Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/New York/Archive 4

message: I've noticed the List of reference routes in New York, especially for Regions 4 an 5, and probably others, is quite incmomplete. I'm not just talking about the ones that don't have articles, but the tables don't even show a lot of them that are listed in NYSDOT's traffic reports I'm willing to try and complete the tables as much as I can with the rest of them, but I was just wondering if maybe they didn't seem as complete because of some unlisted criteria for listing them (length? number of junctions? proximity to a major route or metro area?). If this is not the case, within a few days I'll download the traffic reports again and complete the tables to the best of my ability. Once this is done I'm also willing to start on completing at least stubs for these, (article leader, info box, and junction list, I don't know how much of a route description there is going to be for some of these, the leader could say it all without even trying...) If I have no objections by, say, 27 Nov 2007, I'll go ahead and start on regions 4 and 5, then work my way through the others. ClarkCT (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no criteria, it's just incomplete. Also, it's been determined that reference routes need to have another added layer of notability to get an article. Most don't; that's why every existing article on a non-parkway reference route has been redirected or merged if possible. We already have 400 stubs; we don't need any more, especially ones that can never be expanded and ones that don't need to be written. For the vast majority, the entry in a completed table would be enough. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 07:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Region 5's pretty well complete now, Give me a couple days and I'll go through and try to complete some of the other regions (esp. those that are still using the more basic table that appears to have been a straight copy from one of the reference sites.) My next question, since its been mentioned that we don't really want any more pages for reference routes at this time, since 98% of them well never get above stub status: While I'm doing this would you guys prefer that I remove the wikilink code for redlinked reference routes? At least for now so people looking at the list might not be tempted to make a page for them? Finally, my other project on my agenda pertaining to NY routes, for now at least, is to go through as many stubbed reference routes as I can and merge any relevant info to the nearest relevant NY Route page, and change the former stubs to redirects. I'll only merge them if there is a proper relevance, otherwise I'll leave them as stubs for now. And for the record I apologize about some of my edits on other route pages, incomplete or whatnot, I'm new to the routes things so I was simply following what I saw for guidelines on the project page. I see some of you have been "following" me around fixing things, thank you, I'm mostly doing this to get the information up, and realize some of my edits are rough with respect to following MoS guidelines, among other things...   ClarkCT (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't just remove redlinks. If they're simple wye connections, redirect to the list entry and then remove. Otherwise there's probably somewhere else to redirect. --NE2 08:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Route List criteria? 

message: So, I know that this isn't exactly under the realm of State Routes, but I know that some of the junction lists, and other places among some of our articles, wikilink to county routes, but most of these don't exist. Now, this doesn't warrant making articles for each county route, obviously, and chances are, like reference routes, few of them would be long enough to ever get past a stub-length for descriptions and such, and it'd be a lot more pages too.
Now, instead of deleteing CR wikilinks altogether, my idea is to make one page, ex County Routes in Erie County, New York (perhaps we can find a shorter title?) and use divs to list all the county routes on one page, with a short description, junction list (as much as possible) and perhaps a shortened version of . Its a lot of work, but it'll hopefully keep a ton of stubbed county route articles from popping up. (Not saying its a problem now, but it'll prevent it from ever happening). If this is done, perhaps the  could be changed to format county route links such as Erie County Routes#(num). Any existing CR pages would be merged into these pages and redirected, similar to the plans with spur routes. Yes, the 62 pages would be long, but they'd compact things instead of making a lot more pages.  Just a thought, I'll see what the consensus is when I get the reference route tables done (soon!) and another page or two I'm working on in my Sandbox. I'm willing, right now, to take on most of the work for these if I can find the proper info sources and you are ok with it happening. ClarkCT (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you're describing is similar to what was done in Rockland County, where most of the routes were combined into three pages containing descriptions, junction lists, etc. That shouldn't be a problem. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 08:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hadn't seen that yet. But it looks almost exactly like what I was thinking... I just gotta find the info.  ClarkCT (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just of note - I am working on Erie County in the same form as Rockland County.Mitch32contribs 17:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, there are red links to articles on Suffolk County Roads that I simply won't write about, because there really isn't too much that would make them worthy of an article. I'd gladly do an article on Suffolk CR 50 or Suffolk CR 105, and maybe even SCR's 2, 3, and 4, but SCR 1 & SCR 15 are roads I wouldn't even touch. I'd be just as happy leaving them to the existing List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York. ----DanTD 18:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're repeating exactly what I was suggesting. Instead of making individual articles for every CR, expand the list of routes to be more descriptive of the routes within that list. Any redlinks in other articles would then be redirected to the list with a target at the proper road, ie #redirect List of county routes in Suffolk County, New York#15 using  within the list at the proper point. Any county routes that may be large enough to warrant their own article could be made separate or they could just remain in the list, as they'd probably still not make it past a stub even in their own article. I don't know if this is official, but I think using Rockland County's list as a template is a good idea. But that's just me. ClarkCT 00:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An extension of sorts on this idea

message: Looking back on a discussion regarding the status of County Route 16 (Suffolk County, New York), I've been wondering if some of the most recent Suffolk County Road articles(and at least two of the three I've been working on) genuinley deserve to be tagged as stubs. Suffolk CR 16 is well past 7K long, but I can't find out how long it was when the discussion was started. ----DanTD (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if the article is short, it is a stub, even if the road is long. :-)  County routes are not automatically notable, but one of several kilometers, going through busy suburbs, would be notable.  For more information, see WP:50k. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Dan was referring to the length of the article, not the length of the road. (Though technically both attributes fit..) I would consider a stub to be one which is short to the point of only having one or two of the required sections, or if there are more sections but they are severely underdeveloped. The article mentioned is what I would consider to be past stub-status, though it is missing some sections if you're trying to get them to full article status meeting the standards of state and US routes. I would say at the very least, if the article has a fully developed road description section and some of the other more important sections, it is no longer a stub, but that's my opinion. →ClarkCTTalk @ 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was just using Suffolk CR 16 as a comparison point to articles like Suffolk CRs 50, 98, and 99, as well as my proposed articles on Suffolk CR's 36 & 93. I need a lot more work for the article on Suffolk CR 48. And yes, I am referring to the length of the articles, not the roads themselves. All of them have stub-tags on the front, and if they're too long to be stubs I'm considering having those tags removed. I honestly don't expect them to get GA or FA status anytime soon. ----DanTD (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffolk County Road stubs or not? 

message: I've just created the :Category:Transportation in Erie County, New York. Like the others, this applies to all transportation-related projects, not just roads. Who's going to start a mass-migration of articles? ----DanTD (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category added 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Concurrency color coding and Termini in Junction Lists. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors and termini in junction lists 

message: Except for the first week, New York State Route 22, the Article Improvment Drive has been running on empty with only 3 users participating (TwinsMetsFan, Polaron, and I). TwinsMetsFan and I got into an IRC discussion on March 28, depicting our current status, the need for more editors, and how to get them. I have brought up this wondering why no one has helped us out. NY has 17 total editors, some I doubt are active editors, but we'd like to see more than 3 active ones with AID. If more people join, the better the articles will be with more opinions to how it should go. We are willing for any ideas of how to attract attention. The AID can't stay 3 people forever. Voice please. Mitch32contribs 13:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NYSR/AID|Article Improvement Drive]] current status 

message: See Wikipedia:WikiProject New York State routes/to do. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project to-do list updated 

message: The original NYSR participant list was merged into the USRD participant list a while ago according to what was then considered a consensus. When the merge was completed across USRD, a large amount of drama ensued, with the end result being that individual projects can reestablish their own, separate lists (per this section and the one below it). Since the NYSR newsletter has been resurrected, I'm going to resurrect the project participant list to keep everything centralized if no one objects. The USRD one is also getting pretty clunky and makes it difficult to find other editors from a state. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it sounds like a good idea; no objections from me. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping to bring up this at USRD soon when things settle down. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Participants list

message: The support that was shown for this when it was launched last November has dwindled to two or three editors right now—and to me, two editors ≠ project collaboration, especially when there are roughly a dozen people that identified NY as a state of interest on the USRD list. My question is simple, two-fold, and open-ended to all editors: 1) if you don't participate, why don't you, and 2) if you could change AID in a way that would cause you to participate, what would that way be? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Improvement Drive

message: This ties in to the AID section above; the amount of substantial activity on articles within this project, excluding myself and a couple of other editors, has been very low over the last several months. I'm interested as to why this is the case. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Project activity

message: This was originally intended to serve as a place to cover routes that would not have had much content within their articles. However, since routes less (IMO) deserving than these still have articles, and since the list is at its root subjective anyway and appears to not be supported by USRD, I say disband it and restore all the articles. The "cover in other article" idea I proposed on that list's talk page can still be explored, though—for the shorter spurs, which is what the list was really created for, that may be the way to go. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the following proposal of mine: There are 28 articles in the list currently. I think we should look into the idea of disbanding it and as mentioned below, trying out articles in sandboxes for each route. The short spurs, such as 433, can go into NY 22 or any relevant article. Mitch32contribs 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That proposal really isn't much different than what I said above. Anyway...sandboxes are overrated, just revert the redirect to the list and rewrite the article if necessary. As for 433...in my opinion, it'd be better off in 128 since it is a former segment of the route, but maybe it'd work in 22 due to its (433) short length. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So shall we get consensus, because we can put something together with just a little work. Also, this should be easy, seeing if we turn it into a collaborative process. Are you up to it? Mitch32contribs 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather wait for other members of the project to sound off on all of these sections before doing anything—these proposals have only been open for ~35 hours, which is a very short time period in terms of the wiki. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: List of minor state routes in New York

message: County route articles, which were more or less dumped into the lap of NYSR a while ago, are a total mess—especially in the Niagara Region (check out the NY road articles needing attention category for proof). To attempt to make headway on cleaning them up, and in an attempt to restore some normalcy to this project's scope, I am proposing that a task force be dedicated to county routes. This task force, if there is enough support for it, will be created in conjunction with WP:USRD/SUB. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Badly needed. I am aware of users that are interested in NY County Routes, and it may go to good use to have people collaborating on these lists rather than 1 person in one place.Mitch32contribs 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a system to organize county routes is needed. I'd help with it out when I can. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, I'm willing to go to the USRD subproject page and support the proposal; however, I will do so only if those willing to participate in the task force promise to at least cut the number of county route-related articles needing attention in half within the next three weeks. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 weeks is waaaaayyyyy too short. Especially in the Niagara Region, which is a total disaster. I'd say 6-8 is more sufficient.Mitch32contribs 15:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that there has to be significant improvement in a short period of time. I personally don't believe it'd take more than three weeks to clean up half the lists - that's 21 days, and each list will probably take a couple of days at the most. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: County routes

message: If you have any other ideas for change, feel free to voice them below. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. This may prove better in the long run. Mitch32contribs 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking about my proposal a bit, I still support it; however, if an article has an additional browse because a current route redirects there, then the browse should remain. So, I guess my proposal is now simply eliminate former routes from the browse unless it has its own article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Support. Also to an addition I've seen pics of a Truck 298 when we get to it.Mitch32contribs 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Probably could be a project subpage. That subpage should also (once research is done in that area) cover when they were assigned and when the current system (900+letter suffix) was implemented. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other items

message: My take: eliminate them. The kind of browsing I'm talking about are ones such as NY 234 on NY 31 or the three below the primary browse on US 9 in NY. In these cases, the shields would be moved to the history. Consider this: suffixed routes that redirect to their parent are already excluded from the browse. No browse is provided for 1920s and 1930s-era routes or for designations that have been used at least twice (example: NY 433 (1950s) redirects to NY 598 but no browse for it exists). I say we take the next step and restrict the browsing to active or former routes that have their own article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. This may prove better in the long run. Mitch32contribs 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After thinking about my proposal a bit, I still support it; however, if an article has an additional browse because a current route redirects there, then the browse should remain. So, I guess my proposal is now simply eliminate former routes from the browse unless it has its own article. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Browsing for routes that are redirects to another article

message: In light of "bannered route" being declared a neologism, I say we change the "bannered route" header on the five or so articles that have it to the actual name of the route. For example, on U.S. Route 20 in New York, "Bannered routes" would become "US 20 Truck". On NY 19, the only route in New York that has two of the same kind of bannered route (truck), let alone two bannered routes period, "Bannered routes" would become "NY 19 Truck" and the two routes would be separated by their location ("Belmont" and "Brockport"). I also think the bannered route section should be moved to between the suffixed route section and the junction list for consistency with the overall "prose before table" formatting. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Also to an addition I've seen pics of a Truck 298 when we get to it.Mitch32contribs 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Bannered routes" changes

message: Where shall these go? I feel either a NYSR subpage or a subpage of the reference route list. A subpage of either would give it time to grow as needed and could help unconfuse readers. Otherwise, the redirects that have been implemented and more would be added over time. Thoughts?Mitch32contribs 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably could be a project subpage. That subpage should also (once research is done in that area) cover when they were assigned and when the current system (900+letter suffix) was implemented. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original reference routes

message: We have an outdated shield template for NY by the looks of the pictures I've seen for most roads. The new shields as shown here do not curve as sharply at the top like they used to. Now it just makes a small curve at the top. I'm not gonna say its correct, but I think our shields should be replaced by this new looking one, as they seem to be popping up everywhere in NY. Mitch32contribs 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could be wrong, but I'm thinking 458 happens to be a fluke in the signage - compare the curve to the 11B pictures there - that's the more standard curve that I'm seeing every day around here. Haven't seen any that look like that yet here in WNY. →ClarkCTTalk @ 23:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its also shown here, here too, here again and such. Does this begin to look a little more common?Mitch32contribs 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe these are the exception and not the norm. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think Mitchazenia is right. Look at the NY 59 page. The picture with NY 45 which was taken by me just this last summer shows shields in great condition, probably new. The NY 59 shield with NY 17 looks much older. Its all scratched up and stuff. Great catch by Mitch! -Airtuna08 (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Could simply be they just are just misprinted by people who don't care about roads like we do. Heck, I know of places were state routes are signed as US Routes by mistake. But I guess we'll find out over time how future signs are made. Still a good catch by Mitch, I never would have seen that. -Airtuna08 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current shields 

message: I am looking at Yahoo maps and have seen something interesting. Both NY 314 and NY 456 have county route designations as well. Is it correct that both are County maintained? (314 is Clinton 42 and 456 is Clinton 58). This would something to know, especially when the 456 article is revived.Mitch32contribs 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just an informational tidbit 

message: I found your list of maps that we can announce we have. I know of quite a number that I don't have that can also be useful. Nevertheless, I can't wait to add what I've got. ----DanTD (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found one source. It's a photocopy of a Town of Brookhaven Proposed Revised Plan of Major Highways from August 4, 1937. What I don't know is what this map was published in. Now I'd like to find out the name of the book(s) where the formerly proposed 1969 division of New York State Route 27A, Republic Bypass for New York State Route 24, and other proposals were in. Too bad NE2 tagged them all for deletion, because now I'm sure nobody knows what I'm talking about. ----DanTD (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need history? You bet! 

message: New York State Route 338 was recently created; however, it covers both the original and 1980 routes in a departure from the current USRD practice of dedicating numbered route articles to that specific alignment and not to its designation. So, unquestionably, it needs to be split, but the question is how? Should one of them keep the NY 338 article while the other goes to "New York State Route 338 (19xx)"? Should NY 338 become a dab and the article split into two new articles titled "New York State Route 338 (19xx)"? Unlike NY 35, there is no current alignment of the number; unlike NY 47, the last use of the designation was not the one that existed the longest. For these reasons, I'm puzzled as to what should go where, but one thing is for sure: it needs to be split in some way. – TMF 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the time to create or do the work right now, but here's my suggestion: New York State Route 338 (Saratoga County) and New York State Route 338 (Washington County) with my rationale being that regardless of dates or length of designation, each period's route fell entirely into a different (neighboring) county and could be separated that way. Doing the dates might be confusing because they'd have to include a range of years (and more text), and the same year for one's end was the same as the other's beginning. Fwgoebel (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarly...

