Talk:Control city

message: Suggestion for trivia or facts, Interstate 605 which runs from Duarte, CA to Seal Beach, CA has no Control city markers at all, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_605_%28California%29
:Quite a few 3di's don't. It depends on the state. —Scott5114↗ 17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :The published standard is not always followed, either because major destinations have since appeared that were not on the original list, or because of state highway departments' hesitancy to sign destinations in other states.
Well, there's a third reason, sorta: Because one state is loathe to sign a relatively insignificant destination in another state when it could sign a much larger, more distant destination.   I guess that technically falls under the second category, but it seems like it could be clarified a bit.
For example, on Interstate 80 in Cheyenne I remember seeing signs for Omaha instead of Sidney.  This was in the 90s so may have changed,.   (For a more recent version, see interstate-guide.com with photos of I-80 south of Salt Lake City with signs to Reno rather than Elko; likewise, Nevada fails to sign its own control city in Reno, instead returning the favor to "Salt Lake.") The point is, Wyoming wasn't resistant to signing Nebraska cities -- just small NE cities.   Technically I guess "hesitancy to sign destinations in other states" means hesitancy to sign Sidney, which is in another state -- but so is Omaha, so what that statement is implying, that Wyoming would rather not sign a Nebraska destination, is untrue.   
Get what I'm saying?   We're not talking about CA's "other Desert Cities" instead of Phoenix here, although I grant that I may be drawing an inference that's not there.   Cheers, PhilipR 05:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd reason for non-compliance? 

message: While I'm not disputing the term - definitions belong at Wiktionary. Who has written significantly about the concept of Control cities? Providing images of highway signs is just original research to back up the fact that the concept exists, but to have an article about the concept it has to be shown that the term is an accepted general term.Garrie 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an official term that appears in the FHWA's Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. AASHTO produces a list of them, "List of Control Cities for Use in Guide Signs on Interstate Highways". It's not just a "general term", it is actually a very well-defined, officially regulated one.—Scott5114↗ 10:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the relevant quote from the MUTCD to the article. I believe that this should satisfy notability. —Scott5114↗ 11:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references and notability 

message: IIRC, when I-5 was completed along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley in California, the northbound control city on signage in the Los Angeles area remained Bakersfield for several years, although SR99 continues to Bakersfield and I-5 does not. This was eventually corrected.LorenzoB 02:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change 

message: The discussion can't be complete with at least a "see also" to the article on the International E-road network. CapnZapp (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe 

message: Repeatedly in the non-US sections, the sections begin with "In NNN, the term control city isn't used... but the idea is the same".
This is a highly US-centric way to explain things.
Suggestions:
* At a minimum, restructure this article to say "Control cities is a concept used in the United States..." and remove content relating to other parts of the world (possibly collect links to relevant articles under a single "See Also" header, see for instance my talk note above on "Europe")
* A more thorough fix would be to first explain the general concept, liberally sprinkling with terms & examples also from outside the US, and then move almost the entire header down inside the section on the US.
The above does not mean I am opposed to collecting Wikipedia's knowledge about this concept at this "Control City" page. Like in so many other places, using a local (US/UK/AUS etc) term is fine simply because it was first. But currently, the page focuses on the US way to do things, with only half-assed attempts at internationalization. Thus the template. 
Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed this.  Your proposed revision was rather provincial and not well-thought-out---the original structure was correct. The term "control city" is used primarily by U.S. transportation engineers and is found hardly anywhere else.  Only the U.S. actually has enough professional civil engineers specializing in roads to develop sophisticated vocabulary for describing such precise concepts.  It is a gross distortion of the concept to pretend that it is anything but an American English term, though it can certainly be applied by analogy to similar signage in other countries. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize