Talk:Exit number

message: This seems rather POV against the system. I don't feel like working with it but someone else may want to. --SPUI 03:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: Taiwan's freeway #1 switched from kilometer numbered exits to sequential for some reason.
* In 2004, the freeway authorities decided to end their experiement with sequential exits on the #1 freeway and reverted back to the kilometer numbered exits. Allentchang 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan regress 

message: I removed the reference to the southern part of the M4 in Durban having sequential numbering as maps reveal this is not the case. The first exits south of the city centre are are numbered 1, 2, 4. The confusion seems to arise because most are roughly one kilometre apart and so appear to have sequential numbers, but several urban South African freeways are similar in this way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  M4 Durban 

message: "A number of European countries (including the Netherlands, Belgium and France) do not number motorway intersections, apparently because one cannot "exit" the motorway there."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.112.66 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Not sure what this means

message: One of the listed "disadvantages" of distance-based is ""Suffixes are required when the same mile of highway contains multiple exits". Previously there was a refutation of such as a disadvantage, "for calculation purposes, suffixed exits in a distance-based system can be approximated by using the number without a suffix", which was removed.
Similarly, another "disadvantage" is "Businesses and motorists have to adapt to the changes, and it costs money to replace the signs (as well as for temporary "old exit" tabs to ease the transition)." This was refuted with "these are general disadvantages to any change in a highway system" and "these disadvantages do not apply when a new road is built and marked with distance-based numbers from the start" which were also removed.
Finally, someone replaced speculation with other speculation, regarding the Atlantic City-Brigantine connector. Currently the speculation is that NJ didn't want to deal with many suffixed exits, while previously the speculation was that NJ didn't want to renumber the ACE (since the AC-B is an extension from the zero point of the ACE). I think neither speculation is appropriate on WP.
--162.239.236.97 (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is removing important points 

message: The section listing disadvantages of distance based exits says that on I-70 in Kansas City "there are 23 exits in the same mile, numbered 2A through 2Y", which is incorrect.  The actual exit numbers on I-70 are 2A thru 2M, and they extend over somewhat more than 2 miles.  Exits 2N thru 2Y do exist, but they are on different highways (I-35 and I-670).  Since this number scheme covers multiple highways over a distance of several miles, it can't really be used as an example of distance based numbering.  Unless someone has a good reason for keeping it, I will remove this example from the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.220.37 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; the KC example is faulty / misleading. Since you didn't remove it, or someone restored it, I'll remove it now. Ebow (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  error in "extreme example" of distance based exits