Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 9

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brockway Mountain Drive --NE2 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: You may want to look at Interstate 92 and East-West Highway (New England) and possibly comment at Talk:East-West Highway (New England). --NE2 00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Interstate 92" 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unconstructed freeways in Florida --NE2 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: See U.S. Route 67 in Illinois. —Rob (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine as long as it's something and there's no better map available (and it's accurate!).  See Interstate 40 in North Carolina.  It says we need a map; doesn't attest to the quality.  Although should a better map become available, it should be replaced. --MPD T / C 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's shamelessly swiped from :Image:US 67 map.png, so as long as that's accurate, no problems there. —Rob (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is any map better than none at all? 

message: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Infoboxes and Navigation#Browsing in multistate routes --NE2 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about browsing in infoboxes 

message: :See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shepard Road/Warner Road. —Scott5114↗ 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion № 4 

message: Is that really the best title of an article? Doesn't "contraflow" imply "revers[ed]"?
How about we merge the content from it, express lanes and the non-surface street part of reversible lane into a new reversible roadway (or similar) article?  It seems like they are all about the same idea--changing the direction of grade/barrier-separated travel lanes--and that there's a big difference between those and less-controlled/structured reversed lanes on surface streets, as well as passing and left-turn lanes.
Also, regarding express lanes, if there is only one express lane/roadway (its not part of a local-express lanes setup), its generally going to be reversible. Jason McHuff 09:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, contraflow lane reversal is the official name of it (see FDOT), especially referring to emergency reversal. Contraflow is generally temporary (though KDOT will use contraflow for about a year on a freeway while the other carriageway is torn out and replaced.)  Express lanes and reversible HOV lanes are permanent structures that serve a different purpose. —Scott5114↗ 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving discussion to Talk:Contraflow lane reversal Jason McHuff 05:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Contraflow lane reversal]] 

message: :See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Street. —Scott5114↗ 12:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion № 5 

message: G'day from Oz. I have been working in the aviation side of things fixing links to the Beechcraft King Air article, one of which is U-21 (a US Military designation for certain King Air models). U-21 is linked from the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Utah/Completion list. Looking at this list, the links for U-1, U-2 etc. are not to roads at all (U-2 is an obvious example); the majority of working links are to articles about German U-boats. Perhaps some of you who are active in this area can decide what to do with the list and fix it up a bit. YSSYguy 07:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a case for disambiguation. --NE2 07:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Utah/Completion list 

message: If anybody has any photos of the Cross Bronx Expressway, can you please upload them and add them to commons:Category:Cross Bronx Expressway? Thank you. --NE2 07:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo request: Cross Bronx Expressway 

message: If any other state has their data solely in GIS format and can only be read by ArcView or something similar (thanks, Illinois), I might be able to help things along by extracting all that data.
So far it's helped determine that U.S. 51 is the longest highway in Illinois, not U.S. 45. Whoops. 
The details are here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Lengths/Illinois. I'm absolutely certain each state's GIS data is different, but the process should be the same - run data file through a program that converts it to comma-separated values, then import into database of your choice. —Rob (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GIS data and data extraction for lengths 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadgeek --NE2 01:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: Hey, does anyone know how to connect to the IRC channel via Konversation (I'm switching over to Linux)?  --Son 06:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, until recently I used Konversation. Go to File → Server List, click New, for the name type Freenode, then under Servers click Add, and add irc.freenode.net. Then on the server list, highlight Freenode, and click Connect, and you should be connected. Another good Linux client is XChat. —Scott5114↗ 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC 

message: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter - have an individual page for each article like WP:POST? Or status quo? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion regarding newsletter format 

message: I've noticed that some editors are going through and rewording articles that use commissioned and decommissioned on the basis of neologisms. Are they really? I don't see how decommissioning a road has a different meaning from decommissioning a ship, military officer, internet server or whatever. I'm writing specifically on U.S. Route 91 where the sentence was changed from  The route has been largely decommissioned in favor of Interstate 15 to The route has been largely deleted in favor of Interstate 15. IMO deleted doesn't sound right, if there is a consensus I'd prefer to revert. Opinions?Davemeistermoab (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to here decommissioned discussion hope that helps Seddon69 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Wow, looks like a near cat-fight happened over there. Sometimes ignorance is bliss =-) I would argue that decommissioned is intentionally vague and that's the point.  Using my example above, decommissioning a ship also doesn't make it clear if the ship has been dismantled, retired from service, retired from its primary duty but still doing other duties, or ownership transferred to a lesser entity. But now that I know where the discussion is occurring I'll take it thereDavemeistermoab (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are commissioned and decommissioned neologisms? 

message: If you're not familiar with Uncyclopedia, and you're not in the mood for Wikipedia, you may want to check it out and help with the road content. I added Interstate 99, and would like to know if it's "funny and not just stupid", as they say there. --NE2 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I poked around the website a bit and was considering writing something on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, but it looks like that site has an even higher density of vandals than Wikipedia. - Algorerhythms (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncyclopedia 

message: :See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Subprojects#Tennessee. —Scott5114↗ 08:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TN WikiProject? 

message: Do we really need :Category:Unused highways lists and its members? --NE2 14:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good way to keep them organized.  I don't have a problem with it.  The article is good to have, but the category makes easier navagation.  --Son (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my concern is over whether we need all the articles. I've never been convinced of the point of listing all current and former ramp stubs and other unused highways. --NE2 17:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before splitting, the main article stood up to at least 2 or 3 AFDs.  Given the uniformity of the material presented, I'd have a hard time believing that New York's unused roads are more notable than North Carolina's.  Mbisanz (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we do go down the deletion route, we should contact a roadgeek site like AAHighways or Kurumi to see if they want it. It's interesting even if it's not encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia. —Scott5114↗ 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, addressing the usefulness issue, I could see someone Google Mapping some part of PA, wondering why there is a road in the middle of nowhere, and then coming here and finding it on the list.  The original page was too large and some parts like the UK, were written with an American-centric focus.  Once they were split into manageable sizes, it only seemed to make sense to categorize them, unless I'm missing something about categories.  Mbisanz (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: My personal preference would be to move the information to applicable articles on a single route then get rid of the lists. Compiling every former or unused roadway in a massive list is likely of little interest to anyone outside of roadgeeks, and is attempting to tie together roads that really aren't related. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh no... 

message: I want to do good work. I initiated an article that is up for deletion. I would not only like to see the article stick around but I would like to do a series of related article. Falls of Neuse Road is the article. I would like to do more articles on Roads/Streets/Highways in Raleigh, NC. Do you have any good advice on how I can improve the article, without it being deLeted first? Please assist. I asked some one on how to improve it and I ended up nominating the article for deletion. Any help is appreciated. Thanks Master Redyva (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this falls more under the purview of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets than here (this project focuses on major highways). But anyway: the reason that it is being nominated for deletion is that the topic may not be important enough for Wikipedia, and notability isn't asserted within the article. Basically, why should someone who lives in say, Yellowknife care about this street? And any article can be improved with good reliable references. I see you have some references all ready, but if you used <ref> syntax, that would improve the article. Unfortunately, this might not be enough to save the article, so for future work you might want to work on a broader scale.—Scott5114↗ 18:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the quick reply and I also thank you for the good advice. Muchísimas gracias. Master Redyva (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <b><span style="color:purple;"> CHECK IT OUT</span></b> 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes#Decomd type for the junction table. I know exactly why it exists (easy conversion from the old routeboxes), but is there any reason to still use it? The current road/designation can be listed in the road column and the former designation can be then be mentioned in the notes column, which is what is done on exit lists. I also wonder why "noaccess" was retained, as those aren't technically intersections, but that's a question for another day. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both should go IMHO. master sonT - C 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; we don't need this. (This isn't my anti-decommissioned voice speaking, since something like "former alignment" would work just as well.) --NE2 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decomd type in the junction table template 

message: I have created an account of the poll: Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Account. This is for those who wish to understand the issue but don't want to dig through all the pages to find the information. However, although I have tried to make it NPOV, I realize that it is not. Therefore, I am inviting those who were involved in SRNC (as a P1 or P2 supporter, or even as an observer, judging admin, ArbCom member at the time, what have you) to edit it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For those who remember SRNC 

message: I recently split the List of unused highways article into country specific articles.  However, the US list is still very very long.  How would be the best way to split it futher?  I'm thinking by state, but then there would be some very short articles.  Mbisanz (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could split off the longer states and leave the smaller states. - Algorerhythms (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Related to this, there are state-specific ways to identify highways, as I have learned.  My contention in the previous article was that they were to be limited to to state-specific pages.  Now that we have that for some of the states, I can get to work on making that accurate.  For the main, U.S. Unused Highway, article, should the state/county highways be also changed to the state-specific terminology even though the page is US-based?Bodo920 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seem to have noticed some lengthy discussions on State v. US highway stuff.  I'm not involved with this project other than splitting it, so please don't take anything I say as gospel truth.  I'd say that any changes you do make should attempt to conform to things like Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state and territory highways) (I didn't read them, so I hope they don't conflict).  Other than that, have fun editing.  It would great to see these pages expanded by people who know what their doing.  Mbisanz 03:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of unused highways in the United States]] 

message: This appears to be a legitimately proposed number, though it might be better at Mississippi Highway 601 or Canal Road Connector. It would be good to have more updated information before writing an article though. --NE2 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed I-310 in Mississippi 

message: I'm looking for a map from before 1933, but as late as possible, that shows whether US 99 still takes the dogleg into Visalia that it did in 1928. Thank you. --NE2 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like it. Sorry. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My parents have a U.S. Road Atlas from the 1930's (don't remember the exact year but I suspect it is after 1933). If you don't get a better offer, ping me closer to the holidays to remind me to scan the SoCal page while I'm visiting. Davemeistermoab 22:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anybody have a California map from about 1930? 

message: Okay... after the deal regarding "decommissioned", I need to know what "commissioned / formed / established" stands for. Currently, it is defined (in docs for ) as:
So are we looking for...
#The exact date the highway opened for the general public
#The time period during which the highway was under construction
#The exact date legislation passed authorizing the highway's construction
#The date (with varying degrees of specificity) construction started on the highway
Also, how are multiple opening dates handled? (Extensions to existing highways and the like.)
I took a shot at it on Interstate 355 using option #1, but wanted to bring it up here, too. (FWIW, the dates for I-355 are 12/25/1989, 1987-1989, sometime in 1985-1986, and sometime in 1986 or 1987.) —Rob (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there will be a spectrum of answers here as well but what I usually use is the date when any section of the road opened to the public with its current route number. --Polaron | Talk 21:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to see Oklahoma State Highway 74. I always use the date it was first established by the Transportation Commission, if available, otherwise I use the "best guess" based on when it appeared on the map (say a route appears on the 1939 map, but isn't on the 1938, I give the "formed" date as 1938/9, as it could have been formed in late 1938 or early 1939).—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Would it be clearer to change it to "numbered" (or make a separate "numbered" parameter to migrate to, if there are concerns with routes not currently having the date numbered)? --NE2 17:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. There are instances like OK-74 above where an entire route was assigned with a different number, then renumbered (then in OK-74's case, extended through the years). I think No. assigned might be better for non-roads users.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like, "number assigned" to a route?  Such as the (eg) 1974 legislation establishing the construction of I-385 between Big City and Small Town?  But also as in the road was there and 10 years later designated as I-224 or SR 38?  That actually makes the most sense to me, too.  --MPD T / C 19:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To be honest, I think the first version looked better. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what would you use, 1919 or 1934? What about a route like SR 42 that was renumbered several times? --NE2 05:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you using the field in the cases where the formed date is ambigous? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically yes - which actually describes most California state highways, because of the legislative/sign route disparity before 1964. --NE2 05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would use a more specific term than "history" then - otherwise people will assume you can put stuff like "Widened to 2 lanes in 2004" or something like that. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you change it to? I tried to think of something better but couldn't. --NE2 06:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I generally follow the first example, listing when the highway was designated. For expressways, I'd also include when it opened. Sometimes those dates are the same; others, especially Interstate Highways, have a substantial gap between the designation and when the first part opened. In a real-life example...for I-86 (E), I'd only list "1999" since the roadway was already open when it was designated. I generally stay away from mentioning extensions/changes in alignment in the infobox, as that could be lengthy for some routes. Plus, there's always the history section. The infobox is only supposed to be a quick synopsis of the route, after all. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 12:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Formed" refers to... 

message: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 22#Category:Blue Star Memorial Highways --NE2 01:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion discussion 

message: I have proposed the demotion, redirection, or deletion of this project at WT:USRD/SUB. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:HbgAR]] 

message: :See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Subprojects#Auto Trails. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed task force on auto trails 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Interstate Highways#More opinions needed for I-355 FAC or just skip on over to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Interstate 355 to weigh in. Not looking for support votes, just comments. Of course the support votes would be useful if justified. :-D —Rob (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More opinions needed for I-355 FAC