Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/Archive 1

M-112
M-112
Route information
	Maintained by MDOT
Location
Country	United States
State	Michigan
Highway system
	Michigan State Trunkline Highway System; Interstate; US; State; Byways;

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Use of old-style shields

What do the members here think about a guideline for the use of old-style shields? I ask this because User:Freewayguy has been very vocal about his opposition to the Roads in Maryland Project's use of state-name Interstate shields, which are no longer officially in use by Maryland. He has even gone so far as to tag them for speedy deletion. We've been using them simply as an example of the older style; our project's shield guideline has never recommended that they be used in routeboxes etc. Since there isn't a guideline here, it would probably be a good idea to write one that says where they can be used so as to avoid any further confusion.-Jeff ^(talk) 03:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to Freewayguy's unhealthy concern about state versus neutral shields, I don't really think it matters one way or another which shield is used. For decommissioned highways, it seems as if the convention is to use period shields where possible, but as you said, it's not written down anywhere. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

article standards: reliable sources

There is a debate on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Interstate Highways as to whether a particular website is acceptable as a source or not. Any input is welcome. Bwrs (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedicity (sic) of junction lists

Some image issues recently raised at the FAC for NY 32 have got me to thinking: Do we really need to have detailed junction lists anywhere in the article at all? Either in the infobox or the main text. The more you think about it, the harder it is to justify overall:

How much of that is really trivial to begin with? Is the exact distance along the road to the tenth of a mile to each and every junction a notable aspect of the road? Is this not rather indiscriminate information?

As far as the table giving a list of the roads intersected and information about those intersections, can't that be done more easily in the prose route description? If you really look at it, they're redundant if the road description is written well.

What to include in these and what format to use have been the subject of a few disputes. Maybe that's because deep down inside we know these tables are unnecessary and superfluous.

There are any number of roadfan websites that could be linked to externally that provide the same information for someone who wants it.

Perhaps we should seriously consider whether this information we've all spent so much time gathering, sourcing and putting together is really, in the end, necessary. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the late response, I stopped watching this page as there hadn't been much activity on it. I view the exit list as a necessary evil. I hate doing it as it is a lot of work (to do it right anyways) and all that work invariable goes to pot, thanks to vandals. However, the fact that we have numerous editors that feel a religious, dare I say jihad, type duty to ensure every article has an obscenely over-bolded, over linked, over imaged, exit list. I honestly don't see how we can have any degree of article stability without one. Furthermore, the exit list does add value IF you intend to actually use the article for a road trip or side trip, or research of related information (i.e about the cities the highway serves etc.) so I do think it is appropriate.Dave (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Interstate 10 in New Mexico

Okay, why can't I fix the infobox for Interstate 10 in New Mexico? ----DanTD (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently at some point during the pointless arguing over whether state or neutral shields should be used, the code for displaying the shield was replaced with a template call that didn't work. I've fixed it. - Algorerhythms (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Route Info Boxes

For some strange reason this infobox isnt working. It the same syntax I used for different states, any clue what not working. BeckyAnne (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to include the code so here it is:

{{infobox road

|state=MI

|type=SR

|route=112

|previous_type=US

|previous_route=112S

|next_type=SR

|next_route=113

}}

BeckyAnne (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For "Type," you need to use MI rather than SR (so the template knows it's a Michigan state route rather than another state route. I guess it is kind of redundant, since "state" is already specified, but it seems to work that way. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that info, that will help a lot. I never thought of that, and it was frustrating me. I am trying to add 1 rough in-ed Infobox on each article a day, filling in as much info as I can with info on the page. BeckyAnne (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple routes using the same name

This may've been discussed somewhere else before, but what do you do with multiple roads using the same name? An example is Arkansas Highway 9, which runs from Malvern, Arkansas to Camden, Arkansas, but in the northern part of the state, another, separate, Highway 9 runs from smaller towns Choctaw to Crows. Do I put both routes on the same page or make two pages like Arkansas Highway 9 (north) and Arkansas Highway 9 (south)? Brandonrush (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two different schools of thought regarding this. On one side you have articles like Oklahoma State Highway 37 and Maryland Route 144, where the highways are combined. In the case of MD 144, they're all old segments of US 40, so they're related; in the case of OK 37, the two segments are completely unrelated. On the other hand, there are cases like U.S. Route 40 Alternate and M-28 Business where the routes with the same name are separated. Generally it's best to do this if there is no relation between the routes other than the name. In these cases, the most common was to distinguish them is to use the names of the towns closest to the ends of the road (for example, U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keysers Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland) - the disadvantage there of course being the long title). I'd say just pick the one that seems best for the particular case. - Algorerhythms (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I think I'm just going to put both on the same page (the easy way out, I know). I am simply not sure what I would name the two articles. I wanted to make sure there wasn't some naming convention I was missing. Brandonrush (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Images of the road in articles

I was looking at U.S. Route 68 (archived link just in case it changes) just now and, well, the images didn't do anything for me. The first image is taken from a car, which I think looks tacky. The other two images don't really tell the reader anything. I'd imagine the reader can assume in good faith that Image:040804_20.jpg really is US 68, but that picture could be inserted into almost any article and it would be believable.

What I'm trying to ask is this, are there any standards for what types of images go into USRD articles? Should images always include a shield for proof that it really is that route? Should images not be taken in traffic? --Fredddie ™ 06:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There are some things that can't be standardized, and one is photos, because the photo that will best fit a given situation is difficult to determine and will vary from person to person. I do try to include shields in as many of my photos as possible for reasons you state, but the most photogenic point on a highway may not include a shield. I feel that road photos taken from a car do illustrate the route in an effective manner because they represent how the highway would be viewed by a road user, but there are technical issues that need to be addressed when such photos are taken. (Extremely heavy traffic should be avoided or you just get more car than you do road, and care should be taken to maintain the windshield.) Photos should be representative of the route: if it travels through a city, farmland, and the mountains, one of the road in each environ should be included to illustrate the route description. Care should also be taken to select photos that focus on the road and not the scenery. Beyond these basic guidelines though it's up to the editor to determine what should be included and what not. Use your judgment, come to a consensus, implement. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should use the best pictures available. If the best picture available is a crappy image taken from a mosquito plastered windshield of a moving car, well that's the best we have. As soon as better images are available, IMO the crappy ones should be replaced.Dave (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I do have some things I'd like to see in this area, though. Mainly, the broad adoption of my own philosophy of taking pictures for road articles.

Pictures of signage should generally be avoided. One road sign looks like any other one. The only time there should be a picture of a sign is if it demonstrates something unique about the road (like this image here) or supports a statement about said signs mentioned in the article (this image used here, per WP:OI.
No pictures from cars, please. A picture worth taking is a picture worth getting out of the car for. Even a crystal clean windshield filters the light, making it greener than it would otherwise be (Yes, you can easily edit that out, but it's pretty clear to me looking through our articles that too many editors don't even know how to do that). This picture was worth parking on the side of an interstate and climbing an embankment for, and this one worth walking to an overpass for.
More roadscapes as suggested above. I'm particularly proud of the way New York State Route 32 turned out in that department. I strongly suggest also making sure that the pictures are taken looking the same way as the route description, which is usually what you're illustrating. You want to show the reader what they'd see if they were driving the road. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the second one, being that is not always easy :| - Not all the time can we get out of our car - especially when imoortant roads lack shoulders - Mitch32^{(Want help? See here!)} 02:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the first two, more the second than the first. In regards to the second, I take extra care to keep any part of the car out of the image and I color-correct the picture using software before uploading. In terms of "A picture worth taking is a picture worth getting out of the car for", there are many, many scenarios where this is anywhere from impossible to, well, technically illegal. The impossible is when you're on a road with about half a dozen cars behind you. They're not going to take sudden stops very well. The technically illegal is on highways such as the New York State Thruway, where "emergency stopping only" signage is posted every few miles. A photo op is hardly an emergency. My opposition to the first point is in this sense: I greatly dislike pictures that are only of signage; however, if a significant amount of the actual road is included as well as a sign, then I have no issues with sign pictures. – T M F 02:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Like TMF, I also disagree with the first two points. Taking pictures of the road signs is very informative in showing route numbers and such. Yes, we do not need to take picutres of every single stop sign or speed limit sign unless it is very important. Some signs have special meaning to them, such as this old US 611 shield in Willow Grove, PA. As for the second point, taking pictures from the passenger seat of the car is the most practical way to get a picture of a road and it allows you to see it from what the driver sees. Also, as both Mitch and TMF said, it is difficult to pull over on highways to get pictures, as may roads are too busy and/or lack adequate shoulder space. If I can, I try to get pictures from the side of the road if I am in a parking lot somewhere or on a road with a sidewalk. Dough4872 (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Daniels points in principle, and I've violated every one. Some many times over. I agree the guideline should be no pictures from inside the car. I think we all know why Daniel is saying what he's saying. It's a no-brainier that any picture of bridges, tunnels, etc. that do not have shoulders or pedestrian paths will have to be taken from a moving vehicle, and that's just the way it is. I think it's also understood that some pictures will be taken from when the uploader was a passenger on a bus/train/carpool and did not have the authority to request the vehicle stop. But the picture is better than nothing, so it's used. It doesn't mean our guidelines shouldn't encourage the best picture possible.Dave (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To expand on this, while there are real scenarios where it's not safe, legal, or possible to exit a vehicle to take a picture. We all know that the most of the time, it's just people being lazy. That's why the guideline should discourage it.Dave (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and remember to put batteries into your camera so you aren't forced to use your computer webcam (e.g. California State Route 78) XP --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"This is a state-detail article of" rewording

