Talk:St. Joseph Valley Parkway

message: I'm not the article's creator, but I've tried to improve it as I can along the way because it's the right thing to do. Honestly, I think that this article could be a Good Article Nominee in the future. The only things holding it back would be some cleanup and expansion of the Lead and removing Ref 12 (Michigan Highways). The lead needs to be expanded to cover the History and Future sections of the article, which could be done in a second paragraph that summarizes both of them. The footnotes for refs 2 and 3 aren't really needed in the lead, and ref 1 should be reused somewhere in the body of the article. The summary of the RD in the Lead should be flipped to run south-to-north to follow the RD. The first mentions of either US 20 or US 31 in the lead need to be unpiped and spelled out in full with the abbreviation in parentheses. Once the Michigan Highways reference is either removed or replaced as a source, I'd bump it into an External links section along with any other appropriate links. If we can find any photos, that would be great, but that's not required for GA. For future work, a   should be inserted in place of any regular spaces in highway designation abbreviations, and the word "parkway" should not be capitalized unless part of the full proper name. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future GAN for the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on St. Joseph Valley Parkway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006073353/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_NHS_Statewide_150626_7.pdf to http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT_NHS_Statewide_150626_7.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505203005/http://dotmaps.indot.in.gov/apps/trafficcounts/ to http://dotmaps.indot.in.gov/apps/trafficcounts/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0%2C4616%2C7-151-9620_11057-74161--%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heraldpalladium.com/news/local/when-oh-when-will-be-done/article_9f00c358-d14f-5715-b296-f5b77fb7bf2c.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2013/09/mdot_officials_concerned_that.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.heraldpalladium.com/news/local/don-t-hold-your-breath/article_b5643c86-7eb4-5f0e-beed-f3e94aa891df.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615200707/http://www.in.gov/indot/files/StateWide_2004.pdf to http://www.in.gov/indot/files/StateWide_2004.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Google Books has it. Of course the document is significant to the article, but can we use anything from it which isn't already covered in the supplemental statement which is already cited? Mapsax (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1981 environmental impact statement is online 

message: Just north of the state line on the northbound side, pavement was put in for what appears to be either a welcome center, a rest area, or combination of both. A weigh station is also a possibility, but the layout seems to go against that idea. Anyone have information on this? So far, I've been unable to find anything about it.
Coordinates: 41°46'50.17"N 86°18'56.98"W
DogPatch1149 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the original idea? 

message: In light of the imminent article rewrite: The lead says "The freeway was first built in Indiana in the 1960s" but within a RS, footnote 10 as I write this, there are statements such as "One section of the bypass was completed in 1958, but it led nowhere and it was not opened for traffic until Tuesday." I believe that clarification is needed. Mapsax (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if we shouldn't collapse this down to a set index page and let the articles on US 20 and US 31 take over. We basically have multiple articles on the same subject and have to duplicate content between them. Since the US 20 and US 31 articles aren't going anywhere, this is the one that's redundant. Imzadi 1979 →  02:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Reluctantly, I can't think of an argument against it. Of course there would have to be a lot of cross-linking. Mapsax (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First built" 

message: It's logical that Napier Avenue would revert to Berrien County contingent on the freeway opening to the north, but I can't find any documentation, leaving the possibility open that it's unsigned trunkline for the time being. Mapsax (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a comment by Chris Bessert on the AARoads Forum, MDOT never had ownership of Napier Avenue. There's a mechanism called a "marked-and-maintained route" that allows the department to assume control over a county road or local street on a temporary basis to ensure continuity of a state trunkline. Once the condition that required MDOT to assume control passes, the roadway automatically reverts to its original agency. So in short, the day US 31 was moved to the freeway north of Napier Avenue, Berrien County regained full jurisdiction and no download transfer was required. I'm sure if you look, you won't be able to find any documentation of reciprocal upload transfer back in 2003 because one doesn't exist. Imzadi 1979 →  03:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't realize he was posting on road forums again. I'm familiar with "marked-and-maintained" since he uses that throughout the route histories on his website. I seem to remember though that the stretch of Napier actually was transferred, to the point of thinking at the time that that would have been a good candidate for marked-and-maintained. I'll have to look through things. I do know that the Berrien County Road Commission/Department identified it as state trunkline on its maps during that time, though that might have only been to match the road symbol to the shield. Even if it's determined that Napier was marked-and-maintained, the article should reflect that by mentioning that it was never in the state system. Mapsax (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

text: [Followup] Chris appears to be contradicting himself, at least on the surface. From the first 2003 entry on his 31 page is this: "Additionally, the 1.91 miles of Napier Rd from I-94 at Exit 30 easterly to the northern end of the new freeway segment is 'temporarily' transferred from County to MDOT control. According to MDOT documents, 'The county road, Napier Road, will provide a temporary link between the temporary northern terminus of new US-31 freeway and I-94. It is unknown how long the "temporary" situation will exist, so MDOT and the public are best served by having a trunkline-to-trunkline connection in this area for the duration.'" The word "control" to me implies more than marked-and-maintained; in addition, note the absence of that term here.I've also thought more about the BCRC/BCRD issue above: It's quite possible to interpret the road symbol on their maps as marked-and-maintained since they never created a dedicated symbol for that and may have used the road color for state trunkline as an approximation. However, we have a RS that clearly identifies that stretch as "state highway" if taken literally, which invokes WP:TRUTH. Mapsax (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  you may want to reply directly here. Imzadi 1979 →  03:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Try this on for size. (Dated last month) No, the county doesn't assign state trunkline, but they have to know and record what not to manage. Mapsax (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napier Avenue status 

message: "There had been a southern bypass of the South Bend and Elkhart areas planned since the 1930s. The first section of the highway, started in 1958 as Bypass US 20 (BYP US 20), was completed between US 20 and Mayflower Road (at the time State Road 123) on September 19, 1963. The freeway was extended to just past the SR 23 interchange in late Summer 1965, then further east to US 31, that section opening on December 15, 1967."
These dates are incorrect. In 1958 I was not born yet but I was living just a few hundred feet from where the bypass was built when they started it. I was working on a horse farm that they took part of when I was 13. The State police took me out of school to move cows off the section being built. I was in highschool at that time.
I drove on the section between US 31 and mayflower road BEFORE it was open in a 1972 charger. 170.203.152.68 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect dates