message: Over on List of county routes in Rockland County, New York (1-38), I see a problem with Rockland CR 28 that I can't fix. The intersections chart has a redlink for Blauvelt State Park that I'm having trouble converting to blue. ----DanTD (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I just redirected it to the proper article. ----DanTD (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockland County Road list problem 

message: I'm wondering if there are any members that would care to meet at some point, perhaps for a half day to a day, this summer. I would propose someplace where if any of us has any maps or other physical items that could be presented and reviewed yet safeguarded; another thought would be some WiFi hotspot where we could be able to access our project and perhaps do some editing with some face to face collaboration (but I don't have any of the Thruway service areas on my list). Location is definitely a concern, but with our shared love for our highways, I wonder if such a meeting should be a bit of a drive for everyone, to make the most of whatever round trip we as individuals would make. I'd guess not all would have vehicles, of course. Thoughts? Fwgoebel (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangely, I'll be camping in Glens Falls in July, maybe we could do it there? I'm not sure how much people this would attract.Mitch32contribs 12:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Glens Falls is pretty far away from the majority of New York, so maybe a central location like Albany would be better. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not opposed to any location at all. Albany would be extremely convenient to me and therefore, I'd oppose it out of deference to those in Rochester/Buffalo areas. I'd rather go somewhere central, that's at least a drive for everyone (again, so we can experience our roads on said trip) but isn't an extreme for anyone if we can help it. Perhaps...oh, Tully or Homer comes to mind, or even Norwich. Fwgoebel (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All three are a drive for me- Why not something like Columbia County and the Hudson Valley? I could get there and it would be easier.Mitch32contribs 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of a few members who live in the Hudson Valley, so Columbia County would probably be one of the best places for it. Another possible location would be NYC, but that could be tough to do. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYSR Member Meet-Up? 

message: After an FAC that saw us remove all the shields from the intersection list per MOS:FLAG, and some other issues, I am pleased to announce on behalf of myself and Mitchazenia that New York State Route 32 has been awarded the gold star. Mitch has already gotten NY 174 and 175 up to that level, so this was perhaps not as big a deal for him (oh, what I am I saying, of course it is!), but for me, in over three years on Wikipedia this is the first FA I can claim some responsibility for, as I wrote most of the route description for the Woodbury-Albany sections and took all of the photos currently in the article. Mitch went the rest of the way, writing and researching a decent history section and putting sources in.
And for the project, this is the first article on a long, major route to achieve FA status. It may have company soon, if NY 28 makes it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hats off to both of you. I myself did a little here and there along the way, but I can't yet say that I've been as involved in a FA, at least not yet. If work ever gives me enough time to delve further into NY 28N or NY 30A (which I believe are the better articles amongst those with which I've been more directly involved and initiated), then I'll do what I can to move them along. Again, congrats. Well deserved. Fwgoebel (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY 32 makes FA 

message: The information which has arrived is very full and detailed.  It is the engineering report of which routes are in New York are....in which region, county, and control segment, each item of information in the data base pertains to a specific highway length between beginning and ending mile posts on that segment. Residency cods are included regarding highway maintenance.  It is noted whether that segment is classed as divided or undivided, number of lanes in both directions, pavement width, shoulder width, shoulder type, surface content, surface condition, surface type, median width, median type, base type, sub-base type, terrain type, area type, culture type, percent parking, passing sight distance, per cent trucks, traffic count year, design hour volume, Average annual daily traffic, functional class, highway control code, year scored, year last work, access control to highway, adjusted rated capacity, national highway system principal arterial system, surface type from 1981 to 2006, reference marker, tandem truck designation, work type, pavement type.  So this is the first database, the two files to explain the above glossary type terminology and expand on all the varieties of each of the above.  There is also included a second database in the information sent named the Landmark table, which refers to the route, its letter, its region, county, control segment or county order control, beginning and end mile posts, landmark and reference marker number.  So, therefore this is cool engineering information for the entire state.  This info can be shared with whoever is working on NY road articles.  The 2006 instruction pdf file is 1,550 Kb in length and the Highway sufficiency table pdf is 139,069 kb file which explain the data contents.  The data is compiled with Microsoft access with the 2006 final landmark table being a *.ldb file (MS access) is 1 kb, the 2006 database table with all the inventory is a 11,892 kb *.mdb (ms Access ) which can be transferred into excel or into an html table.  There is also information in the pdf files about the types of distress the engineering department looks for in highway repairs.  
For abbreviated examples see...
Talk:New York State Route 100 Talk:New York State Route 343 
SriMesh | talk 05:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY highway sufficiency database 

