with little knowledge of roads and definitions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevilledad (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * Oppose: A dual carriageway is any highway with a depressed central reservation or guide-rail or some other sort of barrier between highway lanes. It may or may not be one or more lanes in each direction. An expressway is a partially-controlled access highway that has is a dual carriageway, and may not be multi-laned as well. There is a difference in general operating definition between both terms.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose: they are different and merging would be a very bad idea. Dual carriageway is also used in countries where expressway is not, eg the UK. -- roundhouse0 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose: per above. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose per all the above arguments. Very different things. DWaterson 16:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Added some links and tweaked the intro to make things hopefully clearer. – gpvos (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested merge to Dual carriageway 

message: CIA world factbook seems to use the word 'Expressway' to refer only to freeways with full control of access. I did not do extensive research but here are some pointers:
URL: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
Section: Transportation; Heading: Roadways
There is a mention of only 75,040 km of expressways in US. Perhaps that is 2007 data. I think this number too small to consider all expressways. It seems this is the length of freeways only.
A more pronounced example is https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html. Though there are very few highways in India and the access is not very restricted, but for 2006 the number exactly matches the length of freeways; the expressways were many more.
Someone should research this in more detail and if found correct make a mention somewhere in the article about this difference in nomenclature. Or the expressway disambiguation page should take to articles on both limited access roads and completely restricted access highways.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by VinnieCool (talk • contribs) 06:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More confusion on nomenclature 

message: I just reverted, for the second time, some really bizarre edits by User:By78, who clearly has not read the actual Expressway article and does not understand the difference between freeways and expressways (the latter can have driveways and at-grade intersections).  The figure from the CIA Factbook for about 75,010 km of expressways roughly corresponds to the length of the Interstate Highway System.  However, the Interstate Highway System does not include many expressways as defined under the MUTCD, which should make for a much longer length for the U.S. expressway system.  For example, large parts of U.S. Highway 101 on the Central Coast of California are built to expressway standards.  Other notable examples of expressways I can think of off the top of my head include California State Routes 17 and 152, Massachusetts State Route 9, and some segments of U.S. Highway 1 in New Jersey.  --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see.  I concur with your assessment.  See, by discussing technical details pertaining to the article, you get more done than heaping insults on your fellow editors ;)  However, I am removing India from the list, as the length of her so-called expressways are too small.By78 (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange edits by User:By78 

message: I for one believe that expressways exist as a sort of business class between freeways/motorways and highways. I merged Autostrasse into here because it was clear that a German word not used in Germany was inappropriate to describe a type of road with many names in many countries. There is still a problem that Expressway as used in English in China, Japan and India seems to mean Freeway. Please keep this page, but consider changing the name Nankai (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Expressway in American English is not the same as a freeway.  This distinction is blurred since some freeways have a formal name of expressway. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold

message: An image used in this article, , has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Unfree Flickr license: http://flickr.com/photos/23545908@N07/4111485131 is licensed under All Rights Reserved
;What should I do?
You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:SLEX.jpg Deleted

message: An image used in this article, , has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Unfree Flickr license: http://flickr.com/photos/31647253@N02/4859650160 is licensed under All Rights Reserved
;What should I do?
You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:NLEX.jpg Deleted

message: An image used in this article, , has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Túrelio for the following reason: Unfree Flickr license: http://flickr.com/photos/35235547@N08/3895710465 is licensed under All Rights Reserved
;What should I do?
You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:NLE3.jpg Deleted