The hatnote (link color styled, not really a wikilink):

This is a state-detail article of Interstate X, which focuses on the highway in its entire length.

is mentioned in the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/Archive 1 guidelines at WP:USRD/MOS, based on U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. There are only 15 other articles using this hatnote. I think the wording is a bit awkward, and should be rewritten. To me, it seems as though it is possible to confuse the clause which is modifying the main article wikilink with one refering to the detail article itself. I think not understanding that an article is able to "possess" other articles is possible. In the example case the topic Interstate X is "possessing" the hatnoted state-detail article, along with other state-detail articles for other states. However, to readers not familiar with USRD articles this may be unclear. As a reader can interpret the phrase "This is a glove of Bill Buckner" as equal to "This is Bill Buckner's glove", then the reader can also see "This is the state-detail article of Interstate X" as "This is Interstate X's state-detail article". That would make the entire sentence seem to say "This is Interstate X's state-detail article, which focuses on the highway in its entire length". Not so, obviously. I have a history of English teachers in my family, so I am speaking from experience about the possibility of improving the current slightly ambiguous wording. My suggestion is:

This is a state-detail article for the Nevada portion, see Interstate X for the highway in its entire length.

That wording eliminates the possessive "of", using "for" to properly define "This article" as focusing on Nevada, and places the wikilinked main article after the comma and the imperative verb "see", clearly distinguishing the two articles. This will help casual readers who arrive at the state-detail article not knowing that state-detail means the project contains not only main highway articles but also detail articles focusing on state portions of highways, and also help foreign language readers who understand English less that we might.

I realize that the hatnote specified in the project standard passed an FAC review, but that doesn't mean that it can't be improved or even that reviewers noticed it might be awkward. Sswonk (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The implementation of the hat note came from trying to resolve the "use of bold in a descriptive title" issue, which had been brought up at either an ACR or FAC review. In the specific case of the US 50 in NV article, the original note read:

This is a sub-article to U.S. Route 50, which focuses on the highway in its entire length.

I changed it to the current wording, not realizing the sub-article concept actually existed and using the "state-detail" wording that seems somewhat common here at USRD. I found today that the previous wording is more compatible with the "Link to sub-article" bullet at Wikipedia:Lead_section#Elements_of_the_lead.

I can understand the point here, and maybe this should be addressed before it spreads to more articles. However, I'm not a fan of the proposed re-wording. At the very least, it should be two sentences. Also "for the Nevada portion" phrase seems like it's not complete somehow. Unfortunately, I don't have any ideas for improvement at the moment. I'll think about this some and comment again later. --LJ (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's one idea. How about using wording similar to the {{about}} (aka {{otheruses4}}) template?

For the US 50 article, the syntax {{about|the section of highway in Nevada|the entire length of highway|U.S. Route 50}} produces:

(Note that "page" renders as "article" in the main namespace.) Other than reverting to the sub-article wording, that's the best I can come up with for now. Thoughts? --LJ (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that much more than my suggested version. I had trouble getting everything into one sentence without using the word highway twice or the article title itself in the description. Two sentences w/{{about}} is definitely the way to go, and if no one objects the Standards should be rewritten to reflect the change and all current articles using "the state-detail article of" should be updated. Sswonk (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in hindsight the wording as is now is awkward, I think LJ's suggestion is fine. As LJ states the standard was in place to avoid the strong tendency to put U.S. Route 50 in Nevada in the lead sentence of the articles, which both looks just terrible, and is a violation of the MOS. If the agreement is to change the wording of the hatnote, I'll support and change the articles I've put the hat note on.Dave (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) I updated the text of the guideline with LJ's version, as I can't see anyone objecting to this improvement. Sswonk (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already been implemented, but I just wanted to say that the new wording is much, much better. – T M F 04:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad folks like the new wording. I hope we'll see this used more in the future. --LJ (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a couple of tweaks to the wording. This is what's being used right now on U.S. Route 44 in New York:

What I would change it to is:

Thoughts? – T M F 09:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For my money your wording is an improvement; it can be made easier by specifying the following:

{{about|the section of {{PAGENAME}}|the entire length of highway|U.S. Route 44}}

Using {{PAGENAME}} will make it more difficult for editors copy-pasting to other articles to accidentally leave in one of the old routes from the copied text, and also easier to enter manually. I made a template at {{Highway detail hatnote}} so

{{Highway detail hatnote|U.S. Route 44}} yields:

I am demoing the template at the U.S. Route 44 in New York page. If it is good to go, I'll categorize it and so on for permanent use, and change the instructions on the standards page. Sswonk (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

~~I presume that there is a state parameter to this template also?~~ I think the template is fine, but will probably only use it going forward, I don't see the need to retroactively change all articles.Dave (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's only a little easier. I'll leave the other way in the standards but change the wording to match ~~yours~~ TMF's, and suggest using {{Highway detail hatnote}} in the future. Sound good? Sswonk (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As an aside, I plan on changing all of the NY state-detail articles to use the template since I see it as a much easier option. This reminds me of when the state detail page browse template was created. The browse wasn't used everywhere initially, but as time went on its reach expanded as more discovered the template. I expect that will be the case with this template too. – T M F 21:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Template finished and Standards updated Sswonk (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't catch the discussion, but wanted to chime in that and thank Sswonk for making the template. This should make the hatnote implementation easier, and hopefully we'll start to see it on more articles. --LJ (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory map notes for infoboxed maps

Today, there was an informal discussion on IRC about the new WP:ALT guideline that is now being enforced at FAC. Somewhere along the way, the discussion moved to maps and the usage of map_notes. I've been told that no article with a map has passed FAC without a caption being added (through map_notes), so I'm going to officially propose that the use of "map_notes" for infobox maps be made mandatory for all articles. My reasoning is that if it's basically mandatory for a successful FAC, it should be mandatory everywhere to provide a building block towards a high-class article. – T M F 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Maps SHOULD have a caption, regardless of weather someone at FAC complains or not. Seriously, how would a reader in the Philippines or wherever have any clue what the map at the right is about without a caption (map picked at random, I'm not picking on any particular article or person). Dave (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Note I updated the original example map Massachusetts Route 25.png with labels and changed the example, it is now MA Route 28A. Sswonk (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Do maps need alt text too? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO the caption would serve this purpose if done right. Dave (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The commons description of the map at right, I have been using the very basic "Map of Massachusetts Route 25". Something like "Massachusetts Route 25 highlighted in red" might work better, I don't know. It's obviously a map, and the only thing that may need to be explained is that the article subject is colored red in maps. Lately, see commons:File:Braintree Split detail.svg, I have been including source references and software used; if that is what is needed for "map_notes", let me know, I can take care of all the maps I placed in MASH articles. Sswonk (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

All "map_notes=" needs to be is a brief description of the map and mention that the article route is highlighted in red. Alt text, if required, would probably need a bit more description of the appearance of the map. Implementing alt text on maps in the infobox might require a change to the infobox, as alt text (from my understanding) is somehow connected to the [[image]] syntax. --LJ (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This diff shows what needs to be done currently to add alt text to the infobox map. "map_custom=yes" needs to be specified, and then the full map image syntax needs to be manually filled in as if it were an inline article image. Sswonk (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Updated diff. This shows what the WP:ALT standard is really looking for, that is ideally a verbal description of the image for blind readers. Unfortunately, this can be difficult when talking about maps, which normally aren't designed for or used by blind persons. It would be quite a task if you think about doing this for hundreds of maps, but I believe the way I have just edited the Massachusetts Route 25 article infobox shown in the diff would result in approval by an FA reviewer. Other descriptions should at least mention the termini of the route on a map. Sswonk (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We have road articles at FAC now. So this is sure to come up sooner or later.Dave (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's what's necessary, then a "map_alttext" param can easily be added to {{infobox road}}. What that would do is allow for the alternate text to be added without needing to "shut off" the formatting code. However, this brings up this question, which is what led to the map_notes discussion earlier: is a map decorative (no alt text needed) or a diagram (alt needed)? I lean towards diagram; however, this is really a different topic than what was initially presented here. I'd rather get the "map_notes" issue resolved first. – T M F 03:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently somebody already decided that we need map_alt= - [1]. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original point

Putting "alt text" aside, since that's something else: should we require the use of "map_notes" at all times? (If so, it probably isn't a half-bad idea to force it to show up whenever a map is used.) – T M F 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Latest diff for the Massachusetts Route 25 article using the new "map_alt=" parameter created today and pointed out by Rschen7754. I see no problem with doing "map_notes=" from now on in the style of the Massachusetts Route 25 article. It uses "Highways in the Wareham area with Route 25 in red". This could be recommended as: At a minimum, write a very brief geographical summary of the map area with the name of the route and "highlighted in red" for the map_notes= parameter of the infobox. As for the other question, I think that maps are definitely not decorative but shields probably are. Maps are almost always unique to the page they appear on and are specific in nature while shields are akin to icons, flags and so on, i.e. decorative. (stricken as not on subject "original point", was an e.c. oversight. Sswonk (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)) Sswonk (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Support I like now MA 25 turned out. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Any map worth its salt should be self-evident. If the map's context is difficult to tell just from looking at the map, add an inset or label some well-known cities, or even the counties. Take a look at Image:Ok-133 path.png for an example of what you can do. You shouldn't have to prop a map up with a caption. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your larger point. However, IMO even a well done map should have a caption. This may already be codified in wikipedia policy. My take on WP:Captions is maps don't need captions, if they have a legend. The question is, is the converse of that statement true?Dave (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with that, it is trivial to add a caption and aids readers to do so. I kind of get that you are a little angry Scott, although I may be wrong. You pointed out what can be done. Unfortunately, go through several of the subcategories of commons:Category:Road maps of the United States, and you will find a great deal that would need to be done. When I took on the task of mapping Massachusetts roads to comply with WP:USRD/MTF standards (they were originally all black and white with a red road), I based them on what I found at commons:Category:Maps of state highways in California. They're good maps but I understand what your "worth its salt" comment means and I often wondered why there weren't more maps with labels. Many newer maps have them, like the one you did of OK-133. But hundreds don't. So to push things along, we can establish a caption guideline. WP:FAR appears to require them, and as I say they are trivial to add. But your other points about overhauling the actual maps shouldn't keep you from supporting this simple guideline. We can start with captions and then go over to MTF and start pushing for stricter standards, overhauls etc. afterwords. By the way, if anyone would send me a note about upgrading a particular MASH map I have done for a GA or FAC review, I will be glad to do that anytime. Sswonk (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the image description page on the map I linked to above, there is a legend. In fact, that's a template that you can place on any MTF-standard map. If we're forced to have a caption by a Wikipedia policy, the map should be expressive enough that a caption of "Highway locator map" or "$HIGHWAYNAME highlighted in red" or something standardized like that could be used. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See above, it kind of addresses your restatement of having better maps. Sswonk (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too hard to go into Inkscape and add labels; the hard part is making the map in the first place. --NE2 02:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) This is getting off topic. Agree to all points about adding labels, but the caption question is what is being asked. That is even easier than adding labels, and if FAR reviewers have asked for captions, having a one sentence guideline in the standards will help that along. Sswonk (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not off topic; the idea is that if the map is good enough you may not need captions. --NE2 02:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I knew you or Scott would say exactly that. I guess what I should ask is: what is so terribly wrong with having a caption? Sswonk (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to wait to see what TMF says about this, but I mean "off topic" because we can't just answer the question about FAR by saying "if the maps were good enough, they wouldn't need captions". Literally hundreds of maps aren't good enough, certainly not as detailed as OK-133. Please, let's get into improving maps at MTF after TMF weighs in. Sswonk (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to come off as a "leader" of this discussion, but yes, saying "if the map is good enough you may not need captions" really doesn't contribute anything to this thread. No article has passed FAC without a caption being added at some point, and some of the maps have had the kind of context being discussed here (labels, shields, etc.). That fact is what led to this discussion. – T M F 03:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No leader implied, just wanting to make sure, since you started the original topic and then this "original point" subsection, that I was right to think along the lines of what you just wrote, that the caption is the question. Sswonk (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not angry, I just don't feel that captions should be necessary. It seems somewhat amateurish to me to use a caption to connect dots the maps don't—and if the map connects all the dots, then the caption is redundant. I understand the alt-text requirement, as it is useful for blind people and users of programs like Lynx—it's very instructive, by the way, one time when my X server was broken I was reviewing Michigan articles with it—but the captions I see no benefit in. (Also holy crap I agree with NE2 for once) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"$HIGHWAYNAME highlighted in red" would probably work as an automated solution and possibly satisfy the FA requirement, I could go for that, with custom captions obviously an option. Sswonk (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility. It's definitely codable; I can do it if no one objects. – T M F 08:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

$Highwayname would work for state routes, and national articles, but what about Interstate 84 (west), Interstate 95 in New Jersey and Interstate 405 (California).Dave (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is part of my reason for requiring an optional custom caption, which I believe is also easily coded, i.e. the "map_notes=" is automatic if left blank or otherwise takes on any manual entry for the parameter. Sswonk (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally would just call the appropriate infobox road/jct abbreviation template, so I-84 W would just display as "I-84 highlighted in red", I-95 in NJ "I-95 highlighted in red", and so on. – T M F 18:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And anything that doesn't work with that template could just be manually specified in the normal way. – T M F 18:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Also backing up just a bit. Every road FAC I've participated in, there's been a complaint about the map needing context, map being confusing, what's the blue verses red lines for etc. I've always resolved this with a caption, which usually made the concerns go away. I've yet to participate in a road FAC where the map had shields and other contextual information included. Therefore, a caption may not always be required, just has been so far in every road FAC I've worked with. Something to think about.Dave (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously the main point expressed by Scott and NE2 as well. The MTF standards are worded: "Try to stick to the following standards when creating maps", and with that sort of liberal guidance the maps themselves are literally "all over the map" as a result. Different colors, shield sizes, labeling, etc. abound. I think the best result of this discussion, which is really about whether to require captions regardless of map quality, is going to be a move to create much more stringent and higher standards over at MTF. TwinsMetsFan has stated above however that FAC reviewers have called for captions even when the maps included shields and labels. I reiterate, if anyone is working on GA or FAC review for maps I have created, please let me know and I will upgrade them to include higher detail and labeling. Sswonk (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have an editor who has decided that labels are not allowed for WP:CASH articles too, and is reverting over the one CASH map that does have labels. :( Why do I have to deal with this? (Map for California State Route 78) --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Sierra Highway, he reverted over that map too. Dave (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

On the note of FACs using captions: [2]. I removed the caption in a subsequent edit since I believed the map was clear enough. I think this is the stance that Scott has - maps with good enough context don't really need captions - but for every map where captions aren't necessary, there are at least 20 that need them. IMO the widespread need for captions trumps the few cases where they're not necessary. – T M F 18:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this point at all - it's very valid - but calling for better maps in the future doesn't do anything to resolve the fact that "substandard" ones already exist and number in the hundreds, if not thousands. We need something that takes care of these maps since it'd take a long time to replace the substandard ones, and IMO there are better areas where time can be spent. – T M F 18:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the substandard ones really don't need too much to fix them in the vast majority of cases—an inset takes perhaps five minutes to add to a map; all that needs to be done is fire up Inkscape, draw a box to hold the inset, import a county map, draw a box to highlight the area the main map covers, export as PNG, voila. Importing and resizing shields is even more trivial. (I like to run my maps past User:Cat of Dar—he's not really active here, but if you can get a hold of him through the other roadgeek connectivity methods, he has a GIS/cartography degree and can point out whether the maps have enough context, as well as other map design tips.) The problem is just the vast number of poorly-made maps. I would recommend that new maps be zoomed out to at least the county that the article route is in, and for routes that span more than three counties or so, show the whole state.

Maybe some type of map review process is needed?? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) TMF, it appears adding the automatic captioning as described above is fine and has consensus. Please add it to the template if it hasn't been already. Scott, we also have a consensus to improve maps, I think it would be helpful for you to start a thread at WP:USRD/MTF talk and get the ball rolling on many of your concerns there in a new topic. I want to avoid having that discussion drag on here in this thread so this can be closed, it really should be a separate one and the maps task force page is where it should be. Sswonk (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

control cities

I just discovered that a list of control cities for highways has been deprecated. Why is this? Powers ^T 16:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See WT:USRD.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 16:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the only thing I see there is on control cities on junction lists. I'm talking about the simple infobox-style list of control cities such as that formerly on, say, Interstate 390. Powers ^T 16:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Might have to check the archives. There has been on-wiki discussion.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 16:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 14#Major Cities (part 1) - What is a "major" city? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 14#Major Cities (part 2) - "Major" != "Control". The short version of the consensus reached there is that the major city lists are redundant to the route description and the locations given for major junctions in the infobox and the control city lists are impossible to source. – T M F 20:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised the control cities aren't sourceable. It's too bad; I think they're quite valuable. Powers ^T 01:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

History and timing

Not sure where to put this, but many articles on roads and highways give no sense of what came first - thus, "US 11 parallels Interstate 81". No, it doesn't, as US 11 was built/designated decades before I81 was constructed. Also, US highways often were built on or designated by existing routes, which followed historical patterns of travel and settlement, including Native American trails. There should be some sense of this in the articles.--Parkwells (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (mostly). I still think "US 11 parallels Interstate 81" is an appropriate term to use. You are exactly correct that FAR TOO MANY road articles have a history section that starts with the date the route number was assigned, ignoring the history of why a highway was built there in the first place. It's a pet peeve of mine, I've mostly addressed it via article reviews (GAC, A Class and FAC) and would encourage you to do the same. With that said, I'm not sure how to fix it. If someone isn't going to take the time to do the difficult research (the history from once the route number is assigned is easy), how do you make them do it? Dave (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dave, to say that one thing parallels another does not imply which came first. Usually it is obvious that a river was there before a highway that parallels it, but it is still equally valid to say that a section of the Grand River is parallel to the US 131 freeway near downtown Grand Rapids. To address the comments about history, many of the articles are not written from the perspective of the history of the physical roadway or the history of the travel corridor, but rather from the perspective of the history of the designation, or the perspective of the history as a highway. I don't have many answers to offer. There are around 10,500 articles on highways in the US, and around a dozen active roads editors at any given time. Assuming each of us could research and add pre-designation history to one article a day, that's almost a 3-year task to get them all completed, assuming that the article has a history section at all! Compounding issues is that some of us active editors don't work on articles outside of our home area. The sources I can use here are going to be somewhat limited for much research outside of Michigan, where I live. In many cases, the easiest place to start writing the history of a road is with the initial construction or designation, which is usually an easily known starting point in time. Then editors can research forward to the present and back farther in the past. Imzadi 1979 → 17:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Direction infobox...

Hey all,

Have been meandering through the Texas articles trying to rearrange them south to north, as the standards mention. Read the wrongdir infobox yesterday, and noted that this is because roads mileages are posted south to north. Now the monkeywrench. Texas marks their non-numbered US Routes and State highways north to south. For example, State highway 130 exit signs on the north side of Austin start in the low 400s, and reach the mid 400 at Highway 71. On the other hand, US 75 north of DFW metroplex is numbered south to north, while the tiny roadside mile markers on a different non-labeled US Route near me increase as you go south (final marked number is 814). Now, should I stick to standards for all highways here, or will I need to go through the state routes and reverse them N-S? Either way, still have a good amount of work ahead. 25or6to4 (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to say that the route descriptions should always be west to east and north to south, regardless of the direction of increasing mileposts. -- LJ ↗ 08:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

They should run from lowest milepost to highest. Of course for any that are opposite of the norm, the junction lists need to be mile posted first as "proof" of the exception, with a note above the table stating that. If that isn't going to be done, then stick to the s–n, w–e standard. Imzadi 1979 → 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My initial thought is that the article should match the direction of milepost progression. However, I don't think this is a big enough deal to edit-war or re-write any article that is in an ambiguous situation. No matter which standard we decide on, there will be articles that will, out of practicality, not follow that standard. I do think this project goes a little overboard with conformity sometimes. With that said, I know of two quality ranked articles that have this issue, U.S. Route 491 (FA- the mileposts reverse direction of procession at the Utah-Colorado state line) and Nevada State Route 375 (GA- mileposts run opposite direction from the norm). Dave (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistency is a great thing, especially since Interstate mileposts were set to a uniform standard. You have two basic options, and the Texas articles as a whole should eventually follow one or the other, but not both.

Make every article run in the standard direction, regardless of mileposting direction. Place a note above the table along the lines of "TxDOT runs the mileposts increasing from north to south." Run the mileposts from largest to smallest.
Make every article match that highway's mileposting direction. Place a note on the article's talk page that clarifies that the article's direction is correct, kind of like articles get tagged for what variation of English they use. You can also add a hidden comment up top of the article like  in case someone goes to tag the article as "wrong". Of course if the mileposts are in the junction list, and the details match the infobox, then it should be obvious what the situation is.

The key is that the the infobox, the route description and the junction list be internally consistent with each other. As a project though, the articles should be consistent in their method. Imzadi 1979 → 18:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement. Let me clarify my previous statement, as I think it came out wrong. I think all of the Texas articles that are in the same situation should use the same format. My statement about us going overboard with consistency is more to say, we need to recognize that no matter what standard we go with, there will be articles that don't fit the mold and better not to shoehorn them into a rule that doesn't fit. Back to the original question, what makes for less work, to follow milepost direction, or keep with the usual directional orientation? I'd just go with that.Dave (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say stick with the milepost direction. Gonna be some work either way. Why does Texas have to do things the hard way... 25or6to4 (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I say write the article south to north to be consistent with non-Texas articles. I live in Texas and can say that nobody pays attention to mileposts here. The are only posted every two miles and on alternating sides of the road underneath reassurance shields in tiny numbers. TxDOT doesn't use them for exit numbers, so they're useless for junction lists. They are numbered from the northernmost and westernmost points of the state, not from the road terminus, which confuses most drivers. Worst of all, the numbers at the border between the TX/OK Panhandles and the TX/NM state line west of El Paso begin counting at 10 instead of 0 and the marker closest to a county line is moved to the county line rather than the true distance, so there is no point to paying any attention to them at all. If you want to reference where they are located, that can be done with this map selecting "Markers" in the overlay menu. Fortguy (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I recently revamped the M-168 article. The road itself physically runs about north by northwest to south by southeast. The mileposting in the Physical Reference Finder application online is north–south, but the directional tabs are east–west. Press releases from MDOT describes it from the east (south) terminus to the west (north) terminus. For all of those reasons, I made the article reflect a south to north perspective, even though the directions in the infobox appear opposite of normal. (Of course in a few months it won't matter when the sign assemblies come down and the road is decommissioned.) Imzadi 1979 → 19:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

About tolls...

...I noticed it said "cover the cost of driving the entire Turnpike", but I didn't see anything on individual toll plazas that charge a flat rate. If I remember correctly, a lot of the flat-rate toll barriers on Maryland articles, like I-95 (Fort McHenry Tunnel) intentionally excluded this info (...yeah, they're not turnpikes either, but still). That example in mind, I removed the rather intricate list of toll rates on each exit (for every axle, too) for Pennsylvania 43's article, but it would appear that an anonymous IP put them back. The "Tolls" section does say "turnpikes only", yes, but is what the anon did acceptable by the standards, since it is not the "whole" turnpike? —Onore Baka Sama^{(speak | stalk)} 13:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a pricing guide according to WP:NOT, but over time an exception has been carved for bridge/tunnel toll rates in bridge/tunnel articles. I'm not sure what to say about including them in other articles since only I-75 in Michigan would have the Mackinac Bridge's tolls. Imzadi 1979 → 16:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Another reason for not including toll prices is they are subject to change. By including them we make it that much more difficult to ensure the articles are not factually outdated. I can think of a couple of times where I knew a specific statistic was out of date, but did not have a reliable source to back it up, as the reliable sources were not updated to reflect the new number. Dave (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC) P.S. Yes Imzadi, I know I need to finish a review for you, including a 2nd look at a few things. I'll get to it, I promise.

Special Routes

“

Use the standard abbreviations for bannered routes ("BUS", "BYP", "ALT",...) for the displayed text. Their mixed-case counterparts ("Bus., "Byp.", "Alt.",...) are equally acceptable. Shorter banners, such as Loop, Spur, and Truck can either be abbreviated or used in their full form.

”

This should be changed to indicate the name should be spelled out the first time (e.g. US xx Bypass (US xx BYP)). Or am I wrong? --Admr Boltz 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Imzadi 1979 → 00:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote that section originally (or at least was around when it was originally written), and it was really intended to show how links should be displayed in the infobox, not in article prose. I never abbreviate the special route types (Business et al) when I write about them in an article. My understanding is that there's a greater need to abbreviate them in infoboxes and junction lists than in prose because in both of the former locations space is somewhat limited. It results in a situation where the "Bus." abbreviation isn't used anywhere else in an article, but I doubt anyone - reader or editor alike - will have trouble figuring out what it stands for. – T M F 00:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Placeholder...

...for comments on the application of these standards in GA reviews. Geometry guy 22:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:State detail page browse

Instead of the template reading "Previous state:" and "Next state:" could it use something involving the cardinal directions instead? I'm willing to put in the work, but I can't think of something that doesn't sound awkward. --Pgp688 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the rationale comes from the fact that highways are generally defined as progressing from either south to north or west to east--that is by convention adopted by the MUTCD for reference location (mileposts) and other official documents. Thus, the notion of previous/next state in the browse template here follows that progression. -- LJ ↗ 22:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion pages from before the merger:

Interstate Navbox

Moved to WT:USRD#Interstate Navbox. Imzadi 1979 → 02:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixes for Arkansas uses of Template:Jct

Moved to Template talk:jct#Fixes for Arkansas uses of Template:Jct. Imzadi 1979 → 03:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't gotten any comments at Template talk:jct#Fixes for Arkansas uses of Template:Jct. I just need someone who knows how to implement the changes, else I would do them myself, but I don't want to mess up such an important template. Brandonrush Woooooooo pig sooie 00:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Brandon: this isn't the right forum for that request, which is why I moved it to the correct forum. This page is for discussing changes to the project standards, not the template. Imzadi 1979 → 02:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Where should this request go to generate discussion? Brandonrush Wooo pig sooie 03:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

For changes to a specific template: that template's talk page, which is where I moved your request already. Imzadi 1979 → 03:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

US 301 SC Junction list

Moved discussion to WT:USRD#US 301 SC Junction list. Imzadi 1979 → 14:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)