message: At its current state embedded within a long NY 28 article, the information offers the reader absolutely nothing about I-587. Interstates are more notable than state routes. Maybe to those local writers in NY it isn't, but think about it from a broader spectrum. Interstates are NATIONALLY FUNDED SUPER HIGHWAYS!!! State routes are not. Interstates are also more highly traveled by a wider range of people than a state route. Why do you think so many people sit in traffic on an interstate than get off and take an outside route? Because the average person is unfamiliar with us, state, or county routes. It is insane that I-587 is within the NY 28 article. And its not even given its own section. It's coupled together with a bunch of other state routes that share pavement with NY 28. The I-587 article should be rebuilt, and that can be done without removing anything from NY 28. -- UWMSports (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Interstate 587]] 

message: This is a proposal I have come up with after looking at a few of our articles. Well, remember how in 1980, NYSDOT made a massive swap with several counties for different highways? Well I have a proposal like this for our articles. Seeing some of the condition our articles are in, I'd like to see if that we can make swaps for that one article goes to the scrap pile while we revive one article. If it is a good idea, please support it. Who knows, we could end up with some better articles in the process.Mitch32(UP) 20:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? --NE2 21:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A little clearer, seeing we have several articles that we cannot expand, my idea would be to merge the unworkable ones off and add new articles that have better potential in their place. It may help the process of the articles and really decrease the stub count of NYSR, which is still very high. This wouldn't apply to the parkways and such, but could give us some valuable articles in the process.Mitch32(UP) 21:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article swaps 

message: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WikiProject secession --NE2 19:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noticeboard discussion that involves you 

message: Hi, I'm .  I was a former member of this WP. I've decided to return once I learned about the recent fork.  I look forward to editing, and I plan to start with routes in the New York City area and branch out from there! --Son (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi all 

message: I noticed that WP:NYSR split from the WP:USRD project. Does this mean that we can no longer request maps via the Maps Task Force? If so, perhaps we could begin a Mapmaking group of our own, since many NY articles currently have no maps. Smb6009 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYSR split from USRD 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for New York road transport 

message: Look, a productive project split off. You cannot then swoop in and tell them that after you - the focus of two separate arbcom cases - caused so many problems as to drive them to this situation, that you have the right to invade the talk page and vote for it to remerge. Only members of this project should have suffrage. Not you. 
Let the editors edit and create content, and stop engaging in a campaign of systemic harassment because you want to micromanage every single edit made on any road anywhere in the U.S. 
Thank you,
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To Shoemaker's Holiday & Mitchazenia: You are right that this has to stop.  It would be easier if we could all come to a resolution here, without the continued bickering.  (This is true for all parties involved.)  NYSR should be a part of USRD...technically, it is now. :)  However, under USRD, we should work toward a resolution that will make all sides happy.  Please bear that in mind as we move forward.  Thanks! DanTheMan474 (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I follow. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: If you're referring to the fact that I proposed the projects be re-merged, I also don't understand. I am a member of NYSR, and not USRD, so I have every right in the world to propose such an action. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, only you have actually edited New York Roads, and are a member of this WikiProject. Most of the other people here are not at all involved with New York State Routes, and are simply here to try and force a productive project to re-merge. I would suggest that a proper way to go about this is to limit the debate to only NYSR members, let both you and people on the opposing side have their say, and THEN have a vote. The voting should not happen before the debate, however. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure most people who voted (including me) have edited New York road articles. On the other hand, I don't recall seeing you before. --NE2 00:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do mostly quiet copyediting and don't see the need to get involved much with debates. I've worked on five or six, and the big List of New York state routes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, nearly everybody on the above poll has edited at least a few New York articles. Also, the poll was to attempt to end a long and tedious discussion at WT:USRD, so indeed, we and the other side have said what we want to say. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm told that Smb009 is a NY editor as well... so it is still 3-0. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: And even barring that, some of the rest of us have contributed to NYSR a fair amount. Not speaking for others directly, I have contributed by reviewing articles and commenting on them at GAN, ACR and FAC. I've given general feedback on IRC to articles, and even just directly gone and made some copy editing where I felt warranted. Wikiprojects are places of collaboration for all of Wikipedia, not just "project members". In effect the attitude I see above is worse than any "walled garden" approach out there. To sum up my opinion on the matter, NYSR is an integral part of the greater USRD family. They're wanted in that family, or editors who live in and primarily edit for the other states would not have come here expressing opinions. In fact the only editor I see in the straw poll expressing an oppose vote is one from California with a less than stellar editing record with WP under any of his previous account names. I figure I have just as much right to express an opinion here, even though I live in Michigan. In fact, I know at least one of the major contributors to NYSR isn't from NY, so even geography isn't a controlling factor. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This must end. 

