Talk:Lombard Street (San Francisco)

message: it should be noted:
a] vermont street between 20th and 22nd is the other street in sf that's like lombard, but never receives any tourists because it's somewhat off the beaten path.
b] vermost is steeper than lombard, but i'm pretty sure that there are even steeper streets, e.g. 22nd street betweeen church and dolores, which has no switchbacks but is one-way downhill and has stairs in place of sidewalks. (on the other hand, i may be confusing degrees with slope percent.  22nd street is said to have a 31% slope while lombard is said in this article to have a 27 degree slope, which corresponds to a 51% slope -- tan(27 degrees) = 0.51.  but the article writers may have it wrong, and lombard may have a 27% slope, not a 27 degree slope.
update: i think both may be correct.  this page:  notes that said 22nd street stretch is indeed the steepest street at 31.5% (actually going from church to vicksburg, which is half-way to dolores; evidently the street gets a bit less steep after that), which is in fact tied with filbert between hyde and leavenworth (also 31.5%).  after that is jones between union and filbert (29%), the steepest street you can drive up.  evidently the lombard curves themselves aren't as steep as the non-curved streets previously mentioned, even if the hill itself is steeper. (and yes, there are hills even steeper, up to and including a sheer vertical cliff face, but they have only stairways on them, e.g. the bottom 100 steps of the filbert steps, which are some 330 or so all told.  another interesting case is driving west on army street through noe valley; past sanchez the road turns sharply up, and your car staggers to the intersection with noe, and if you look around, you can see where the road continues -- 30 or 40 feet directly above you! (with a staircase "conveniently" connecting the two parts.  too bad you can't throw your car over your back and just haul it up ...))
Benwing 09:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not steepest street! 

message: I saw on a blog recently (can't remember where) that the BYOBW race could not be held on Lombard Street in 2008 - I don't know why, or whether it's a permanent thing. 86.136.251.18 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring Your Own Big Wheel - moving? 

message: I removed the entire trivia section, explaining why each entry doesn't belong in the edit comment.  The fact that none of the entries were sourced, and likely never to become sourced, contributed to their demise. EAE (Holla!) 07:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I must support, however, the reappearance of the Cosby skit. It's worth seeing on its own, and it is inherently sourced, to the CD named. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  trivia section 

message: The reason for building the street, the way it was needs to be sourced.  The writer explains that the road was built in this way because, its 27% grade was too steep for vehicles to climb, and the 16% grade of the current make-up is more reasonable. However in the next sentence the writer states that Lombard St. is a One Way Street for eastbound, (downhill) traffic only.  Knowing this is the case the reason explained for building the street makes no sence.  So the reason it was built should be fact checked and sourced.--Subman758 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a single block of Lombard Street that was built this way, probably at a time when cars like Model T's didn't have the horsepower to ascend such a hill. Hence it's downhill-only, and a single lane. The rest of Lombard Street is normal 2-lane. Does that clarify? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: It needs to say somthing about the other streets that also claim to have the crookedest street in the world, like Snake Alley in Burlington, Iowa. Or Vermont Street in San Francisco (Hawkeyefan490 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Streets 

message: I can not find any part of Lombard Street in either Bullitt (1968) or The Love Bug (1969).  Not only does it not feature prominently.  It is in neither movie.  If I am wrong please cite the time it is shown from the beginning of the movie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AjiSabaki (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: -- œ™ 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

text: In the future, when you come across information in a Wikipedia article that you can not verify, in addition to mentioning it on the article's talk page (as you have correctly done) you also have the option of flagging the offending text with the  tag, or, if it's potentially harmful or controversial information, you can remove it entirely yourself, stating your reasoning in the edit summary. -- œ™ 04:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lombard can not be seen in either Bullitt or The Love Bug. 

message: A number on a U.S. diamond warning sign usually indicates a recommended safe speed (but not necessarily a legal limit) in miles per hour.  Hence the 5 on the pictured sign indicates a speed of 5 mph, not the number of switchbacks (there are eight).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.209.241 (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  warning sign 

message: Isn't it better to have a "popular culture" section in the article to mention the films, music videos, video games or books that feature this street?
For example, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Ant-Man and the Wasp. Aminabzz (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: I could be wrong but Cars in the 1930 era had a turning radius of about 10 or so metres, so by the look of the sharpness of Lombard’s switchback corners. The cars of the era it was supposedly made probably couldn’t even make the turns. 2001:8003:ED73:BF00:A572:E4FC:BD9C:96B0 (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can’t see a 1935 car making the turns