Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Opening dates of interchanges in exit list

Many of the interchanges in the Garden State Parkway and New Jersey Turnpike exit lists include opening dates in the notes. Are there worthy of inclusion? Needforspeed888 (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I shy away from putting expected opening dates anywhere except Future/History section, even if sourced. Construction schedules slip, funding gets pulled and put to a more pressing project. Stuff like that happens all the time. So even if notable, rarely reliable. By only including them in the future section, IMHO, it's more clear these dates are tentative. But putting them in a table implies it's set in stone and will happen. But if there's no reliable source for the opening dates, then it's a no brainier, zap them. Dave (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Moabdave:, I was referring to interchanges that already opened. Sorry if I was not clear. Needforspeed888 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
It is usually trivial information. Just being true doesn't mean it's important enough to include in an article such as this; lots of true and verifiable things can be written about roads and their construction and maintenance. Perhaps in a "history" section it can explain, in prose, the dates at which sections of the road opened, but as a note on the exit list table, it isn't useful or relevant. --Jayron32 12:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
My apologies as well, I could have checked the article to confirm you are talking about past dates and not future dates. My opinion is the same. The tables and infoboxes should largely focus on what is today, the what changed 15 years ago or will change soon be should largely be kept to the history/future sections. There are cases where it is hard to describe what is, without delving into what changed 15 years ago. There are also cases it's more clear to present the information in a table verses prose (such as when exits are renumbered for an entire stretch of the freeway) and if that's the case that's fine. But more often than not filling a table with trivial details both diminishes the clarity of the table and encourages people to bloat the table with even more stuff. Dave (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Typically, I'll add a reference for an interchange that's planned but not yet open and then I'll update it after it opens. Then after a year or two, I quietly remove it. I'd never add an opening date for something far in the past. –Fredddie™ 05:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, I have to agree that the vast majority of opening dates belong in the history. If we have these opening dates in the RJL then we have to cite them, which adds another can of worms. --Rschen7754 06:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

South Carolina Highway 769 / 40-769

Ollhg87 first tried to update South Carolina Highway 769 to "40-769" leaving it a broken mess and unsourced name change (so I reverted), then they created South Carolina Highway 40-769 as a bad copy-paste move of the same.

I looked on google maps and it does now appear to be labelled 40-769 however I could not find a source.

So I just thought I'd post here so someone with interest/knowledge in the area can hopefully sort out and also introduce Ollhg87 to the existence of this project if this is an area of interest for them.

Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have never seen a combo sign for South Carolina Highways and I doubt such a thing even exists. Signage on the ground is SC 769 and SCDOT maps, so lets keep it as that. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Google maps are rife with errors. It's usually okay for most things, but especially with street names, if there is any doubt or conflict with other information, assume Google Maps is wrong. --Jayron32 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
    I've gone ahead and redirected the page to South Carolina Highway 769. SC secondary highways are numbered S-xx-yyy where xx is the county number (alphabetically) and yyy is the route number. Richland County, where SC 769 lies, is numbered 40. Somehow that nomenclature was applied to a primary highway. –Fredddie™ 17:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Kansas City

@Imzadi1979 and SounderBruce: At your advice, I'll move the thread over here. SounderBruce did mass reverts of most of the highway shield graphics spam that had been done by AllThingsKC (talk · contribs). I did so with several more cities that were not as easy to undo, all at tremendous waste of my time and energy. I removed and adapted some of it in Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City metropolitan area, leaving the new subsections for highways. and I'd appreciate it if you'd review the infoboxes and subsections of those two articles because you're saying there aren't any standard criteria for how many highways is enough or too much. And please link me an article that's a good example of a small town and of a metro. Be sure to use {{reply}} so I see it. Thanks a lot. — Smuckola(talk) 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If you feel like it, there's also List of state highways in Missouri and Missouri State Highway System. Of course anyone else is welcome to reply to this. — Smuckola(talk) 08:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Most of the list comports with WP:USRD/STDS/L, and over time, the rest of the bulleted list in the former section should be moved into the table with the appropriate expansion of information. The system article is underdeveloped, and someone can develop it further in the future à la Michigan State Trunkline Highway System. Imzadi 1979 → 08:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: cmon over. I just this week started touching highway stuff due to removing the above mentioned cruft abuse. To answer your question about this edit, no I haven't gotten any response except approval lol. I'm here to ask what the standards and practices are.— Smuckola(talk) 08:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Highway icons have been added to articles not about highways, such as US city articles, as well as US city infoboxes. There is nothing at WP:USCITIES#Transportation supporting the addition of icons (compared with WP:USCITIES#Sister cities where icons are permitted), and there is nothing at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes supporting icons. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't think most of us care either way if highway shields are used in U.S. city articles. The biggest thing we've learned over the years is that shields are basically decorations and that there should be accompanying text with the shield (see: MOS:FLAG). IF you are going to add highway shields to U.S. city articles, I would suggest using {{Jct}} or just a plain wikilink and no shield. –Fredddie™ 04:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

New List Page for incomplete interstate routes in NC

So this exists now List of future or partially complete Interstates in North Carolina. Don't really see the purpose of it other than highlighting the fact they are partially completed routes. Probably should be discussed here if this is a valid article to have. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Washuotaku: I saw it earlier today and just sent it off to AfD. My thoughts are that the topic fails to meet WP:GNG, as a topic unto itself. It's a copy/paste of content from other articles improperly attributed to those articles. I'd say redirect it to List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina, but it's not a likely search term, so nuke it instead. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Bubbywiki13

Someone might like to keep an eye on User:Bubbywiki13 - they appear to have an enthusiasm for roads, particularly in Ohio, but they're going at articles like a bull in a china shop and could do with a bit of mentoring on how Wiki articles work. Le Deluge (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Interstate_95_in_New_York

I brought up a merge discussion about the Trans-Manhattan Expressway. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Map find

I found something poking around online for my ongoing Wikisource project, and I thought you might appreciate it. The memo attached to the back states:

In 1938 President Roosevelt personally drew the blue lines on the attached map to indicate the routes on which modern express highways should be built. The map is forwarded to you for deposit in the map library.

This modified wall map lead to an internal BPR report in 1938 that lead to Toll Roads and Free Roads in 1939 and various other reports in the 1940s and 1950s that gave rise to the Interstate Highway System. I'm working on transcribing many of those reports to Wikisource. Imzadi 1979 → 01:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you know if the base map (i.e. minus FDR's hand drawn lines) was an officially approved map, or if this was a draft map that was never approved? The reason I ask is this map has U.S. Route 89 drawn with a different routing between Provo, Utah and Cokeville, Wyoming than I've ever seen on any other official map. The history section of US 89 does not mention it ever being routed this way, nor have I even read any roadgeek websites showing US 89 having actually been routed this way. However, US 89 is shown routed along Wyoming Highway 89. The Wikipedia article for that road cites AAroads as stating Wyoming 89 is so numbered from a failed proposal (or at least wish) by Wyoming to have US-89 routed as depicted in this map. I believe I've read this on other roadgeek websites as well. The history section of U.S. Route 89 in Utah has a one sentence mention that US 89 as drawn on this map was at one time proposed, but the only official routing is as it is routed today. If this was an official map, and US 89 was indeed briefly routed this way, there's some articles and roadgeek websites that need to be updated.Dave (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Moabdave: that, I do not know.
The lower right corner says "Corrected to July 1, 1935". Looking at Michigan, it has US 131 running northward from the Cadillac area to Acme near Traverse City, something it was supposed to do in 1926 but never did. Instead the highway ended at Fife Lake and wasn't signposted the rest of the way. In late 1938 or early 1939, US 131 was extended north to Petoskey, where it still terminates. So, this map may reflect official routings and not real world situations. At some point, we need to go through the rest of the AASHO documents and get WP:USRD/AASHTO fleshed out for the 1930s and 1940s. Imzadi 1979 → 07:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, old US-10's on that map. The glory days. Now I have to deal with that embarrassment of a "major" highway basically on my doorstep. casualdejekyll 17:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, the more I look at this map, the more I'm convinced this was a interim proposal to the system that was never implemented in the field, or if it was made official it didn't last long. Among other oddities I've found, it shows US Route 185 being entirely concurrent with US-87 in Colorado, most roadgeek sites, and Wikipedia, says the one designation replaced the other. It also shows U.S. Route 395 with a bizarre westward jolt to Mohave, California along what looks like modern California State Route 138 before returning to its "normal" course. I've never seen a map showing CA-138 as an old routing of US-395. Dave (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The note in the lower right of the map admits that these routes are "not in all cases yet constructed, nor have the detailed locations been determined." Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I noted above that the map spurred the creation of two reports, one internal to BPR and one public. The public report was the first in a quartet in advance of the creation of the Interstate Highway System, and I'm happy to say they're all fully transcribed/proofread on Wikisource now.

I also have started working on a trio of 1955 reports, including National Highway Program (February 22, 1955, a letter from President Eisenhower submitting the Clay Committee report, A 10-Year National Highway Program). Needs of the Highway Systems, 1955–84 (March 28, 1955) and Progress and Feasibility of Toll Roads and Their Relation to the Federal Aid Program (April 14, 1955). Imzadi 1979 → 22:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

California's county routes

I went out and took a bunch of pictures and added them to California county routes in zone G, but the other zones are desperately short of photos (compare California county routes in zone J). Any Californians available to work on shooting county routes in their areas? Dicklyon (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector almost ready for FA

I'd like to introduce you to the Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector, a freeway connector in Atlantic City, New Jersey that runs for a 2.4 miles (3.9 km) with a very interesting design and a backstory full of controversies. I started editing the article back in 2007 and it reached both GA status and A-Class in 2009. It also failed FAC that same year, but I've worked on it since and I think it's ready to try again. I'd love to get some feedback from other editors here before nomination. Thanks! –Dream out loud (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Possible tool for NC road editors

Found on the Connect NCDOT website, this tool could be useful for NC road editors. To access each counties' and MPOs' Comprehensive Transportation Plan, click on the county you want to find info about and then click on the specific organization you need. Some of the data might be out of date, but it should show the general things the county wants. DiscoA340 (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/Comprehensive-Transportation-Plans.aspx

Duplicate draft

I had made comments at the 2017 draft User:ToThAc/U.S. Route 460 in Kentucky but realized there is the 2006 article U.S. Route 460 in Kentucky. I left comments on the editors talk page but listing here so more eyes can be involved. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Where's the issue? I don't see any problem of an editor working on an article in his own userspace. –Fredddie™ 20:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

How to create maps

Hi. Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but to create those browsable maps on the infobox, do we just trace data from a map like OpenStreetMap? Or do we get it from some source? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 04:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Typically we first create a KML file such as Template:Attached KML/Maryland Route 36, which can be converted to GeoJSON for use in the interactive maps commons:Data:Maryland Route 36.map. You can use OSM data to create the maps, but in my experience the more you zoom in the worse it looks. Read over our tutorial page for more information. –Fredddie™ 18:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Attached KML looks terribly wrong

I made an edit to Template:Attached KML/Interstate 80 with data from Google My Maps, but now the formatting looks awfully wrong, with a table of contents with four "$name" headings. How do I fix this? weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 22:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I ended up reverting just because of file size. What exactly were you trying to update?
For national routes, it's good practice to use the Douglas–Peucker algorithm to reduce the size of the file. That can be accomplished by using QGIS or other GIS software. One result will be that the line doesn't follow the road quite as precisely, but you really have to zoom in to see it. The algorithm still does a better job following the road line than the OSM method I complained about above. –Fredddie™ 02:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
But to answer your original question, a lot of things in the KML that are not coordinates or line styles can simply be removed. –Fredddie™ 02:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
As for that, I noticed that some lines were a bit straight and went off the road, so I re-uploaded another version. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, sorry for causing the disruption on the KML file. weeklyd3 (message me | my contributions) 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Lua error: Too many expensive function calls

I just recently updated the list of milepoints for U.S. Route 60 in Kentucky, as it has been rerouted some since the initial milepoints list was added. However, the page is now generating several "Lua error: too many expensive function calls" errors. Is there an easy way to fix this without removing junctions from the list? Oldiesmann (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Oldiesmann: I cleared a few by adding |noshield1=yes to cases of {{jct}} where the highway isn't signed. That turns off the marker graphic, which bypasses the check to see if the graphic exists. That if exist function is the expensive function. I dropped a few junctions out of the infobox, and got more lines of the junction list back. Imzadi 1979 → 03:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Fredddie substituted the jct template in the infobox, which cleared out enough expensive calls to get the rest of the junction list to work. Imzadi 1979 → 03:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

United States Numbered Highway System naming redux

There's a wide variety of naming conventions at work regarding the United States Numbered Highway System. I'd like to solicit some ideas on rationalizing these names. In addition to the system article, we have:

Lastly, WP:USSH specifies "U.S. Route X" and the various special route types for the individual titles.

Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 14:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  1. The obvious thing is to change U.S. Highways or U.S. Routes to United States Numbered Highways. Yeah it's a little verbose, but WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP.
  2. As we were talking offwiki, divided is ambiguous. I'd change that to directionally suffixed
  3. I would change Bridges of... to Bridges on.... Same with Ferries of... and Special routes of... –Fredddie™ 16:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd standardize on "U.S. Highways" as much as possible except the name of the system article and its associated category.
"List of U.S. Highways", "List of suffixed U.S. Highways", "List of special route U.S. Highways" (or "List of special U.S. Highways" if we thought that we could drop that extra word to avoid apparent redundancy), "Bridges/Ferries on U.S. Highways", etc. I'm not sure we'd need "directionally" in the suffixed list title because the lead paragraph could clarify that it isn't including US 25A or US 71B, etc. that are short-form special routes.
My rationale for "U.S. Highways" is that it mirrors and abbreviates the full name of the system. I'm neutral on renaming state lists away from "U.S. Routes", but I wouldn't mind changing them too if there was a consensus for full consistency like the category tree. Imzadi 1979 → 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the intent, I could use some additional explanation. Specifically to Fredddie's first bullet point. I don't see how changing "U.S. Highways" to "United States Numbered Highways" improves any ambiguity. For example, an uninformed editor could say, "hey the 405 is a numbered highway in the united states, it belongs in this list/category." (or that's a federal highway, you get the idea). If the intent is to avoid that scenario I don't see how one is better than the other. If the intent is consistency, I think you pick one and go with it, no matter which one you pick it won't work for one scenario or the other. Dave (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Moabdave: there are three variations of naming in article titles, and I'd like to see us harmonize them before we get more ad hoc move requests that only jumble things more. The request that was made earlier today was to move List of divided U.S. Routes to List of divided routes of the United States Numbered Highway System. We have a lot of inconsistency between the titling schemes in the list above, and I'd like to see them rationalized and harmonized so everything can be moved at once and move on. Imzadi 1979 → 17:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
In that case, definitely agree that divided highway is confusing in the cat names given, as that word typically has a different meaning. Regarding "routes" vs "highways" vs "numbered highways", of those 3 "routes" sounds the best to me, but I could make an argument for either one if I had to, so no strong argument either way. Pick one and go with it. Dave (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with having a harmonized article naming scheme. "U.S. Route X" is our current practice for the individual highways/routes, I would use that for all other articles and category titles about the system; with the exception of the main article at the official name because that speaks about the name of the system as a whole. --Jayron32 18:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Ditto concurrence on having a harmonized naming scheme for the various list articles. I could make a case either direction but I would lean on harmonizing at "U.S. Highway", so the nomenclature has that tie-in to the system name article and matches the category structure that is already harmonized for the main article sorting. (This could open a can of worms, but part of me wonders if we should also be considering the actual article titles with whatever is decided...) As for the divided routes list, I wonder if "List of split U.S. Routes" would be a better title than 'suffixed'. -- LJ ↗ 20:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

1927-30 Maryland State Roads Commission report incomplete?

Am I missing the list of pre-1929 projects in the 1927-30 report? The tables beginning on page 180 are only for 1929 and 1930. --NE2 16:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

US 25 in Ohio accuracy

Moved to Talk:U.S. Route 25 in Ohio § US 25 in Ohio accuracy
 – Imzadi 1979 → 17:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Task Forces

How many task forces are there 2600:1700:6180:6290:24FD:8ADE:56DE:6D19 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There are:
  • 1 each for Interstates, US Highways, Auto trails, county roads, junctions and US 66 (6)
  • 50 more, one for each state
  • 1 for DC
  • 1 for Puerto Rico
  • 1 more jointly for the remaining territories (AS, GU, MP and VI)
Do the math, and that makes 59 total. Mostly though, they're statistical subdivisions now.
Additionally, there are five Departments: Assessment, Maps, Newsletter, Resources, and Shields that provide additional support across all of the project. Imzadi 1979 → 00:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Peer review request

I have requested a peer review for Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector, which is currently an A-Class article, and I plan to nominate it for FA soon. You can find the peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector/archive2. I'd appreciate any feedback! –Dream out loud (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox road update

This is just for the US for now, so I'm posting here instead of Template talk:Infobox road.

|subtype= is dead

Use US-Bus instead of |type=US|subtype=Bus going forward. –Fredddie™ 03:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

👍 Imzadi1979 likes this. Thank you for making this happen. Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 87 exit list request

Interstate 87 (North Carolina) currently does not have the "future" exits in the exit list. If anyone has the time or can do it quick, I would greatly appreciate it! Thank you and have a great day!

I-87 Exit list from malmeroads.net

Thanks again! DiscoA340 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@DiscoA340: Template:Sofixit, but also - are you asking us to use a WP:SPS to source this information? --Rschen7754 04:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Should be noted the website, which is WP:SPS, says "Potential Future Exit Number" not official with sources or anything. Sorry, but we cannot be speculative on this. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Does NCDOT have signing plans online? That would give it some authority. –Fredddie™ 06:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand the issue of it being self-published. I do know that there are five sections on the route that are already graded, 1. From the current eastern terminus I-87 to US-64 in Williamston, 2. Windsor Bypass, 3. Edenton Bypass, 4. Elizabeth City Bypass, and 5. VA 166 to I-64. I was able to find the Final Feasibility report by the NCDOT that lists out the route segments in NC starting Page 16. Thanks and have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Jct updates

You may have noticed that {{jct}} now displays directional banner plate graphics. This is part of an update being discussed at Template talk:Jct#Template updates that includes other features. Please join the conversation over there. Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Tennessee state route maps

I see that Jk00190 has created maps for several Tennessee state routes (for example, File:TN_SR_53.jpg for Tennessee State Route 53). While KMLs would be ideal, having some sort of map is better than nothing, but ideally these should be in a vector format rather than as JPEGs. Does anyone with the time and resources have an efficient way to batch-convert these to SVG, while also updating the colors, etc., so that they would match the maps present at other route articles, or would creating the needed KML files be faster and ideal? Thanks. --Kinu t/c 02:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, converting raster graphics to vector just doesn't work. So if we had to start over, I think KML+GeoJSON is the way to go. –Fredddie™ 19:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I can’t seem to figure it out, but the link in
US 1 Truck is not turned on. Dough4872 03:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Heh, it should be working now. –Fredddie™ 03:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Dough4872 04:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Ohio AFDs

Ohio State Route 325 and Ohio State Route 328 have been nominated for deletion. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio State Route 325, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio State Route 328) Cards84664 16:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I have a request. If you could spot check several articles and replace the talk page banner with {{WikiProject U.S. Roads/sandbox}} (preview but don't save) and check for anything weird, I would appreciate it. Note, it is going to look a little different, so don't report on that. So far, the only thing I've noticed is that the |needs-XXX= parameters don't quite work right. –Fredddie™ 21:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The P:USRD DYK doesn't work right. It appears as:

[[Category:A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in April 2010.]]

with visible brackets and no graphic outside of the article recognition collapsible list.
The portal selected article notices work though. Imzadi 1979 → 21:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Haha oops. Check it again. –Fredddie™ 21:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks good now. Imzadi 1979 → 22:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a group of us that monitor...

...Category:Articles with missing files and the article List of state trunk highways in Wisconsin has been present in that category for a month or so because no one among us can decipher the problem with the road sign images that appear to be broken. Is there someone familiar with how those files work in the articles, why they appear to be broken on occasion, and how we can better serve your project by keeping those types of articles tidy? Dawnseeker2000 23:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: those files are missing, not broken. Each row of the table is created by a template, and in the first case of WIS 120, it's being told to use the 1919 vintage of the marker because that highway existed from 1919 to 1923. The 1919 version of that marker hasn't been recreated and uploaded at this time, which is why the file is redlinked in the table.
As for why they appear broken on occasion, that's because editors are correcting the vintage of marker that should be displayed. We typically want to display the version in use at the time a highway was decommissioned, or the current version if the highway is extant. We do this to avoid anachronistic displays; a highway removed in 1923 was never signed with the modern design. The second WIS 120 in the table should be using the 1927 version of the marker, not the 1919, because it existed from 1923 through 1933, so that means correcting the template's |type= for that row to list the correct/desired year design.
There are separate designs that first appeared in 1919, 1927, 1938, 1949, 1958, 1970 and then the current design. We have a bot on Commons that can batch produce missing markers, but it's only convenient to use when there are several to be made for a single design. Otherwise, we make and upload small quantities by hand as needed. Requests for missing marker graphics like these can always be made at WP:USRD/S/R. Imzadi 1979 → 00:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
So it's fair to say that our group wouldn't be able to repair these cases (that we haven't been able to) without intimate knowledge of the signing system and the highways' history, or could we gain that information via the highway's article? Or as laypeople in this space should we, as a group, make a shield request with a link to the page in need of some attention? Thanks for all the detail. Dawnseeker2000 00:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Dawnseeker2000: normally, editors patrolling that category, like KylieTastic, just make a request for the missing graphics, and we can handle the rest. The alternative is if you can use Inkscape and have the right fonts installed, anyone can create the missing SVG graphics using the templates on Commons. Imzadi 1979 → 00:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Dawnseeker2000: they're all created now. Imzadi 1979 → 01:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Dawnseeker2000 normally I take care of those right away, @KylieTastic can attest to that. This time, one of our own dumped a whole bunch of missing shields on a handful of pages like that and I refused to be his servant. (Looking at you @Alexlatham96; don't do that again.) Consider this a "Sorry, not sorry." for clogging up your tracking category with my petty. –Fredddie™ 05:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes Fredddie, I can attest to that :) KylieTastic (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you guys. Dawnseeker2000 10:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Communication tools

(cross-posted to all HWY subprojects)

The road projects have faced some challenges over recent weeks. While we remain separate projects, I believe we need to be able to work together during this time. Thus, I wanted to highight three recent changes to the methods of communication and collaboration that we have available to us.

  1. Template:HWY Announcements - this template lists important discussions as well as certain cleanup categories used across all the road projects/
  2. WP:HWY/AAA - this is an Article Alerts page that will be updated with every AFD, GAN, FAC, etc. in every road project. Please consider watchlisting this to stay on top of important discussions.
  3. Discord - When Wikimedia IRC on Freenode was shut down, we chose not to migrate to the Libera IRC server. We use the #wpengineering channel on Discord, a more modern chat platform. (It is possible to read the channel history so that you do not miss out on conversations when not logged in, unlike IRC. But for that reason, please consider anything you say there to be public).

Regards, Rschen7754 20:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Leaderboard

After a three-year hiatus, the project Leaderboard is back! The WP 1.0 bot updates the table daily in the evening (ET) on WP:USRD/A/S if there have been updates. Once again, we can compare the quality statistics for the states, territories and topic task forces in USRD.

There is a companion table at WP:HWY/A/P that compares USRD to our sister subprojects and task forces for HWY, and one that breaks down CARD by province and topic at WP:CARD/A/P. Imzadi 1979 → 00:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 AASHTO Reports

WP:USRD/AASHTO now has the reports for the two 2022 meetings, and {{AASHTO minutes}} has been updated as well. Please use the template for citation purposes as it will get an update if we get permanent links to these documents. Imzadi 1979 → 02:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy to report that the initial pass on the table is now complete, covering almost a century of history from 1927 through 2022.
The earlier reports appear to have been placed in a three-ring binder, and then sequential page numbers were written on the upper right corners of each page through the late 1980s. Based on that, there is only one gap in page numbers. That means there is no report for any meetings in 1931 or 1942, and no reports for a 1967 spring meeting or a 1968 annual meeting. I cannot determine if there are missing documents for meetings in 2001, 2002 or 2004.
There is a gap of 12 pages (88–99) left accounted; the last report in 1948 ends on page 87 and the next report in 1951 starts on page 100. I did find memos from AASHO totaling 8 pages sent out to mapmakers listing the approved decisions for the four meetings in 1949 and 1950. Those decisions have been included in the table. Because the missing committee reports are cumulatively longer, they could contain additional requests that were denied. Imzadi 1979 → 09:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Module:Jctint/USA

The most recent version of jctint templates for US states did mainly the following:

  • Assign the state name to |region=.
  • Pass through a parameter to Template:Jctint/core.
  • Rename a parameter to a core parameter.
  • Build a string for a _special parameter that shares the same structure across these templates, only to differ in the state name.

The approach above has several drawbacks:

  • A parameter available in the core module not exposed by these templates becomes unavailable. Parameter additions in the core module do not propagate to these templates automatically.
  • A lot of duplicate template code is difficult to maintain.
  • These templates can only diverge from one another over time. Template users will have to memorize multiple usage when the interface for these templates could have been uniform.

For the past few days, I have converted most of these templates to use Module:Jctint/USA to eliminate the drawbacks above. You might not have seen any observable changes to articles, because you shouldn't! I am happy to report that the module now handles jctint templates for 40 out of the lower 48 states.

Before I can go into what prevents the templates for the remaining 8 states from being converted, I need to go into some technical details about how |sub2_special= was implemented for most states.

|location_special= is used by default. Certain templates permitted multiple locations to be specified as |location1= through |location4=. These parameters are concatenated as a list of wikilinks that is passed to the core module as |sub2_special=. Other templates did the same, but with townships instead of locations (see Interstate 70 in Ohio). The module handles both: |sub2param=township is used in the latter case; location is the default.

Now, why the templates for 8 states haven't been converted:

  • State name is not the correct article link (GA and WA): Road data modules should handle this.
  • Different |sub1name= (LA): Road data modules should handle this.
  • Special handling for |indep_city= (CA, CO, and MD): Road data modules should handle this.
  • Cascading |sub2_special= (MN): A list of both townships and locations are permitted, but the module doesn't support cascading yet, though it can easily be done.
  • |town= (WI): It appears that town articles are not named consistently, e.g., Bristol, Dane County, Wisconsin vs Bristol (town), Kenosha County, Wisconsin. So, I could not decide which one to use.

For more details about handling by road data modules, see Template talk:Jcttop/core#sub1name order for an idea, and Module:Road data/strings/USA/NH for an example. This is a longer-term transition, but I would like to avoid adding a boilerplate in the module when this transition is anticipated. See also Template talk:Jct#Inheritance and overriding in road data modules.

During the conversion, I noticed a beginning of divergence in some of the templates. While most states use |mile_ref=, some use |length_ref=. Specifically, templates for AL, FL, OH, OR, and TX. This parameter should be deprecated and renamed to |mile_ref=.

The module opens up other opportunities for uniformly customizing parameters for US junctions, e.g., cascading (above) and support for a list of cities. Additional customizations will not be implemented until there is evidence that they are useful for multiple states.

The templates are still fully backward compatible with the previous version, but the module might have added new features, e.g., list of locations, to some states' templates. These features have already been used in several other states' templates. I hope it is okay for every state's template to have the same leverage.

Of course, if you see any undesirable, observable changes, I will appreciate your report so I can troubleshoot. Constructive comments will also be appreciated. Chinissai (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Illinois has a mix of townships and precincts. There is no pattern that I can tell for which county uses which subdivision. –Fredddie™ 16:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. I didn't see any use of precincts in jctint as a separate parameter, so I was able to convert {{ILint}} without trouble. The module should be able to support future customization for precincts, though, perhaps by using switch tables in road data modules. Chinissai (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
California has the funny postmiles stuff - is this properly supported? --Rschen7754 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, any "funny" parameters can be overridden by passing them to the module. See Template:ORint for example. It's only San Francisco that prevents me from converting CAint. Chinissai (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
On a side note, North Carolina has townships, but most, if not all, of the links don't exist, even as redirects. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this? I ask because Module:Infobox road/sandbox2 got nominated for deletion. --Rschen7754 03:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Chinissai hasn't edited since mid-2017. That's what happened. –Fredddie™ 04:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

New Jct types

I have created a couple new types for period shield usage and some new banners. Both types have to do with the 1971 MUTCD, which changed the size of banners and introduced the current USH shield design.

I also considered making an I 1978 type, but I will punt on that for now. The I 1971 type uses the 1961 shields and 1971 banners while I 1978 would have used the current shields and the 1971 banners. This was a period of transition so I don't think the 1978 type is needed now. Were the 1971 types needed? Probably not, but if we are doing period shields, we should try to get the banners right, too.

A keen eye will notice that the 1971 types use the "small" direction banners versus the first letter taller in use today. The small direction banners have been renamed 1971. For each of the color banner suffixes (blue, brown, county, and green) there is now a 1971 banner suffix for them as well (blue 1971, brown 1971, etc.). I did not add 1971 types for the state types because they've all come into use since the 1971 MUTCD. I created a California banner suffix, which is a sort-of combination of the 1961 and current MUTCDs. The yellow toll banner is now the default for the standard white and all the color banners mentioned above. The 1971 banner type uses the original color.

You can see all of the available banner plates at Commons:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Auxiliary plates.

If your states use the default options for shields, you shouldn't have to do anything to the road data modules. But if you have some custom shields (such as Michigan using the 1948 shields well into the 1960s), you might want to double check you have the right banners. If you see something goofy and don't know how to handle it, you can ask me here or on Discord. –Fredddie™ 03:30, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Peer review: Interstate 40 in Tennessee

I have nominated Interstate 40 in Tennessee for peer review. I am currently trying to get this article to FA status, and any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge List of Arkansas state highways serving universities and colleges

There isn't any information that I can find for this list. I think this needs to be merged into List of state highways in Arkansas since there's no more sources and there isn't anything to say about them. Anybody agree? Dylpickle2k (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe look for some legislation that designated these highways in the 800-range, but even then I agree they should be merged in. –Fredddie™ 02:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review for M-28 Business (Ishpeming-Negaunee, Michigan)

I have nominated M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 22:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Need help with MO 340

What is the mile that Olive (340) meets Ladue (Supp AB) (needs to be in x.xxx miles) Link to the page: Missouri_Route_340 --LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I fixed your wikilink. The answer to your question is 6.339. Though it seems Route AB has been pulled back to between Route 141 and I-270. As such, I have removed that and the Route HH junction from Route 340's junction list. –Fredddie™ 04:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

newmassexits.com

Unfortunately a casino seems to have bought the domain, so now we are linking to them on several pages: [1] [2] Thankfully the site is on archive.org [3] but some significant work will be required to repair the links. Rschen7754 18:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a new version of the project banner ready to go at {{WikiProject U.S. Roads/sandbox}}. I would appreciate the help in testing it out. Please test it on some articles you watch and let me know if there's something goofy going on. Here is a summary of the changes:

  • Uses {{WPBannerMeta}} backend
  • Some of the homebrew stuff we came up with over the years now use general templates/hooks now (such as |photo=)
  • State topics are separated from the route type topics and just list the state name now
  • Topics appear below the article assessment now
  • Parameters |needs-map= and |needs-jctint= have a couple more options
  • Upper-tier categories are deprecated

Let me know what you think. –Fredddie™ 03:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Kansas Turnpike
  2. Ridge Route