message: Let me pose this question: "What standards under the USRD project conflict with the MOS or what NYSR is trying to achieve in article writing?" I see nothing that's very different between the standards listed at WP:USRD/STDS and WP:NYSR. Maybe that's because no one's proposed any changes yet, but the USRD page specifically states that the MOS overrides the USRD specs when the two are in conflict. It further states that if there is a conflict to mention it so the conflict can be resolved.
The first real discussion of this nature started over a FAC on an article from New York. There were supposedly conflicting sections of the MOS, and this conflict has since been resolved. In other words, MOSFLAG's participants affirmed that the rest of the MOS doesn't prevent ELG from specifying/requiring shield graphics. Now ELG is a part of the MOS, so NYSR can't unilaterally avoid its requirements, so it must be some other conflict over standards. That leaves me very curious what the "conflicting" standards are. The standards are quite flexible. For instance, M-22 (Michigan highway), a GA, has a "Cultural references" section, which is not specified at USRD or WP:MSHP pages, but yet it is still valid part of the article that doesn't violate the MOS, WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:RS. So yes as Polaron has stated, there is wiggle room in many of the project's standards. If nothing else, WP:IAR would apply if necessary.
In other discussions in other venues, one other issue concerning the forking I've heard is a desire for separate project tags. I'm curious why this is now an issue since the project tags were merged in August, 2007. I wasn't actively editing much at the time of that discussion, but it seems like a petty reason to fork a project over a project banner that could be redesigned if needed.
Now a project member or two states that there's a "really important and final decision" made concerning the status of a relationship. Another project member has objected and started a straw poll to clarify or even reverse this decision. As a result of an arbcom decision, consensus can only be evaluated on-wiki not off. In other words, when NYSR can point me to a discussion resulting in a consensus to fork from the parent project that was held on-wiki, it doesn't exist. A project member has started a straw poll and discussions concerning the situation, and other interested parties have replied. Nowhere else on-wiki have I ever seen a limitation to a specific project's declared participants before. Even if such a restriction were attempted, I could simply add my name to the participant's list for this project and gain suffrage instantly. I've edited articles and reviewed articles tagged by this project before, so that can't be used as a criteria either. Many of the other voters in the straw poll fall under the same situation as myself rendering the argument over suffrage very moot.
There's been a complaint about USRD not allowing NY-related requests at its task forces. Well, guess what, we don't allow UKRD to post their articles at WP:USRD/ACR nor do we entertain requests for maps or shields for them. If NYSR is really separate from USRD, there's nothing wrong from limiting our resources to the articles that are tagged by the project. Like it or not, consensus is that the USRD services are a benefit of being a part of the USRD family. If you want the benefits, you get the responsibility to contribute back at these forums as well. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
So. I guess this brings me to my final question... how can this project not be a logical child of USRD. By a literal definition, a project called U.S. Roads should logically be about roads in the US. (I'll side step the streets/roads debate since US Highways is taken by the subproject devoted to US Numbered Highways leaving the name issue we have.) Last time I checked, New York is in the US. Therefore it is logical that articles supported and edited by NYSR are also supported and edited by USRD. It is only a arbitrary severance of project relationships that's forced these articles out from under USRD tagging. So it's only logical, as Mr. Spock woiuld say, to un-fork the projects and mend the relationship. I have the steel ready, who's willing to rebuild the bridge? Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of standards and wikiprojects...