Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Routes/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about 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

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hi. I am interested in there being History sections in the various U.S. Highway articles. It seems the template of articles in this project does not include such a feature. The Route 66 article (or U.S. Highway 66) is exceptional for having a lot of interesting history, but there is no section in other articles like U.S. Highway 50. There is a great definitive history source in the Federal Highways Administration's history section, including "From Names to Numbers The Origins of the U.S. Numbered Highway System" by Richard F. Weingroff http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/numbers.htm (there's a link to this from the Highway 66 article). A note on the history is appropriate in each separate U.S. Highway article, I think. Could this be started by adding a minimal note in each of all the original numbered highways (10, 20, 30, 50, 70 etc.) that its highway number was assigned on Nov 11 1927 (as is mentioned in the Highway 66 article, accuracy supported by Weingroff). And in each short history section provide a link from each one to an overall history page (is there one?).

Also, by the way, I appreciate that searching on "Highway 50" now redirects a wikipedia user to a "Route 50" disambiguation page and hence to the existing U.S.Highway article, while it did not a few weeks ago. Your fix probably was created in response to some newbie's creation of a new Highway 50 page a few weeks ago, mentioned in the Talk at U.S. Highway 50. However, searching on "highway 30" or "highway 2" still leads a user to a statement that there is no such article and invites one to create one.... I suppose that there is an effort to fix that for all such searches?

--Doncram 11:04, 1 February 2006

I thought that allowing these templates to exist would be a problem from the start. However, I decided to leave them uncontested. Here is the problem: editors have been putting them on Interstate and U.S. Highways... we can't have those on there. Here is the reason: If every state had one and put theirs on every Interstate they have, then Interstate 95 would have 15 templates- that's way too many. Even 3 or 4 is too many to have on one page... we already have U.S. Highway 1 with 3 on them and the page looks cluttered. Please share your thoughts. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• There should be only 1 template for every type. Ex: 1 for every state only for use on state highways. Station Attendant 02:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • But see below for suggestion on state-specific subpages. --EngineerScotty 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Rob Droz for finding these. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting thing to note - the term used is always U.S. Route, not U.S. Highway. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

They're known as U.S. Highways. Route is typically used in the South and Northeast. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Known by who? AASHTO, the agency that assigns them, calls them Routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Route is typically in the south and northeast? How about Route 66? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We have the U.S. Highway system? AARoads uses Highway... and so does every other roads site I've been to for that matter. 66 is decommissioned so it doesnt matter for that one. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey has a system of state highways, but they are officially designated "State Highway Route X" and typically called "Route X". This may be a similar case. As there is no agreement among states, we should go with what AASHTO uses - U.S. Route. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Federal laws also use Route - see Talk:Interstate 73. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd get input from others first so we don;t have any probls. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How do you suggest getting such input? I figured putting it here would be enough - typically I'm bold and then get input if people disagree. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose advertising with other WPs might be a start. I just wish we had something like {{Project Macintosh}} to inform all of the U.S. Road contributors about these discussions... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have moved four articles - U.S. Route 1, U.S. Route 40, U.S. Route 66 and U.S. Route 71 - with a summary that links here. (Unfortunately that summary only shows up in the auto-created redirect, so I will add a note to each of the four talk pages.) --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• I had noticed that if we're going to follow that AASHTO report then all interstate articles should be "Interstate Route XX". However I would oppose that move on the basis that is not the name most commonly referenced for Interstates just as "US Route XX" is the less commonly referenced name. US Highways are much more commonly referred to as "US Highway XX" and as such should be titled by that name per Wikipedia guidelines that articles be at the most often referenced name. We can create redirects for the "US Route XX" pages.Gateman1997 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I replied to this on User talk:Gateman1997 - basically, AASHTO uses both "Interstate X" and "Interstate Route X", and the Route/Highway usage depends on the state. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I did a quick Google search on the major U.S. Highways, searching for "U.S. Route N" and "U.S. Highway N" to see which is more common. Here are the results:

	U.S. Route	U.S. Highway
1	264,000	246,000
10	323	27600
11	49100	29600
20	32800	49500
21	482	862
30	51700	53400
31	845	72400
40	43200	82400
41	860	107000
50	37800	98200
51	639	36600
60	50900	50600
61	327	41800
70	373	82400
71	253	26500
80	349	60800
81	445	16200
90	775	75600
91	540	541
Total	535,711	1,158,003

Of course, the normal caveats apply to these results, but I think they are diverse enough to be telling w.r.t. usage: "route" is used robustly for certain of the U.S. Highways, in some cases being more popular than the equivalent "highway" usage, such as for 1, 11, and 60. However, in most cases, the "highway" usage is orders of magnitude more common than the "route" usage, and in no case is the "route" usage an order of magnitude greater than the "highway" usage. Conclusion: "U.S. Highway" is the more commonly used name overall. The policy of "most common name" should applied to each article individually, however, and those roads which are best known as "routes" should be called routes, and the others as "highways". For those where it's about even, either is acceptable. I would recommend either keeping whatever name they currently have or using the name which is more common overall ("highway"). I don't find the argument that the "official" name is "route" to be particularly compelling argument for anything other than being included as a small note of trivia buried somewhere in the article. Nohat 23:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

We need consistency here though... if we call one "U.S. Route" then we can't call another one "U.S. Highway." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. Why do we they need to be consistently named? If they are commonly called different things, they the articles should have different titles. There should of course be redirects for the alternate name in all cases. However, I don't regard "consistency" as a compelling argument to violate core naming policies. As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Nohat 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If you notice above I was for the Highway naming. Besides, why have one page that is different from everything else? Common names can redirect to the consistent names. It sticks out like a sore thumb and makes it harder for the people who write highway articles. (Wait... was it The 405, The 405 (California, 405, I-405, I-405 (CA), I-405 (California, Interstate 405 (CA), Interstate 405 (California), San Diego Freeway, or traffic nightmare?) That's what we want to avoid. Especially for the people who try to link to these articles.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither sticking out like a sore thumb nor being difficult for editors are legitimate reasons to do violate the "use common names" policy. What would be unacceptably distracting would be articles whose titles reflect not the most common name of their subject but some standard title format set out on some far-flung wikiproject page. Your argument about different names for I-405 is a straw man: that problem is already solved by redirects. Nohat 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an example from a similar naming dispute last year, CA-17. It's a pain for the editors who work on this project. If we need redirects for more common names then let there be redirects. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 07:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not how the naming policy works. The article's titles are the most common names. Other names are redirects. Not the other way around. I'm sorry if it's a "pain" for the editors who work on this project, but the naming conventions exist for the benefit of readers, not for the editors. Editors have to put up with a little inconvenience to help the readers, who are best helped when articles have familiar titles. Nohat 08:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no consensus to that interpretation of the policy here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of interpretation of policy. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is quite clear: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Nohat 20:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of common sense here. And assuming that you are willing to research the common name of every U.S. route, Interstate, California State route, etc. and move the pages individually? And clean up the redirects and deal with the mass fallout, such as fixing {{routeboxca2}}? And clog Wikipedia with a bunch of redirects? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is that, generally speaking, the articles should stay at the title "U.S. Highway N". However, if after discussion on the talk page, it is decided that the common name for a particular U.S. Highway is "U.S. Route", then that article should be moved. What there should not be is a "policy" here that says they should all be "U.S. Highway N" and then if it is decided that "U.S. Route N" is the most common name, then that's too bad because we decided here they will be "Highway" and that's that. That is what I meant by a foolish consistency. As I said before, I'm sorry if it means a little extra work for editors, but Wikipedia exists for the readers, not the editors. If you don't want to do the work, then don't—someone else will. But don't try to institute new policies that are contrary to existing policies just because it is more convenient for you.Nohat 21:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with your proposal is U.S. Highway 2 which runs through both the West, the North. and the Northeast- what is the proper name for it? That's what redirects are for. It inconveniences the readers when we have unnecessary redirects. And when we have red links because we forget what the article name is called. And when the Wikimedia servers go down when we overload them due to the redirects. The servers haven't been running great lately and don't need any more overload. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint about U.S. Highway 2 is inapplicable; obviously it will be given whatever name is most commonly used overall for that highway. It doesn't inconvenience the reader at all when there are rarely-used redirects. They just take up a handful of bytes in the database, and on the off chance someone should type the redirect in, they will get to the right page. I'm totally baffled what poorly-performing servers have to do with article titles. Surely you're not suggesting that when the servers don't run that great we should set aside our naming policies. A hundred or so redirects will have absolutely no effect at on the operation of the servers. Nohat 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which way I would go on "Route" vs. "Highway", but I agree with Rschen7754 that they should all be titled "US Highway" or "US Route". Overall, it would be strange to have some title one way rather than the other. This was the original (I think) reason for moving "Route 66" to "US Highway 66", even though it is more well known by the former name. If "US Route" is chosen, interstates, state highways, etc. could countinue to be called "highway". But all of the same type of highway should be titled the same way.Rt66lt 05:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Consistency has never been a valid criterion for naming criteria. Each highway should be titled by the name it is most commonly known as. The fact that they are all part of the U.S. Highway system does not make it somehow necessary that they have to have matching article titles. I understand the impulse to make things consistent, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is quite clear. Why should it not apply here? Unless you can show a consensus-accepted policy on naming conventions that says that articles about related topics should have matching titles, then the only naming convention that applies here is the "common names" one. Nohat 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I've reverted your nonconsensical move of U.S. Route 101. If we move one back then we need to move them all back. There is no consensus here for your naming scheme. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That move was in accordance with Wikipedia project-wide policies. There never was any consensus in the first place to move it to U.S. Route 101. Nohat 21:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And I cite the arguments at Talk:California State Highway 17. The purpose of a WikiProject is to provide standards, which you are not supporting. Note the discussions that SPUI placed above and on four U.S. Route articles (Talk:U.S. Route 1 for example.) Don't say you didn't have any warning. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my arguments. I never said I don't support a standard. What I am not supporting is an inflexible rule about naming article that is in violation of site-wide naming conventions. Wikiprojects do not enjoy the privilege of ignoring site-wide policies that they don't like. As for California State Highway 17, you will note that it is not titled the same as the other California state route articles because the title "California State Route 17" is not the common name of the highway. Nohat 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And I quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Having the articles named various things does not make linking to them easy and second nature. We need consistency here- otherwise who would know that CA-17 is at California State Highway 17? The conventions are not set in stone either, as the pages indicate: If you look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), there is some flexibility as noted in the comments at the bottom of the page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Using a consistent naming scheme for U.S. Highways articles only makes linking to those articles easy and second nature for those people who are familiar with the naming convention. For the rest of the vast majority of people who might want to link to these articles, the most likely way they would link to it would be to use the name they use for the highway, which for most people will be by definition the common name. Furthermore, the "need" for consistency is overstated. People will be able to find the relevant article whether they type "highway" or "route" because whichever the article is titled, the other title will exist as a redirect.

All Wikipedia policies have a built-in degree of flexibility, and so should whatever naming convention is adopted for U.S. highways. I'm perfectly happy having a convention, but if there are certain roads for which the convention doesn't represent the common name, then there should be exceptions. Nohat 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm thinking of filing for a subject-specific convention at WP:NC. It's under construction at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways. But having one or two oddballs sticks out like a sore thumb. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My 2c, for what it's worth: I'm one of the originators of this crazy idea, now a year old. That and five bucks will get me a latte at Starbucks. But when I saw that List of U.S. Highways had been redirected to List of U.S. Routes, and saw this interminable discussion on the topic, I'd have blown that hypothetical latte all over my keyboard. Is this what Wikipedia is about these days? Massive debates about page moves, and wholesale changing of naming conventions that have worked just fine so far? No wonder I spend more time at Uncyclopedia these days. At least their authors know when to stop taking themselves so seriously. --Robertb-dc 21:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if your two cents consists only of hand-wringing about how we're "taking ourselves too seriously", then I'd say it's not worth very much. If you don't want to work on the project anymore, then don't, but don't poison it for everyone else because you've become embittered. Nohat 22:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a move to change the names of articles to "U.S. Route XX" from "U.S. Highway XX", should the title of the project be change to "WikiProject U.S. Routes"? — Bellhalla 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait a week to make sure that the articles aren't moved back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

For a couple of US routes, I created Oregon-specific sub-articles (as suggested by Wikipedia:summary style) a while back. They can be seen at:

U.S. Highway 101 in Oregon U.S. Highway 97 in Oregon U.S. Highway 30 in Oregon

Obviously, not all of the US highways have this treatment; and some of them (US 730, US 199, US 197) are so short that it wouldn't be worth it; but I think this is a good approach to allowing state-level detail for US highways. State specific pages can have state-specific templates (like Template:Oregon State Highways), which are generally a no-no on US route pages.

Two other approaches to having state-specific detail on US routes:

• Disallow it. I don't like this idea for obvious reasons
• Put all the state detail on the main highway page; this will clutter up the pages horribly. Especially for highways like U.S. Highway 20 or U.S. Highway 30 which cross the country.

There was some discussion about the merits of this on Talk:U.S. Highway 101, but the discussion didn't reach any concensus; which is why I am bringing the up here now.

--EngineerScotty 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Interstate 95 for a similar discussion. My view on this is that we need a consensus before splitting an individual article up... because then we could get madness like U.S. Route 101 in Southern California which we don't want. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It is probably safe to draw the line at states; at least from the top-level pages. I agree that a separate page for each county that a given highway passes through is overkill. OTOH, Wikipedia is not paper, so if someone wants to write such an article, and it is properly referenced and NPOV, I wouldn't attempt to stop them. We do have, for example, an articles on the Hollywood Freeway and Ventura Freeway--both of which encompass US 101 (as well as a pair of California state routes). In Oregon, the article on the Mount Hood Highway gives lots of detail on a section of U.S. Highway 26, as well as Oregon State Route 35. I see no reason to exclude such articles, if someone has the bandwidth to write them and do a good job. --EngineerScotty 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding what's going on here; but I hope, regardless, there would still be an article, for example, on US Route 101, and not just articles on US Route 101 in Washington, Oregon, and California. I would oppose that. Though I think, in some cases, there may be enough information to have sub-articles on each (I'm just using US 101 as an example), either under a short section about US 101 in California with Main article:US 101 in California. US 66 could probably have enough to have subarticles, but most of that information is already in the various state highway articles on those roads that replaced it. Rt66lt 16:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• There still would be. U.S. Highway 101 is a summary description of the route, encompassing all states. U.S. Highway 101 in Oregon, U.S. Highway 101 in California, and U.S. Highway 101 in Washington are (or would be; not all are written as I pen this) state-specific pages giving far more detail. State-specific pages would not be required--one should only be written if there is enough content to justify a full-sized article (no stubs, please)--and only if someone is interested in writing one. For short segments (like US 197 in Washington state, or US 195 in Idaho), a state-specific article is probably inappropriate. For those US highways which only lie within one state; a separate state-specific article is probably not appropriate either--in that case, I'm for allowing state-specific templates (like {{Oregon State Highways}}) to appear directly in the US highway article. --EngineerScotty 20:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• • One other thing. I think it might be beneficial if eventually, a lot of the California-specific content in U.S. Highway 101 were moved to a California page. The California section currently dwarfs the Oregon and Washington sections--part of that is to be expected, as the California section is longer (and the LA-to-San Franciso section is far more commercially significant than 101 in either Oregon or Washington)--but the ratio goes even further than that. I won't make the move myself (I'll let one of the guys in the California Highways project to do that, if they want), but it might make the summary page more readable. --EngineerScotty 21:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yay! U.S. Highway 101 in California now exists! Now all we need is U.S. Highway 101 in Washington to be written, and we're set. I could try and write it later, but probably better let someone from WA do it...I'm not that familiar with the WA project customs and templates. --EngineerScotty 02:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Should we do the same thing as the WP:IH did for their browse state highways? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize that Wikitravel is not related to Wikipedia, though it is in a similar style. There is some talk over there about making Route 66 a Featured Destination (same as a Featured Article over here) in a few months. Should something be posted about this on the Route 66 article in Wikipedia?Rt66lt 03:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it on WikiTravel. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to put some infoboxes for U.S. Highway 71 Business (Joplin) and U.S. Highway 71 Alternate. I was trying to fix a new one for the Missouri highway articles, should I put them in the new Missouri boxes when I finish it?Rt66lt 03:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've created all of the U.S. route shields from 0-99 (and a few 3-digit ones) as SVG and uploaded them to Commons. You can find them at Commons:U.S. Highway shields. Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 23:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The 3 digit one is definetely wrong. I don't know about the other one. 193x154 is not proportional to 750x600 (SHS2004, page 3-4, M1-4 for independent use). This is just speculation, but if you made the 2 digit one in the same manner, then unfortunately there is likely a problem with it. Whether or not there is, I just made a template based on it. I was about to for all the 3 digit ones, but was scared off by the aspect ratio issue. Also, why are they so small? Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-4 M1-4 600x600mm 00.svg --Chris 01:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why the margins? Also, on the three digit one, when I was trying to get the path into position, I realized that the bottom point doesn't line up with the top one. That's also unfortunately definetely wrong. On the 2 digit ones, the middle points (top&bottom) are off-center. Did you draw these freehandish or something? Grids and rulers are your friend. --Chris 02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I used Image:US_39_shield.png as a template, having Inkscape automatically generate a vector from it (Path > Trace Bitmap is the command). The 3 digit one I figured was off, because I found those lying around my hard disk (I think I freehanded those. Which is why I only uploaded 3 of them; those three had no PNG equivalent when I created them.) Theoretically, the size of the original SVG file doesn't matter, because it can be scaled up and down infinitely without any loss. Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes they can be scaled, but they are not in proportion to the size specified in SHS. I never noticed that tracing feature. Anyway, I suppose the 2-digit errors are minor, and probably fixable, but the three digit ones should be redone by somebody. I was planning on making them from scratch, like I did with my first set of 3di shields, but all of the curved lines scared me off (would take a while). Also, If you traced from bitma[, I don't think they'd be as scalable as something written in scratch in SVG. --Chris 04:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The trace-from-bitmap feature creates actual vectors, same as if you traced them by hand, so they're just as scalable. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hold on - I'll make SVGs from the MUTCD, like I did for Interstates. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Made from scratch. Let me know soon if it has any problems - first I'll make the 3-digit base, then mass-generate 2-digit ones. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Same for this. Let me know if it's bad. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Two-digit done. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

And three-digit done. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, can someone explain whey we're moving to SVGs? Unless I'm not mistaken the proper style for these images has always been PNG.Gateman1997 19:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Because SVG is better. Diagrams should be in SVG whenever possible. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate: SVG is "scalable vector-graphics", and road sign images often need to be scaled to a smaller size, say in exit tables and that sort of thing. SVG scales better than other formats. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me.Gateman1997 21:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to make version of the shield utilized in California for US 101, 199, 97, 95, 395, 50, and 6. The gif template is good but needs to be svg or png. [1].Gateman1997 01:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Are California's specs online? The Federal MUTCD doesn't have those. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure. However I don't think there is any harm in using the current gif image as a model. It is accurate to any US highway sign I've ever seen in California. If we find it isn't later it won't be hard to make adjustments.Gateman1997 18:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding CA: they use a special supplement to the MUTCD. See page 14 of Chapter 2D...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 23:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I want G26-2. Any idea where the detailed drawing of that is? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I see table 2D-102 gives the sizes, but I can't find the exact specs. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, here we go. I'll make them for all current and former routes in California. Is US X (CA).svg a good naming convention? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Another alternative might be to drop them at their respective "California State Route XX.svg" page. That way the CA box can be used on the pages as they are by law CA routes.Gateman1997 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that would work. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 03:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That has problems with former routes like 48. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

First one done. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

All done - commons:U.S. Route shields#California-style. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, as always. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. More shields to convert in my pages. Where can I put up a request for SVG Illinois shields? I don't maintain a project page for List of Illinois State Routes — that's just way too much overhead for me, and the list seems to be filling out via regional contributors. Here's an example:

File:Illinois SR 19.jpg

Ugly? A bit. JPEGs? Definitely. More distinct than the ordinary square ones, though. I don't know of any standards used to construct them, and even if I did, there are a couple of signs of questionable standardization in existence anyway. —Rob (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been done, but some of the SVGs are blank. See Illinois Route 95 and Illinois Route 41. Is this related to the recent commons outages? —Rob (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested modified template discussion Template_talk:Routeboxus to make column headings more distinct. --Censorwolf 19:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Lengths discusses how to get precise lengths, like on US 30. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just created Portal:U.S. Roads. If you have any feedback, please place it under "Portal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads.Rt66lt 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to make SVGs for bannered highways (Alt and Business are two I'm thinking of specifically), so rather than having to make special images, you could just use a table or template to build them? I thought of this after seeing that people had made special images for them (e.g. U.S. Route 77, U.S. Route 71 Alternate (Joplin, Missouri))....Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 00:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to to see one for Alternate 71 anyway. I was going to make a routebox for it and had to go back to the old roadbox for it because the US routebox links to an svg version.Rt66lt 01:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created an ALT banner; it can be found at Image:Alt sign.svg. (I've also created a blue one for Interstate 670 (Kansas-Missouri)/ALT 70.) It's in use now at U.S. 77 and U.S. 71 Alt. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 03:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did the business banner ever get made? I could really use one for a couple of the Illinois Routes articles, courtesy of Illinois Route 70 and... Illinois Route 76, I think. —Rob (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is at Image:Business plate.svg. (There is also an Image:Business plate green.svg and an Image:By-pass plate.svg, courtesy of SPUI. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 21:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent, that helps those articles out a lot. If there's any way to neatly left-align the shields in those infoboxes, that'd be even better, but I don't feel like looking up table CSS right now. :-) —Rob (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I sure hope so. I'd like to see somebody out there do a page for Alternate US 17 in South Carolina, partially because of it's length, and partially because the one Interchange on the proposed Interstate 95 South Carolina exit list currently links to US 17, when it should go to ALT US 17. ----DanTD 22:05, 20 June 2006 (EST)

More historical info on U.S._Route_95 specifically for the old US 630 which became US 95 Spur. http://www.geocities.com/usend3039/End630/end630.htm

On the construction changes, 95 through Weiser, ID was widened from two lanes to 5 when the bypass was constructed. More than a decade ago, between Weiser and Payette it was completely repaved, straightened in places, telephone and power poles set back, then repaved as a two lane road, though with wider shoulders.

That was a big WTH?!? deal there when all the prep work for four lanes had been done. I'm looking for info on when that construction was done, so I can do research on the number of deaths that have happened in head on collisions which could've been prevented if that section of 95 had been widened to 4 lanes. It's so busy that it's almost impossible to safely pass during most of the day.

More recently, US 95 north of Weiser to Midvale was completely rebuilt, lots of straightening, poles moved, easements widened, then repaved as only two lanes. (Some really _brilliant_ road planners we have, eh? It'll just cost even more money when/if they ever get around to widening these sections to 4 lanes like they should've been after being totally rebuilt.)

In northern Idaho, starting near Midvale, reconstruction of parts of US 95 was forced due to severe damage from flooding that began on New Year's Day, 1997. Some sections that ran low anlongside rivers were raised, straightened and widened. Large amounts of rock and earth were moved on hill and cliffsides to widen and straighten other sections. Several bridges that were washed out or damaged were replaced. Related to all that but not due to damage was the replacement of the last of the narrow and low through-truss bridges on 95, just north of Riggins. That eliminated the 14 foot height limit for trucks travelling north of Riggins.

Another historic change was at Whitebird, just south of Grangeville, ID. The old road went through Whitebird then climbed Whitebird Hill via many switchbacks (and still does as a scenic route). 95 was changed to cross the river on a high bridge then over the mountain via the shortest practical route on the way to Grangeville.

I would like to clean up a few U.S. Route pages to meet the standards of this project. But I've looked at lots of pages for U.S. highways, and I can't seem to find any to use as examples. Also, the standards seem to be inconsistent -- for example, in the "structure" section, it's suggested that I use a bulleted list for junctions, while the "templates" section suggests that I use tables. Rather than try to decode the standard, it would be simpler to look at a page that's formatted correctly.

BostonHMann 15:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• After reading various ones, I've determined the answer is... no. I'm fairly flexible with subsections, but it's completely random at this point. I'll probably work on this and refine the descriptions as time permits. That said, U.S. Route 6 and U.S. Route 50 appear to be the leading contenders for Ideal Article of the Project™. As for the Route That No One Cares About, that goes to U.S. Route 52, which doesn't even have a length, or U.S. Route 24, which needs an infobox. :-) —Rob (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is killing me.

For lists of cities, states, or other locations, please arrange them from west to east OR south to north. Living in Chicago, it's my natural leaning to list things in a radius from Chicago, but I've managed to make myself stop doing that.

The justification is that most reasonable states assign mile markers in a west-east / south-north fashion, so an interstate listing should do the same.

Thank you. —Rob (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this section needs some sort of consensus...

1. We need to decide whether to use "States traversed" or "Route description"
2. We should be aware that subsection pages (U.S. Route 30 in Illinois) are cropping up that describe the route in finer detail. I have no problems with this, and find it to be better style.
3. We need to decide whether the h3 section header should be wiki'd or not, i.e.

=== Illinois ===

or

=== [[Illinois]] ===

I prefer to use "States traversed" and to wikify the subsection titles, but I'm equally aware that wikifying the subsection titles is a rare practice in Wikipedia. (The bolded items in my previous sentence are what I'm requesting consensus on). —Rob (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This is more a statement of opinion... I think that shields in the termini fields up in the infobox should be okay, a la U.S. Route 54, and will start doing this on more articles unless someone notifies me. :-p —Rob (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would assume this would be an accepted practice as that's how it's done on the Interstate Project pages, like Interstate 94. Stratosphere 19:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. FYI I've posted in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Highways/General forum of the Project regarding the status of the main U.S. Highway articles, which one's are infoboxed, mapped and or junction listed. I just completed mapping US 1-101 (151, 163, 400, 412, 425) and infoboxing the rest of them. Article infoboxes still need to be "junctionized" (list of major junctions added) as well as making sure the endpoints and junctions are listed South to North or West to East Also, check to see if the endpoints are junctions themselves and add the appropriate shields ala U.S. Route 9.

Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Highways/General for the list of pages that still need to be "junctionized" Cheers! Stratosphere 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the maps. As for the infoboxes, please include a link to each junctioned route, so one can click to its article. --SPUI (T - C) 10:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do that. Thanks for putting the map into the infobox template, I was going to look into that. Stratosphere 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone started a list of National Park Highways? DanTD 10:52, 10 July 2006 (EST)

I don't know of any... unless you're talking about things like the Trail Ridge Road. You could. :-) —Rob (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm talking about more like these: http://www.trafficsign.us/650/mark/m1-7.gif DanTD 18:30, 10 July 2006 (EST)

Forest Routes. --SPUI (T - C) 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping to get this up to a featured article; I've listed it for peer review. Right now I'm working on a master map (in SVG) of all current routes; I've done all two-digit odd and am up to 42 for even. Once I finish that I'll do some more work on the article, then probably ask for input on the ushwys mailing list and misc.transport.road, and then list it for featured article status. Any commentary would be appreciated. --SPUI (T - C) 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've completed the map - check it out. --SPUI (T - C) 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This should be helpful in writing articles. --SPUI (T - C) 06:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... nice job with the ink pen... --TinMan 04:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So I need to know going forward what these subpages, a.k.a. state-level detail pages, are going to do for us. First decision... what should the name of these pages be?

1. U.S. Route 24 (Illinois) or
2. U.S. Route 24 in Illinois

Second decision... how are we going to display these in the main article pages (i.e. U.S. Route 24)?

1. As subsections, per U.S. Route 24 or
2. As indentations, per U.S. Route 30

Third decision... where does the browse box go for state highways?

1. In the main article only (U.S. Route 24) -- personal opinion, this makes no sense.
2. In the state detail page only (U.S. Route 24 in Illinois) or
3. In both articles!

OT: State projects need to make a call as to how to integrate their browse boxes into their projects.

After this vote, this should clear things up. Oh, and this applies to Interstates by extension. —Rob (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My votes:

1. U.S. Route 24 (Illinois). Provides for clear disambiguation and is also in line with the disambiguation used for U.S. Routes used in multiple states (ex. U.S. Route 20A (New York) and U.S. Route 20A (Ohio)). Perhaps since all of the articles that I've seen currently exist as "U.S. Route X in X", this format should be used, with redirects from "U.S. Route X (X)" pointing to "U.S. Route X in X". --TMF ^{T - C} 15:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Subsections. Looks cleaner and more polished.
3. Both articles. For the state detail page, the browse should be in the infobox. --TMF ^{T - C} 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. One more thing I almost forgot:

1. Subpages for all U.S. Highway articles, or
2. Subpages for U.S. Highway articles that span more than 3 states?

That's it for now. :-) —Rob (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say only for roads that span 3 or more states, and also only if the portion in that state warrants an article. I don't think we'll be seeing a "U.S. Route 220 in New York" article anytime soon, for example (as US 220 only runs for a tenth of a mile in NYS). --TMF ^{T - C} 18:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

However, a U.S. Route 220 in Pennsylvania and New York might be feasible. --SPUI (T - C) 04:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This section will undergo large amounts of updates as I sort things out... please avoid changing section titles and orders while I figure out what the current status of these articles are. —Rob (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

	U.S. Route
Section Name	20	24	30	40	41	50	51	52	60	62	Rob's proposal
Termini	x	x		x	x	x	x	x	x		Drop
Historic Termini	x			x	x				x		Merge into "History"
History				x					?		Keep
Historic routes	x			s					?		Merge into "History"
Historic names	x			s							Merge into "History"
Alternate routes	x				x	x		x	x		Merge into "States traversed" as subsection
Business routes									x	x	Merge into "States traversed" as subsection
Route description			x			x					Rename to "States traversed"
States traversed	x	x		x	x	x	x		x	x	Keep
Principal cities Major cities Notable cities	x			x	x	x	x	x			Drop; move cities to infobox
Intersections					x			x			Drop; move major* intersections to infobox
Bypasses					x						Merge into "States traversed" as subsection
Trivia				s	x			1/2	x	x	Merge into "Notes" as subsection
Related US routes	x	x		x	x		x	x	x		Merge into "See also" as subsection
Notes	x	x			x			1/2			Keep
Signs (a gallery)	x										Drop; can be in article proper
See also				x	x	x				x	Keep
External Links	x	x		x	x	x		x	x	x	Keep with reservations
Branches and Divisions			x			x					Merge into "States traversed" as subsection
References Sources	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	Keep; rename to "References"

• Note: Your definition of major may vary... a coast-to-coast route might only be 0 and 5 interstates, but a 3di U.S. Route might list 2di U.S. Routes as major junctions. Common sense is advocated.

Okay... so here's what I think.

1. Termini - drop this section, should be in the intro and infobox
2. Historic whatever - should be subsections under History, which every route should have
3. Route description/States traversed - one in the same, should be globally renamed to States traversed since that's more accurate
4. Alternate/Business/Spur/Bypass Routes - should be subsections under the states under States traversed
5. Principal/Major/Notable cities - drop, should be in the infobox and states traversed sections
6. Intersections - drop, should be in infobox. Maybe state detail pages. Not article page.
7. Trivia/Notes - Combine into Notes
8. Related U.S. Routes - keep, consider shoving into infobox as "See also" section Combine with "See also" as a subsection
9. Signs - drop
10. See also - keep, standard for all articles
11. External links - hesitant keep; generally this is a link farm and needs proper referencing, but I can see links to general U.S. route pages being useful.
12. Branches and divisions - should be subsection under States traversed
13. References/sources - generally References is standard, but not a dealbreaker.

Thoughts? —Rob (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a fair assessment. The only one I see others having an issue with is removing the intersections/junctions and limiting them to the infobox. Some routes have many intersections and junctions that we don't want to put in the infobox as it'll make it too long. For related routes, perhaps a "Related Routes" section be added to the bottom of the template, nothing too intrusive, we don't want to cram everything into the infobox. Stratosphere 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking a fresher look at it, combining the See also and Related U.S. Routes (both sections are merely wikilinks to other pages) makes sense to me. Obviously this is a big project, but that's what a WikiProject is for. :-) —Rob (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A question: where do we stand on this right now? I'd like to get this cleared up so we can have a consistent look/feel across all of the U.S. route pages. --TMF ^{T - C} 17:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

With external links, I find it useful to have a link to Dale Sanderson's terminus gallery. It is a stable site, existing for a number of years, and shows what signage is like at the ends of the route. --SPUI (T - C) 16:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I updated U.S. Route 20 with the proposed scheme, and will not be making changes to any other articles. I will need to hammer together a custom TOC because the sheer amount of sections in the article is overwhelming. Being the longest U.S. Route in the U.S., I expect the need for a custom box to occur in 15-20% of all other articles. Generally, the longest ones, and the ones that go through the most states. —Rob (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better. I like the major cities infobox. I thought you were going to stick those in the existing one :) I imagine the article will look even better once the individual state info is fleshed out. Stratosphere 00:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Eventually long routes like 20 should have a separate article for each state, so this is probably more of an interim thing. --SPUI (T - C) 18:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does the status of this effort to organize the U.S. route articles stand at this point? --TMF ^{T - C} 20:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, haven't worked on this in a while. We haven't really voted or anything because I don't think anyone interpreted my proposal as a proposal, just as a "Sure, that works, let's do it." Only I haven't gotten around to it yet, and fired up the whole Maps Task Force and Assessments thing as a side-project.

I think I may have updated the WP main page with the correct sections. —Rob (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for your reply. =) --TMF ^{T - C} 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The project page has now been updated to reflect the above table. --TMF ^{T - C} 02:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was just wondering what the accepted or decided upon abbreviation for a U.S. route is. I have looked around a few articles, and I have seen "U.S. 1", "US-1", "US 1", and a couple other styles that escape me right now. Which is the correct one to use in an article? Thanks, Hotstreets 01:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Really the most important thing is that it's consistent within the article. I personally prefer "U.S. 77", but that's just me. —Scott5114↗ 18:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much! Hotstreets 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the multiplex between US 19 & 98 is longer than that of US 17 & 92, should there be a whole new page for that route or not? --- DanTD 12:04, 2 September 2006 (EST)

Anyone working on the U.S. Route equivalent of the following?

Thanks. —Rob (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

One makes me wonder why would you need this - the US Route 3ds aren't as stringent to their parent as the Interstates are --master_son^{Lets talk} 16:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In my opinion, one could make a case that U.S. Route 219 (for example) is just as much a full-fledged state highway as its parent, U.S. Route 19. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though some of these 3di articles are hanging out in space. There's always the "Related U.S. Routes" list for the main articles, and then there's articles for historical routes like U.S. Route 330 or U.S. Route 320. Even current articles like U.S. Route 360 could use to stand related a U.S. 60 infobox if only for familiarity and style, even if U.S. Route 60 is linked to in the article. —Rob (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Could we not do a browsebox similar to the State highways? or put them in the selection box with the 1 and 2d routes? --master_son^{Lets talk} 19:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay . . . we've got a convention that the cities passed through should be listed from south to north or west to east. Does the same rule hold for the states passed through? Most of the pages I've seen for US routes have the states listed from north to south, and the route descriptions (including ones I've written) go from north to south as well. Do we need to fix all this stuff? ObtuseAngle 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the states traversed section (which is the route description) should be written from south to north and west to east. All of the articles that have the descriptions from north to south were probably written before the project standards were updated recently. --TMF ^{T - C} 19:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll (eventually) redo all my contribs so they read south to north and start working on others as well. ObtuseAngle 19:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Recently, a user moved the state highway system browse boxes from the srbox at the bottom of the page to the infobox on a number of articles, cluttering up the infobox and making it extremely long (even with my monitor at 1280x1040 resolution!). I was under the impression that the browse bars should be in the infobox for intrastate U.S. routes only, and that interstate U.S. routes should have their browse boxes at the bottom of the article. Am I correct or am I missing something? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Only highways contained in a single state eg Interstate 43 or subarticles by state eg U.S. Route 51 in Wisconsin. • master_son^{Lets talk} 17:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we make this nationwide? Because the browse system is a mess right now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Make what nationwide, my comment or TMF's? if its about mine, I agree. I have such things stated on the two WPs I started and I believe that the I and US WPs also have them stated. • master_son^{Lets talk} 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Both I suppose... and also for the WP-less states too... like for example California has a messed up browse system right now... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything stated above. That said, I'll move the browses on multi-state articles back to the srbox. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah so I assume that we want to post all of the projects and WP:USRD on this, putting a section at WP:USRD for the browse... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. That way, there's no confusion regarding browsing. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Does WP:USRD look good? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty good. I made a few changes to clarify some things, but for the most part, I left the original writing in tact. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the horrible mess that Werdnabot made of /Archive2... I'm leaving it in place for now to show the operator what is going wrong. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow...what a mess. Something like that happened at WT:PASH some time ago, where a bunch of random text (in fact, it looks like the exact same text that showed up in archive 2 above) showed up. A diff: [2]. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should manually archive from now on... if this stuff keeps happening. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "For a long route, only list 2di junctions."

"2di" means 2-digit interstate - was this policy copied from the interstate project without examining it? --Random832^T 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

From my knowledge, "2di" is not interstate specific - it only means 2-digits, in this case, two-digit U.S. routes. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But you can/should include 2di Interstates too. For coast-to-coast U.S. Routes, including all 2di Routes (U.S. or Interstate) is definitely impractical, though. —Rob (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I worded my response was bad - what I should have said is that "2di" is this context likely means 2di U.S. routes and 2di Interstates. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"2di" stands for 2 digit interstate, but it's sometimes applied to mean "two digit route" of any type. Perhaps the U.S. route policy should include 2dis and all US routes - 3 digit U.S. routes are much longer and more important than their Interstate counterparts. —Scott5114↗ 18:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Including all U.S. routes is probably not a good idea - we don't list every state route that is intersected for an article about a state route; we include the most notable of such. This reasoning should apply here as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Policy" on most state highway wikiproject is to include the (up to) 10 most major junctions, regardless of their classification. I think that's a fine plan to live by for U.S. and Interstates as well (and reflects actual practice in many cases). -- NORTH ^talk 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the reason that the 2di note was added was because, in many cases, the 2di are the junctions that end up being listed. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does United States Numbered Highways and its reference [3] say that US 2 is a principal route (apparently to avoid US 0) whereas most of the rest of the 'pedia (especially Template:U.S. Routes and U.S. Route 2 don't say it is principal? -- Paddu 20:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways#State law additions. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled across this while cleaning up US 219 today. I'm all for state detail articles, but isn't a separate article for a 1.73 mile segment of a 535 mile highway a bit overboard? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, can it be merged with something else? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be merged into an article on U.S. Route 219 in Virginia and West Virginia, or it could be merged back into the main U.S. Route 219 page. For now, I'd say the latter, at least until a state-specific article is made for West Virginia. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll concur. I'm just wondering if there should be a minimum "standard" length of a route in a state to merit a state-specific article, does such a parameter exist? If not, what should that parameter be? If nothing current, I would start with a minimum of ten miles, or at least three intersections with state routes or higher ... or, something else that would be appropriate. Fwgoebel 05:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely merge back into the main article. As for a minimum "standard" length, I like vagueness with things like that. (In other words, things where the guideline's not spelled out, i.e. just use the 10 "most major" junctions in the infobox.) In this case what that would mean is: judge not on the length of the route or the number of junctions, judge on the length of the article. If there's more than about a screen and a half full of valid, encyclopedic content, then it's worth being split. That's not the case here, but it would be the case for an article like Interstate 78 in New York, where the route itself is just the Holland Tunnel approach, but has plenty that could be written about the history.

On a tangent: for some reason Interstate 78 in New York redirects to Holland Tunnel, but Interstate 78 (New York) redirects to Interstate 78. Hmmm...-- NORTH ^talk 07:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The deciding factor should be how much can be said, now how short the road is. That said, if these are merged, how about Virginia State Route 127 and West Virginia Route 127? Virginia State Route 87 and North Carolina Highway 87? Virginia State Route 311 and West Virginia Route 311 are in fact merged. --NE2 15:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If more can be said about the road than just "State1 Route X goes from Town XX to the state line and continues as State2 Route XX", then a separate article should be ok. However, if the route was specifically renumbered for continuity and the route in the state with the shorter segment connects only the state line to a single populated center (serves only one town/village/hamlet/etc), it might be better to merge it with the article for the route in the state with the longer segment. Let's put it this way: if there are no intermediate junctions with other state highways AND not much more can be said about the road other than its route description, the articles should be merged. --Polaron | Talk 16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 219 in Virginia includes its history; it had three State Route numbers and existed for about 15 years before becoming US 219. After about 45 years, US 219 was truncated to about half its original length in Virginia. On the other hand, other than the history, and a brief description (it begins at US 460 where Rich Creek empties into the New River, and crosses the state line on a bridge over Rich Creek, but is mostly separated from the creek by Wylie Mountain), there's not too much to say. I think if U.S. Route 219 in West Virginia is created, it would be reasonable to include the Virginia piece there, but would prefer not to make it a section of the main US 219 article. --NE2 17:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If the WV page is made, it would be renamed as I mentioned above so that the Virginia piece wouldn't appear awkward. The point I was trying to make is that we shouldn't be writing state detail articles for every interstate (both Interstates and U.S. routes) highway that passes through every state, especially if the main article for that route is lacking in information (as US 219 is). The original discussion on this issue was located here, where it was suggested that shorter segments (the example used was US 220 in New York) should be combined with longer segments in neighboring states (US 220 in Pennsylvania), if a state-detail page should be made at all. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Route 7 Alternate, is a southbound-only road. Does the normal convention of listing roads south to north apply to this type of road? (The road is listed south to north in the VT route log.)

TIA, SkipperRipper 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with the route log in spite of its direction. A little flexiblity here is okay, either way. —Rob (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. (That it should be south-to-north, but that it doesn't really matter.) -- NORTH ^talk 18:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No specific opion here, just that if it is listed north-to-south to match the direction of travel, there should be an appropriate annotation. Fwgoebel 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for the quick (this time) responses! Slight problem I forgot to mention with the north-south issue, some of the roads that Alt. 7 runs on are one-way only, which [I think] makes a difference - you can go south to north on only about 0.8 mi (two small sections) of Alt. 7! FYI, the route log incorrectly lists the ending/starting point as "N WILLARD ST/RIVERSIDE AVE" when actually N WILLARD ends at Hyde St (inverted "Y"-type intersection) maybe 200 feet south of RIVERSIDE. SkipperRipper 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See WT:USRD#Infoboxes for U.S. route bannered routes. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Use_of_old_shields_on_current_routes... —Rob (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I added some old history to History_of_road_transport#United_States_of_America. More is needed on the development of funding, policies, and design. I suggest creation of an article for the history of U.S. roads with much of this information, and links to the specialized existing articles. Some of the existing articles have stub History sections which could link back to this general history so as to provide a more complete description of the history. (SEWilco 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

This is the talk page for articles relating to United States Numbered Highways. A better place to say this is on WT:USRD, where it covers any road in the United States. This project only covers roads that are usually signed with signs such as . V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow didn't find that project. (SEWilco 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

At the IRC meeting on April 27, numerous editors expressed approval for changing the name of the "States traversed" section to "Route description". On intrastate U.S. route articles, "Route description" is already used, and changing the header name would make the project much more consistent with the rest of WP:USRD. Thoughts? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 16:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. —Scott5114↗ 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of obsessing over information that maps present more efficiently than text, would it be more useful to give prospective travelers subjective information they can use to decide which route to take and things to do along the way? I'm thinking something similar to AAA guides, but funkier and more opinionated: sights and tourist attractions, good and bad road food, rest stops, truck stops, Walmarts (they officially let you sleep in their parking lots), good and bad auto repair shops, hazards, seasonal information (roads closed in winter, etc.).

I have attempted this in the Nevada section of U.S. Route 6 and would appreciate FB. LADave 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, this is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. We go to Wikitravel for travel guides. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikitravel is about travel destinations. That's somewhat different from getting from A to B with a little edification thrown in along the way; also getting there safely, rested, and reasonably well-fed. LADave 22:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Still inappropriate for Wikipedia. The article is supposed to have the route description, history of the road, and notable attractions such as Six Flags. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 22:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about the highway, not stuff on it. If you want to make articles about the stuff on the road, then create their own articles (if the subjects are even notable.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of this information can be incorporated into a well-written route description. Be creative as long as the information you put in is verifiable. --Polaron | Talk 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, some of this information, such as restaurants and such, is insignificant. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. That is what Wikitravel is for. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm unclear on the goals of this project, and the project description page didn't help much. Could you point to a good model? If you're only willing to accept material written from an engineering and construction historical perspective, not at all from a traveler's perspective, maybe this isn't the right project for me. LADave 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We need a route description, definitely. It's okay to mention that the route goes by notable stuff. However, saying that U.S. Route 6 goes through a town with few services, goes by a McDonalds, goes through a town that stinks, etc. anything like that, is not acceptable. That is what Wikitravel is here for. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and should not be treated like AAA. It also must adhere to WP:NPOV; a travel guide is not NPOV. In regards to your sentence "'m thinking something similar to AAA guides, but funkier and more opinionated: sights and tourist attractions, good and bad road food, rest stops, truck stops, Walmarts (they officially let you sleep in their parking lots), good and bad auto repair shops, hazards, seasonal information (roads closed in winter, etc.)." the only acceptable things, written in prose, are very very significant tourist and sight attractions, rest stops, hazards, and seasonal information.

For policy to back this all up, see the section on WP:NOT called "Wikipedia is not a directory" and the section called "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The goal of USRD is to write articles on individual highways and their routes and factual information about them. We can include destinations, like Six Flags, and notable stops, like the Round Barn in Arcadia, OK. Judging restaurants and hotels is decidedly not our job, because that would involve opinion, not facts; we have to stick to the facts and keep it neutral per the site-wide NPOV policy. Overall, though, the focus is on the roads themselves. See Roadgeek. —Scott5114↗ 07:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost nothing left that is useful *or* interesting to travelers. OK, it's your baby. I'm outa here. LADave 12:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason these long decommissioned routes redirect to US 6? Historically, neither of those routes was taken completely over by US 6 as parts became US 34. I was on the idea that if it ever existed, it was notable, and this seems to fly in the face of that. DandyDan2007 10:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that the official nomenclature is "U. S. Route xxx", but almost all instances of discussing these highways in Wikipedia, including on this page(!) use the term "U. S. Highway", which, from my experience living in various places around the country, is much more likely to be used in making a reference to them while talking. Was there some specific reason that "route" was chosen as preferable compared to "highway" in this context?? Doug 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Route is the official name used by AASHTO, which is in charge of the numbering scheme, so that's used in the article titles. Before this was common knowledge around the project, the pages were all at "U.S. Highway xxx", and any references to that naming scheme in the article probably dates back from that time and simply hasn't been edited heavily since then. The U.S. Route articles in general (particularly the 3-digit routes) could use some expansion and freshening up. —Scott5114↗ 17:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but that's not quite accurate, is it? AASHTO's publication United States Numbered Highways uses both terms, and I don't see that there is anything at the official website for AASHTO that indicates a specific preference one way or the other. Even the paragraph on naming the routes/highways at our own page on the system says it's not a closed question with AASHTO. Still, AASHTO's application for a numbering modification seems to have settled upon describing an individual numbered highway with the word "route," so I guess it makes some sense to go with that nomenclature. Doug 19:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So the Infobox U.S. Route insists that only one set of cardinal directions be utilized for a route's termini, however, as U.S. Route 202 crosses state lines it shifts from a North/South designation to an East/West. I originally figured the best solution was to list both directions on the termini lines, but that was removed by another editor (probably per the template). Quite frankly, I will insist this be an E/W highway because that's where I live, but I'm sure users south of here will insist it is a N/S highway because that's where they live. Neither directional orientation is correct, nor is it wrong. Any thoughts on resolving this? ZueJay (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's east/west in NY, CT, NH, and ME and north/south in DE, PA, NJ, and MA. For this particular route, putting both directions in the termini (i.e. south/west end and north/east end) might be the best way to go. I don't believe U.S. Route spurs don't have any rule about directions anyway. --Polaron | Talk 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the main issue with putting both directions in the infobox is that the long, non-breaking direction input ("south/west", etc) makes the left column of the infobox too wide. This then forces the right column to narrow, limiting the amount of horizontal space and ultimately increasing the vertical size of the infobox. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not use east and south, since it's EW at the Maine end and NS at the Delaware end? —Scott5114↗ 05:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That should work. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That's one solution; the other is "South/<br>West". --NE2 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)