Talk:County routes in New Jersey

message: Hello all, I have added a seal image to the article. However the colors do look a bit off and I have no idea what typeface NJDOT uses on these signs, so please let me know what I should do to improve this! However I have checked measurements and text positions against a photo of an actual seal taken by User:Route 82. Thanks! lensovet 07:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seal image 

message: The orads listed in the original version of this article are in the format of County Route 632 (New Jersey). This works great for the List of 500-series county routes in New Jersey, but will it work for the 600's? The 500's are all uniquely assigned, but is that the case for the 600's? Is it possible that the same number is used in different counties for different roads? Alansohn 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are duplicated. I'd also recommend one article per county, with only main routes getting their own articles. --SPUI (T - C) 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm talking about something like . Now for Indiana's State Roads this is just too big, but for a county (something like list of County Routes in Monmouth County, New Jersey) it should be fine for all but the most major routes. --SPUI (T - C) 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the link your provide has anything to do with this, since this page, from the outset, only has links to highway pages...lensovet 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I now do see what you're talking about but I really don't see any argument for such a system. If you look at our 500-series page, it's a list of links, and that makes way more sense. Among other things, it allows you to link directly to the streets from other articles. lensovet 04:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming convention for 600-series

message: If this is supposed to be a "List of 600-series county routes in New Jersey, why is County Route 3 in Monmouth County included? -- Northenglish 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because The selection of this range was coordinated within the state[citation needed], gradually replacing older systems of mainly one- and two-digit routes[1]. Only two counties – Bergen County[2] and Monmouth County[3] – have not adopted 600-series numbers. However, the "class" of route/highway is the same lensovet 21:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "class" is this?  If this class has an actual name, then that should be used as the article title instead.  Since Monmouth County has not adopted 600-series numbers, it does not have 600-series routes to include on this list. -- Northenglish 21:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The class is "secondary county highways". See the HTML comment I just stuck on the top of the article lensovet 23:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is either "secondary county highway" or "600-series route" an offical NJDOT term?  Unless 600-series route is an official term that obviously includes Monmouth County routes, I stand by my claim that they should not be on this list. -- Northenglish 23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are Monmouth County routes included? 

message: Another user (HurricaneCraze32) had started a list of "600-series" routes on another page, which I have merged into this one.  Unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to take care of the clean-up to make the formatting consistent with the rest of the list.  If someone else, perhaps HurricaneCraze32 him/herself, could take care of it, that'd be great; otherwise I'll do it later tonight. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 20:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished the list of Middlesex County.I included 700,701,702 and 807.HurricaneCraze32 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: Sad but true fact: Every county route article we have is a stub (with the possible exception of CR 549).
Sad but true fact #2: Deletionists at AfD are already on us calling articles on every single state route article "crufty", although they are never successful.  They might see a higher hit rate on county route articles.
Happy and true fact: This article is larger than the 30kb article size guideline.
Sad but true opinion: I don't see much potential for these articles to get beyond stub status.
Proposed solution: Let's merge the articles so that we have one article for each county, plus one for the 500-series routes.  At present, this would mean just the 500-series routes and Middlesex County would be split off from this article and those routes that do have their own articles merged together in new articles.  Other county routes that have their own articles would be merged into this article until we get more information on the other routes in those counties.
All right, please discuss this.  If you hate it, let me know.  If I didn't make any sense, let me know.  If you love the proposal, let me know. -- NORTH talk 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting ideas. I don't hate it at all, and it makes perfect sense. However, I'd have to say no to the "merge articles together" idea. This is a definite no for the 500-series; that article would get way too unwieldy. At this point, the same can't be said about the 600-series, but that's simply because there aren't that many of them. Dunno. there's my 2 cents. lensovet 05:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't object to the proposal, but doesn't this put us back to where we were before this article was created, with a 500-series article and one for each county? Besides "cruft" means anything a deletionist is not interested in. Alansohn 11:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a lot more annoying to do it that way - see the history of list of Indiana numbered highways. Any deletionism should be satisfied by the fact that the state coordinates the 500-series numbers, as with California's letter-number routes. --SPUI (T - C) 17:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But as I see it, most of the annoyance regarding Indiana comes from people splitting articles off when there's still only a single paragraph about the route, no?  If we resolved not to split the articles off until there was something substantial, wouldn't that solve some of the annoyance? -- NORTH talk 20:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - the annoyance was with the articles all being together - there are still a number of links like State Road 2. --SPUI (T - C) 03:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would not object. --SPUI (T - C) 22:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds reasonable, esp since there aren't that many articles to deal with. heh...i guess i can't say anything in objection...lame. —lensovet–talk – 01:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mainly-i got a picture of CR 676 on camera, except at 15, i cant figure out how to upload a picture onto my computer.HurricaneCraze32-01:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another proposal 

message: I think County Route 615 North in Middlesex County ends at Pine Avenue, Stevens Avenue is more north.
Nextbarker 04:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 615 in South Amboy 

message: Signage is almost entirely divorced from the contents of the SLD's, at least in the New Brunswick area. Granted that NJ 18, NJ 27 and US 1 are clean, a whole lot of the rest of it is just crazy:
*NJ Route 171: unsigned throughout New Brunswick—except for one overhead street sign at its terminus (George & Albany Sts.)
*CR 527: unsigned from the beginning of the duplex with Route 18 in East Brunswick all the way to the intersection of French St. and Easton Ave. What's more ...
*CR 672: SLD shows it running along George St. from Albany St. (NJ 27) up to Landing Lane. But ... to the extent that George St. is marked with anything from Albany St. down to Commercial Ave., it's with CR 672 shields. And it's not marked with either NJ 171 shields or CR 527 shields, which would both be right according to the SLD.
*Similarly: Livingston Ave. is signed as CR 691 past Suydam St. (where it's supposed to end) all the way down to George St., even though that is supposed to be NJ 171.
In short, it's all a mess. Now, I figure this is probably because there is a mishmash of who is responsible for maintenance of what throughout New Brunswick. But I don't quite know how one should handle this. I'm inclined to state in the appropriate articles when routes are unsigned (so that someone following along doesn't get confused). But what do you do when the signage and the "official" inventory don't match? StevenJ81 (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we do when signage doesn't match the SLD? 

message: what significant independent coverage are you seeing which establish notability? None are currently used on the page, would you care to name three? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability