Talk:Interstate 70 in Maryland

message: TwinsMetsFan: Thanks for the assessment. I'll try to improve the article as best as I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOneKEA (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: B-class is pretty good for a new article, most articles in the project are either stub or start, I'll try to get a list of B-class articles on the project page so we know what articles are closest to achieving good article status.-Jeff (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for adding the signature. After examining the U.S. Route 50 article I've added some additional content to the I-70 article that should help raise its rating when the article is reassessed. However, I doubt that will happen until we can get some maps for the article. -TheOneKEA — Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: This article needs a map from the Maps task force; I have placed this discussion page in the appropriate category to bring the article to the task force's attention. (I apologize for not adding the signature).
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheOneKEA (talk • contribs) 18:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Map

message: If a description of shunpiking a specific route really is 'original research', then it ought to be removed from Interstate 68 as well - that was where I found it. -TheOneKEA — Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shunpiking

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Roads in Maryland#Interstate 70 in Baltimore, Maryland for the discussion. - TheOneKEA — Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Split

message: What else does the exit list need? -TheOneKEA (20:30, 20080623) — Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Exit list

message: This article could use additional sources. It also needs some cleanup to meet WP:USRD Standards--I did a bit with it, but it could use more review.  I don't believe the article would be close to passing a GAN in its current state, so I have reassessed it to C class for now. --LJ (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessed

message: US 40 was redesignated onto US 48 at some point early on-- not sure exactly when. However I-68 was constructed as US 48; US 40 already ran more or less parallel to it at the time.  Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing the construction of segments of a freeway or expressway (the bypass of Hancock) with the designation of a number to an entire freeway or expressway (US 48 as the National Freeway). According to official Maryland state highway maps, which I reference in the article and links to which you may find at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Maryland/Map database, US 48 was first marked on maps in 1974 and then only west of Cumberland. The portion of the bypass of Hancock west of I-70 is marked as US 40 tangentially in 1966 and a little more explicitly in 1967. Would it help if I put in a reference to the 1967 map? Regardless, whether the freeway west from I-70 in Hancock was US 40, US 48, I-68, or some other number is a side note in this article. I only mention that segment of freeway because it was built concurrently with the portion of I-70 through Hancock. It is not important in this article to mention that the freeway was part of US 48 after it was built as US 40 and before it was designated I-68. Whether it was planned in 1966 for that segment of freeway to become US 48 is mostly irrelevant, but if you want to find sources that state that particular segment was originally planned as US 48, it is up to you.  VC  15:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that it is confusing to say that US 40 was "constructed" there, because that is not true. US 40 already existed as a parallel route to what was constructed. Perhaps it would be simpler to leave out reference to what it was before it was designated I-68. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not really happy with your most recent change, because the new highway was built as a relocation of US 40, but since I myself said it is only tangential to the subject of the article, I will let it stand.  VC  16:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  US 40/48 

message: Why is all of I-70 east of I-695 not highlighted? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: never mind, it was Redesignated Maryland Route 570 in 2014. But is there anyway that it can be highlighted on the map in a different color (like blue)? And perhaps say something like "I-70 highlighted in red; Maryland Route 570 in blue"? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is some of the route not highlighted on the map? 

message: Is there any way that Maryland Route 570 (Which used to be Interstate 70 and is still signed as such on the highway when driving) can be highlighted on the map? Like in a different color such as gray. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maryland Route 570 

message: Should it be mentioned that federal highway administration still considers the route east of I-695 (MD 570) to be part of I-70? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  FHWA 

message: To the reviewing Admin, I have had to revert acts of vandalism by User:67.87.196.174 and the shared IP address user has had a multitude of warnings about making unconstructive edits. Shall we make this page temporarily semi-protected? Thanks and cheers, A Proud Alabamian (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection Request