Mississippi highways 700+

Mississippi State Highway System says: Three-digit numbered routes from 700s to 900s are usually short connectors and spurs. (I wish we had a source on that, but this seems to be the same conclusion that AARoads has drawn). Given that many of these roads are unsigned and under a mile, and are considered to be of low importance, I propose that we merge these into three WP:USRD/RCS style lists. (This would not preclude splitting individual ones back out should one be more notable than the others - as with all RCS lists). This would affect 3 existing GAs. The existing list is at List of state highways in Mississippi#Highways numbered above 700. Rschen7754 03:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@PlanetJuice and Nova Crystallis: as Mississippi editors. --Rschen7754 03:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The last project discussion on this topic --Rschen7754 03:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I am fine with keeping the GAs as standalone articles and using summary style for the list entries as long as the standalone articles remain GAs. When I merged the Kentucky rural secondary highways into lists, I left the KY 1508 article (GA) alone and just summarized it in the list article. VC 01:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Fine by me, chances are you can't even use historic maps as the last possible resource since it's too short to be visible. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 03:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to cover these highways in RCS-style lists, similar to List of state highways in Maryland shorter than one mile (2–699), since they all seem to be short and mostly unsigned. Perhaps it would be best to split into three lists for 700s, 800s, and 900s (e.g. List of state highways in Mississippi (700–799)). Dough4872 03:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
No objections from me either. For the redlinked routes in List of state highways in Mississippi, it also seems like a good opportunity to add any narrative details not currently covered in the table, as is done in the List of state highways in Maryland shorter than one mile lists (for example, any reliably sourced history, landmarks, etc. that still do not warrant notability for a separate article). PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mr. Matté: --Rschen7754 03:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I have created the base pages: List of state highways in Mississippi (700–799), List of state highways in Mississippi (800–899), List of state highways in Mississippi (900–999). --Rschen7754 21:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for M-105 (Michigan highway)

M-105 (Michigan highway) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Steelkamp (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Florida 's Turnpike proposed roads

Does anyone have links or sources that can please tell me how did the two proposed roads named " taft vineland road and sand lake road " appeared in the article? I tried to find it up in the search engine but couldn't find nothing. also, could somebody tell me when they're going to begin and/or be completed?Soccerfan13580 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I rescued the above posting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Florida/Archive 2. Imzadi 1979 → 03:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Interchange histories revisited

I just happened on this discussion from last year about histories of highway interchanges being included articles. I disagree with the conclusion; I believe that the history of any ramps are as notable as the respective mainline. This is especially true with the relative rarity of interchanges added to an established highway. Indeed, after checking MOS:RJL, I noted this in the Tables section: "Notes: Any additional notes about the interchange or terminus, such as...opening date...."
Now, in full disclosure, what prompted me to comment was this edit in particular, which knocked out a bunch of research that I did over a number of years. I've edited long enough here to know that I still have to keep WP:OWN at the front of my mind, and that things like that are bound to happen. However, the two things about that which bother me the most are the fact that the edit summary states that the info should be in the history section, yet the info was removed rather than being moved there; and that one of the concerns from last year's discussion was about sourcing, yet the removed info was well sourced. (I have done similar edits on other articles, if maybe not as extensive. I haven't checked to see if those were reverted as well, and I'd rather not.)
As for the info being moved to the history section, I don't think that it would be a good idea, since with more than a couple interchanges, the prose would read like "this interchange opened this date and this interchange opened this date and this...", and if it were placed in a list, which really isn't recommended to start, it would essentially duplicate the junction list. Conversely, the cells in the junction table are already accounted for so any concise information wouldn't be unwieldly, and I don't believe that it would attract unchecked trivia. A statement could be placed somewhere in the respective history sections in the form of "Several interchanges were added after the initial opening; see the junction list below [anchor link] for details".
Note that at this point I haven't readded the info to the article(s), primarily because I don't want it removed again, but of course also because I'm awaiting further discussion. Mapsax (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think of those as historical data that can be added to the history. Imagine a history section saying, "The segment of freeway from Foo to Bar opened on August 1, 1980; and additional interchanges on that section later opened at Smith Road in September 1995." In-fill interchanges on many highways are infrequent and rare enough that they'd be single sentences if separate, and just as likely appear in between other topics. If they're more common, well, then that warrants a subsection of the history to discuss them.
You're right that we could have a lot of boring sentences, but that's a criticism of writing style/quality, not content. Imzadi 1979 → 05:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. I like it when you can find stuff about why the interchange was built in the first place. It's usually more interesting than just being a recitation of facts and dates. –Fredddie™ 05:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Adding my voice to the chorus. I would actually think it would be easier to find old newspaper articles etc. talking about the need for an infill interchange. A highway's original construction could have just been a porkbarrel project for a politician in a tight re-election campaign. However, there has to be a good reason to disrupt the flow of an existing roadway to add more exits. Dave (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The Ohio Turnpike has always struck me as a turnpike with an unusual number of infill interchanges. Looking at the diff you provided, I count ELEVEN infill interchanges added between 1991 and 2004! These opening dates belong in the History because they are facts supporting a larger project in the history of the turnpike. Explaining that larger project, even if you can distill it to a catchy project name, is too much work to ask of an exit list. VC 03:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
There are even more infills if you count the original "A" exits between about 1976 and 1980 which haven't been noted (I-90, I-480 west end, I-680). In fact, as an aside, I note that almost every interchange on the Turnpike has bee added or altered in some way with varying degrees of notability; after I finish this reply, I'm going to place something about this on that article's talk page.
This brings up an issue that I had thought about, the different contexts of different types of highways. Toll highways have had, in my experience, more clusters of added interchanges since it's relatively easy for the owners to propose improvements such as those interchanges in conjunction with a toll hike as part as an aforementioned project, therefore making it easier to mention this in the history section, though it may have been across multiple projects; ones on free highways are more likely one-offs, so those would probably be more appropriate in junction lists. I do lean towards putting at least a minimal indication in the respective interchange entries in the RJL in any case identifying that they're not original to the highway, though I note that we don't distinguish between highway segments that opened at different times there. There's also the possible inconvenience of having to toggle back and forth between the history section and the RJL.
While I'm thinking about it, I've been wondering if the conversion of a trumpet interchange on the crossroad of a toll highway being converted to an at-grade intersection is consistently notable. I was thinking yes, but maybe not. Mapsax (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Virginia secondary routes

This is a follow-up to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia State Route 665 which closed no consensus. I am concerned that the format of these kinds of articles is not particularly effective and borders on providing too much detail for routes that even the roadfan sites like [4] don't have information on. I am also concerned at the {{incomplete}} tags on several of the pages and wonder if we can ever come up with a definitive list.

But that being said, I am hesitant to remove all coverage of such highways and apparently OSM is relying on us, so somebody is using the information. We could look at using bulleted lists similar to List of state highways in Maryland shorter than one mile (900–999), or we could have a smaller table that just lists the route and what counties it can be found in. Thoughts? Rschen7754 04:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Famartin: as the creator of most of the articles. --Rschen7754 04:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Also another thought I had: apparently the route numbering in Fairfax County goes up into the 50000s. Why don't we have articles for those routes? Is there something systematically different about those routes than the 4 or 3 digit ones or are they considered the same class? --Rschen7754 04:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think lists by number are the best way to handle this, as it lumps together unrelated routes in different parts of the state that just happen to share the same number. In addition, there is also the problem of certain few counties that have four- and five-digit numbers in which the list will have few entries. A better way to present the secondary routes in Virginia would be in lists by county, much like how county routes in New Jersey are presented. However, the issue with the secondary state highway system in Virginia is that for the most part every road in the state outside a city or town is maintained by the state and assigned a route number. This leads to situations in the heavily populated suburban counties in Northern Virginia such as Fairfax County in which every street in every residential subdivision is considered a secondary state highway and the numbers go into the four and five digits, resulting in thousands of secondary state highways in the county. We do not need an exhaustive list of every single secondary state highway that includes neighborhood streets. Perhaps the best way to have lists of secondary state highways in Virginia would be to do by-county lists but limit entries to roads of a certain functional classification. This way, we can cover the secondary state highways that are more important roads and weed out the secondary state highways that are minor residential streets that really shouldn’t be covered in a list. Dough4872 04:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This might be out of left field, but what if we did some back-end work on Wikidata and made these lists into WD-automated tables. I know that generally speaking, the community has not approved of using WD to generate content, but has that ever stopped us from trying something before? Then we could create by-county lists and fix redirects with AWB and move on. –Fredddie™ 02:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Interstate 40 in Tennessee FAC

I have nominated Interstate 40 in Tennessee as an FAC, and would greatly appreciate if any regular participants in this WikiProject would be willing to contribute to the discussion. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This weekend, I completed updates of the {{USRD}} banner as I discussed in a previous thread. In addition to the {{WPBannerMeta}} backend, the SH type was rolled out and a new Byways type was added. These types have already been applied to several articles. –Fredddie™ 00:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Redlinked categories

Due to some recent edits to this WikiProject's banner on various article talk pages, there's been a sudden influx of redlinked (i.e. nonexistent) project categories showing up at Special:WantedCategories. Pages cannot be left sitting in categories that don't exist, but since the categories are template-generated the only way to remove them would be to revert all of the edits that were made, which might in turn screw up other things — which leaves creating the categories as the only alternative, but obviously they need to be created by people who have a clue what they're doing because they actually work with the subject area and know its category tree. Accordingly, could somebody associated with this project please look after creating the following categories as soon as possible so that they're no longer redlinked and can be cleared off the WantedCategories list?

There was one further issue which requires some attention, as the banner itself may have been changed in ways that messed with other stuff: the most recent run also included an obviously ridiculous Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of roads in yes (i.e. please take photographs in a geographic entity named "Yes"), which has already been emptied out — but upon investigation, it was being newly generated by preexisting usages of "photo=yes" code that had already been present on the affected talk pages for years without prior incident. So clearly this code previously served some other purpose, while suddenly changing within the past week to consider "Yes" the name of a state or city rather than the opposite of no — which means the template itself may need to be reviewed just in case a recent edit to it broke something.

I've found at least one additional redlinked category that resulted from using the abbreviation "TX" instead of the full name "Texas", and already exists at the form using "Texas" instead of "TX", so some of these other categories might potentially also be correctable coding errors rather than new categories — but whether they're created or just corrected, they unconditionally need to all be resolved as soon as possible. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Bearcat: this is done. The one redlink in the list you provided should be a redlink. –Fredddie™ 00:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks muchly Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Maps and Charts as Sources

I have started a RFC at WP:VPP asking for clarification of the OR policy regarding the use of maps and charts as sources in Wikipedia articles. I'm posting here as this project would likely be among the most affected.Dave (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI the RFC has moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources. –Fredddie™ 16:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Questions on notability have been added to the RFC. --Rschen7754 06:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Issue with Interstate 74 in North Carolina map

It seems that something is causing Data:Interstate 74 in North Carolina.map to crash and leave the text "Map" on Interstate 74 in North Carolina and the map on List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina which uses the same data file as well. DiscoA340 (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a better question for Module talk:Mapframe than here. –Fredddie™ 02:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Moved to Module talk:Mapframe#Issue with Interstate 74 in North Carolina map, hope this issue can get fixed. DiscoA340 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hospital icons in junction lists

A recent edit of mine to Interstate 80 in Iowa was reverted due to being “unsourced.” But as far as I can see, the edit was no different from what any other articles that list hospital access points do (use the shield and list the hospital it’s referring to in the description). I have no idea how I could source something like this. If we can’t have consistency, can the option just be deprecated? Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 02:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been following along on the RFC going on that several of us are involved in, but it has to do with this sort of thing. We shouldn't be adding unsourced materials to articles, especially not now, and doubly so to Featured Articles. –Fredddie™ 02:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
No, I haven't "been following along on the RFC going on". It was nice of you to provide a link. I guess you aren't aware that the loss of transparency has been an increasing problem across the encyclopedia. Speaking of not being aware, even this project's content is supposed to be written for a general audience, not "by road geeks, for road geeks". Once again defaulting to an argument about the mere presence or absence of cherry-picked sources is a red herring, masking the fact that wikilinks in too many articles tend to be insular. Mentions are intended to provide wikilinks, which in turn are intended to provide readers with exposure to other areas of the encyclopedia. When and why did we get away from that? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
@RadioKAOS: the link to the RfC is just two sections above this one at #RFC on Maps and Charts as Sources. Imzadi 1979 → 11:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately we will never have consistency to what goes into the junction lists, just due to the different levels of what each state's DOT publishes on their website. This is likely a larger discussion we need to have. The official DOT logs published by states like Colorado and Utah are insanely detailed. Colorado's has the location of virtually all signs along the route; Utah's even has coordinates for the drainage pipes. In states like those you CAN source the location of the hospital sign, to .001 miles accuracy. Then there are states like California, that are literally living in the past; 1964 to be specific. Unfortunately, there are states where the DOT website has no such logs posted at any resolution or from any year, and the information available is limited to what is found in 3rd party sources. If you want to re-add it, try the webpage for the hospital; see if it has driving directions listed on the website that mention that exit. That's what I'd do. Dave (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@Molandfreak: I have a generalized query here. For the article under discussion, are there hospital signs on the exit signs at the exit itself? If not, we've not included them in destinations column. If it's mentioned on supplemental signage for the exit, then we have included something in the notes without the icon in the destinations column. If the only way to source that would be Google Street View, I would caution against the edit at this time pending the RfC. Imzadi 1979 → 11:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
In the Des Moines area, hospital signs do mention the name of the hospital, but Street View is the only way to show that presently. There are signs for the VA hospitals in Des Moines and Iowa City that are on brown signs rather than blue. –Fredddie™ 16:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Minor map edit in "US Route 60 in KY"

In Ashland, US 60 eastbound follows 13th St until turning left onto Winchester Ave. Then, it turns onto 11th Ave, and continues right on Greenup Ave, at the western end of its concurrency with US 23. US 60 westbound follows Greenup Ave until 10th St, where it turns left and left again onto Winchester, before continuing on 12th St. However, the map linked in the article shows both directions meeting at the intersection of Greenup and Winchester Aves between 7th and 8th Sts, where you would have to make an illegal turn. NikoRCS (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That's how the state of KY has it drawn here as well. The shape file overlay on Open Street Maps is intended as an illustration of the subject of the article. Essentially these route highlight overlays serve the same purpose as including a picture in the infobox for an article on a city or a mountain. They aren't always 100% overlaid with the actual route as drawn on the underlying map. This happens a lot with mountainous or curvy roads. But it's not that tough to fix, it just takes time and practice, might be a good learning experience if you want to try it. Dave (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

User:DGG/New York – Chicago Toll Road system

This used to be in article space, but following an AFD in 2010, DGG moved the page to his user space to work on it. Unfortunately, DGG has recently died, so I'm bringing this draft to USRD's attention in case anyone wants to work on it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for I-35W Mississippi River bridge

I-35W Mississippi River bridge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I-227/327

Just to confirm: Even though those designations are now a part of official legislation (see Interstate 27 § Numbering, excerpted at Ports to Plains Corridor § Numbering), we should hold off making redirects until/if the bill passes. Mapsax (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Correct. And I don't think we should create standalone articles until construction begins. VC 11:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Its crazy that I just found this. I had been making redirects for other interstates and thought about doing it for these two. However, I decided against it since it was still a bill. I'm glad I did! LOL! XD ChessEric 02:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC for both I-124 and I-785

I have opened up discussion on both the Interstate 124 and Interstate 785 talk pages. I apologize for not knowing how to setup a proper RfC, but I would really appreciate some feedback on my concerns. ChessEric 02:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@ChessEric: a "proper RfC" would be a very big deal to set up since that initiates a 30-day process to discuss contentious changes to an article or a policy. I assume you're just looking for some feedback, so dropping a note here about discussions you opened on the articles' talk pages is all you needed. I added a reply on Talk:Interstate 124, and I'm sure other people watching this talk page or the I-785 article will provide some answers there too. Imzadi 1979 → 02:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate it. ChessEric 07:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Help on a list

I am creating a list on the shortest state highways in the US and I do not know much about roads so would appreciate someone's help. It is here: Draft:List of shortest state highways in the United States PalauanReich🗣️ 23:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

This is going to sound crass and probably BITEy, but why did you create the list if you don't know a lot about roads? –Fredddie™ 23:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hampstead Bypass (North Carolina)

Hello, If anyone notices the name North Carolina Highway 417 (NC 417) in any articles, please note it was decided that U.S. Route 17 Bypass (US 17 Byp.) is the most likely name for the highway after little to no evidence of NC 417 was found online. Thank you for your time and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The article was created and mostly updated by @Roadsguy:, who has gone MIA since 2021. I pretty much left him at it since I do not live in the Wilmington area and could not verify the items as clearly as he could. I do not know where the NC 417 came from and I have no qualms if it is now another bypass of US 17. So no worries and use the evidence that is available. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@Washuotaku It's very hard to tell what the NCDOT wants to call it and/or where NC 417 comes into the equation. Some sources said the NCDOT wanted it to be called NC 417 but the official progress page makes no reference to the name except, US 17 "Hampstead" Bypass. Maybe it will be a temporary component highway, or maybe it was an original name idea that was never officially removed from the books. As per what you said in the renaming request, when more info comes out, the name can be changed or kept the same depending on the outcome. Thanks and have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
[5] and [6] should help you find any stragglers. –Fredddie™ 23:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, all pages using that signage should be updated now. Have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I not only live in Wilmington, I live directly on US 17. A quick glance of the NCDOT website reveals that the Military Cutoff Extension and Hampstead Bypass are separate projects which were combined only for the purposes of the EIS. There's still another project on US 17 itself through Ogden and Porters Neck, or between the Military Cutoff Extension and the interchange with the eastern terminus of the 140 corridor. The article I just read is dominated by primary sources and the local news media only ever regurgitates NCDOT's press releases, so that in itself is problematic. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Fall 2010 meeting minutes link bad

Spring 2011 meeting minutes link bad

Fall 2011 meeting minutes link bad

Spring 2012 meeting minutes link bad

Fall 2012 meeting minutes link bad

Spring 2013 meeting minutes link bad

Fall 2013 meeting minutes link bad

Spring 2014 meeting minutes link bad

Fall 2014 meeting minutes link bad

Spring 2015 meeting minutes link bad

Fall 2015 meeting minutes link bad

Spring 2016 meeting minutes link bad

Fall 2016 meeting minutes link bad

Spring 2017 meeting minutes link bad

Fall 2017 meeting minutes link bad

Spring 2018 meeting minutes link bad

Fall 2018 meeting minutes link bad

Fall 2021 meeting minutes link bad ACAeditor (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? How are they bad? Are they broken? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
@ACAeditor: do you mean the links on WP:USRD/AASHTO are bad? That's what I assume you mean, but you aren't clear. AASHTO just redid their website, and we're still working to deal with the aftermath of that, which also resulted in the removal of the reports. I've been adding Internet Archive links where I can when I can. Imzadi 1979 → 01:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I mistakenly lloisted Fall 2021. When you click the link you either get a site not found error or a AASHTO site error page. This is true for other meeting dates as well when you click on the "minutes" link but those meeting dates also have the Archive links, which do work. It appears that archive links were added in the past 24 hours, so things work now. ACAeditor (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Fall 2021 minutes link goes to spring 2021 minutes ACAeditor (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Inquiries for both California State Route 905 and List of Interstate Highways

I feel like I'm doing too much and being annoying, but I just like helping out here. I've made to new inquiries on the talk pages of the List of Interstate Highways and California State Route 905. I would appreciate some feedback. ChessEric 18:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Signage Confusion

On the Interstate 4 and 97 pages, their signs have no text on them, even when they are only in one state. However, other interstates such as I-17, I-14, and I-19 have the state that they are in as their sign on their pages. Which version should be kept, and how do you fix the problem if there is a decision about what to do. TomMasterRealTALK 00:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not the state uses their state name on Interstate shields. Florida and Maryland do not, so the I-4 and I-97 shields do not have the state name, whereas Arizona and Texas use the state name on their Interstate shields, so the I-14, I-17, and I-19 shields have the state name. Dough4872 00:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah okay, thanks a lot Dough4872! TomMasterRealTALK 02:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
You’re welcome. Dough4872 02:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Champlain Parkway

The Champlain Parkway is finally being built in Burlington, Vermont, but its future is tied into I-189. As a result, much of the I-189 article lists the future of this parkway, which is becoming a little confusing. This really needs to be addressed because these are two different roads being listed under a single designation article that doesn't include both of them. What should we do here? ChessEric 17:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a course of "wait and see". –Fredddie™ 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Fredddie, I'd leave as is for now. However, based on a reading of The I-189 article, if Champlain Parkway is built as described in that article, it sounds like eventually the best solution would be have one article called Champlain Parkway that has a paragraph or two of text that say the offramps connecting it to I-89 and perhaps the first mile of pavement have been given the designation of I-189 (as if I understand it correctly, that's the truth. I-189 would be little more than a legacy designation for the interchange of the Champlain Parkway with I-89.) Dave (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Second opinion

Hello, I would like a second opinion on a recent addition to Interstate 40 in Tennessee that I feel may not be an appropriate inclusion. I have already started a discussion about it. Also, if I am not mistaken, we generally don't include sentences in the body about new interchanges for highways as long as this unless they were part of a bigger project, correct? I think a brief mention in the notes parameter in the exit list is good enough. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Pennsylvania Route 237

Pennsylvania Route 237 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge Colorado State Highway 149 and Silver Thread Scenic and Historic Byway

Given that Silver Thread Scenic and Historic Byway and Colorado State Highway 149 are entirely coincident, it would make sense to merge these two articles. If that is the case, (a) which one should be the primary title, and (b) what is the ideal approach to handling the content that should be displayed in the infobox? --Kinu t/c 21:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would make Colorado State Highway 149 the title of the article. As for the infobox, we do have the “tourist” parameter that can list the scenic byway in the infobox. Dough4872 21:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

National Bridge Inventory reliability

Note that I have started a discussion about the reliability of the National Bridge Inventory that affects this Wikiproject. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: you know, starting the discussion here would have been prudent since this project is the largest user of the source. Imzadi 1979 → 20:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok sorry about that. Even though there are other projects, like WP:HWY that probably use this. Bneu2013 (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bneu2013: WP:HWY is outside the US, and the "National Bridge Inventory (NBI) is a database, compiled by the Federal Highway Administration, with information on all bridges and tunnels in the United States". Not sure how useful it would be to that project. Imzadi 1979 → 21:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Regardless of where, this discussion needs to be had. Because I have documented more that one instance where NBI gets dates wrong, and they are cited on at least a few FAs. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It's a massive database and things are bound to get mixed up occasionally. For Pacific Northwest entries, I find it's as correct than local newspapers are; perhaps this differs on a regional basis. SounderBruce 06:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
A national database with tens of thousands of entries will have a few that are incorrect. That's just reality. I agree with SounderBruce, It's state reported data. I've seen states where the NBI data is meticulous; others not-so-much. If you insist on 100% accuracy in sources then you'd literally have to delete every single article on this project. I routinely find "reliable" sources that conflict with each other when doing research for articles, on any subject. I find it hard to believe you didn't find errors in newspaper articles etc. in doing research. However, when sources conflict, it's usually pretty easy to figure out which is the more accurate from comparing them.
If the NBI is the only source you can find, use it. If you find a newspaper article conflicts with the NBI, under most circumstances I'd trust the newspaper for dates and the like, but I'd trust the NBI for the most recent inspection conditions. Having wrong dates is a problem, but it's not like the NBI is claiming Caltrans maintains a bridge in Indiana, or that the Golden Gate has a hidden deck that Google blocks from the satellite view as part of a deepstate coverup to move FEMA death squads in the dark of night, or that engineers who maintain the NBI appear to have a conflict of interest or obvious bias with certain bridge contractors and have been known to inflate the stats to favor those contractors. That's the kind of stuff that was intended to be reported at a reliable sources noticeboard, not where some errors were found in a mostly reliable source. I guarantee you I can go to cnn.com and find errors in the top stories by comparing their reporting with other sources. Doesn't mean I'm going to run off to try to ban CNN as a source because FA's cite CNN.com
I concur with the above. The people who know the good, the bad, and the ugly of NBI and can have an intelligent debate on when it is or isn't appropriate to use it are mostly here, in this forum. Remember how you had an oppose vote at your recent article nomination from someone who hadn't even read the article, but just did a search for 2 words and once they were found in your article voted oppose? Remember how you spent a fair amount of effort to appease them but you still couldn't get them to lift a finger to actually judge your article on the merits, the best you could do with that effort is get them to strike their comments? Didn't it seem like some over there were more interested in ensuring your nomination did not pass rather than helping it to pass? It sure did to me. That wasn't the first time that's happened, nor will it be the last. There's a variety of opinions among the Wikipedia community at large and that includes a small but vocal number of people who don't think roads articles should even exist on Wikipedia. I'm sure we'll be hearing from them over there shortly. I'm also guessing they will be grateful to have another means to go after road articles.Dave (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you guys help?

Alright, guys. So listen up here. I just finished creating a draft for the page Draft:U.S. Route 30 in Wyoming. I decided to submit it for review, but it wasn't accepted because there weren't any sources. Plus, the page needs some cleaning and a junction box. If you guys can, please visit the page, find some sources, and add a major junctions box, because trying to do both of those are really stressing me out and is hard for me to find sources on my own. Let me know if you can help. Thanks. Sahas P. (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

IMHO, the biggest problem is the article is only route description and junctions list. There was a time that was fine, but that era is sadly gone. It's been my experience it's easier to find sources for the route history than it is for the route description (with the obvious exception of roads that are covered in travel guides etc.) I'd start writing the route history section, and while searching for sources for that, some will naturally arise for the description in the process. Given the US-30 through eastern wyoming is the Lincoln Highway (and First transcontinental railroad) and the western half is loosely based on the Oregon Trail (and Oregon Short Line) just starting there should get you something. Dave (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. These days people at AfC expect a GA-Class article out of the gate. A half-complete junction list and no history section isn't going to cut it. –Fredddie™ 18:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
It honestly seems silly that Wikipedia still even has stub and start class rankings in its procedures. These days an article that would be rated as a stub or start won't pass AFC or NPP. It has to be at least a solid C, in some cases B before they will let the public see it. The only ones left are the legacy ones created before the existance of NPP and AFC that the deletionsists haven't got to yet. Dave (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, I added over 15 sources to the page, and it looks like the sources are good enough to confirm the information that I wrote for the route description. Now the only problem I have is adding a history section and trying to find sources online for THOSE is making my head spin. So if you guys could cover that, I would really appreciate it. Sahas P. (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Can you do us another solid please? Wyoming state highways hardly have any sources and they have consistently been tagged for notability issues because of this. Is there any chance you could add or direct us towards sources from outside of WYDOT to those, if at all possible? It would be a great help. Sorry if that's a lot to ask. I'm not from Wyoming or familiar with Wyoming highway data. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 01:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Community Tech bot is configured to update a list of popular pages for the states/territories of this WikiProject each month, for example at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Louisiana/Popular pages. However, after {{WikiProject U.S. Roads}} was changed to use {{WPBannerMeta}} in March of this year, the bot has been unable to do so, so these reports haven't been updated in a few months. I'm guessing it's something to do with the way that each state is included in the template, as opposed to the way that something like {{WikiProject United States}} does it. I'm not super experienced with WikiProject templates, but just wanted to bring this up for awareness. DanCherek (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requested for upcoming TFA: Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector

Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector will be the TFA in a few days and I need some feedback about statistics in the article. Please see Talk:Atlantic City–Brigantine Connector#Urgent inquiry about traffic statistics. Thank you! –Dream out loud (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Interstate"

Is there a consensus that "Interstate" should be capitalized if it doesn't refer to a specific route, e.g. "the Interstate passes through five states"? Bneu2013 (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Typically, we have used the capitalized form to distinguish between an interstate highway, i.e. a highway that crosses state lines, and an Interstate Highway, which is a component of the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. To that end, US 2 is an interstate highway and I-96 is not, but I-96 is an Interstate while US 2 is not. In running prose, it's often best to use other terms for a specific highway in a generic sense in a route description. Imzadi 1979 → 22:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

U.S. Route 52 in South Carolina

In the past, signage of US 52 in South Carolina was in line with North Carolina, especially near the border. However, as of late, spot checks on several major intersections in the state are actually showing an east-west designation. The article is setup in a north-south alignment, but it may be time to convert it to an east-west alignment now. The question is do others agree with this assessment? --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess it may be time, because, yeah. Nowadays, I look at Google Maps, and I do see that as early as 2008 Street View, it still shows east-west. I definitely agree with you. It certainly might have to be changed to the east-west direction. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I was under the impression that South Carolina was updating directional signage to consistently adhere to the rule that odd = n/s, even = e/w . Even on their state routes where they never used that rule when designating them in the first place. That would be the most likely reason the signage has changed. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 03:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

URGENT: Possible inappropriate source in the Interstate 35 in Texas article

I just removed a source that had been used for two areas in the Interstate 35 in Texas due to the "archived from" link leading to something that was...interesting to say the least (check it at your risk). I kind of hope it was just something wrong with my computer, but can someone look into what the heck happened there? I would really appreciate it. ChessEric 21:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If the original link becomes NSFW or has other issues, simply use |url-status=unfit in the citation template. SounderBruce 23:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Ok...thanks for letting me know. ChessEric 15:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I-895 shield change suggestion

I added a topic to the I-895 talk page about possibly changing the shield in I-895's article infobox from I-895 to I-895 Toll but there have been no comments about it. Can I please get some feedback? I would really appreciate it. ChessEric 19:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please link article in question. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry. Here it is. ChessEric 21:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I see why now. So I-895 itself is not a toll road, only the harbor tunnel. There are various tunnels and bridges that are tolled, but the road that traverses them are not. Hope that explains why at least. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I figured. I lived in Baltimore-DC area for the first 17 years of my life (1998-2016), and my family took I-895 ALL the time when went on trips to visit family in the northeast. As a result, I know A LOT about this interstate, but not much about it since I've left the area. Street View is what showed me about the new signage, which appears to have been added within the last year, so I asked that question. By the way, random question, but has there ever been plans to make an I-775 near Tampa, Florida? ChessEric 19:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
When you say the the signage has changed, that it now shows I-895 as a toll road throughout or something? I'm not aware of it being a toll road to start, just the tunnel part, but maybe Maryland considers it all part as one toll, I do not know but that would be different if confirmed by someone that does know. As for I-775, no clue, I live in the Carolinas. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Most of I-895 is now signed like this, and many of the entrances are signed like this. Only the northern most two exits are free. As its article says, I-895 has an unusual setup that's somewhat hard to explain. It's a bypass due to the fact that most of its exits are setup for through traffic only; south of the Harbor Tunnel toll plaza, there is no way to get on southbound I-895 and there is no way to get off I-895 going northbound. Exit 12 is the only exit that is a complete exit and even THAT exit has limited movements. I-895 has always been mostly considered a toll road, but MDOT has now signed it as such. In fact, every entrance to a freeway that has no exits before a toll plaza is now signed with a toll designation. I hope that helps you to understand why I asked about changing the I-895 shield. ChessEric 21:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand. The only counter-arguement then is the part that is not tolled, which is the northern part. That alone would allow the infobox to have a regular sign instead of a toll sign since there are exits people can use before reaching the toll plaza area. Does that make sense? --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah it does. That's why it was only a suggestion. ChessEric 21:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fall 2023

The Center Line
Volume 10, Issue 1 • Fall 2023 • About the Newsletter

Features

• A New Future for Road Articles Online

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi 1979 → on 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Notice

A merge proposal has been posted at Talk:Pan-American Highway#Merge proposal. - wolf 09:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Split of List of United States Numbered Highways to List of Primary United States Numbered Highways and List of Auxiliary United States Numbered Highways

As part of my attempt to expound upon the information on list of US Route page, I decided to experiment with listing the states served by the routes in a manner similar to the one we used for the Interstate highway list. The main problem with this is that the U.S. Route list is long because it combines all the routes (both main and auxiliary) to one page. There aren't nearly as many US routes as there are interstates, but there is more history attached to US routes and auxiliary US routes are WAY longer than their interstate counterparts. In order to make the listing of states served by U.S. routes a reality, I honestly think we should split the list into two articles with one for primary routes and the other for auxiliary routes. However, this would be a major a change that would affect not just Wikipedia project, but also the new AARoads Wiki. Therefore, I wanted to bring it here first before making a final decision. ChessEric 20:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I presume it is List of United States Numbered Highways, that you wish to split? I agree it is a long list and splitting may be appropriate. However, the 3dus are not auxiliaries. That's the wrong word. 3di's are auxiliaries. I think spurs or branches is the more appropriate word. Also, for the record AARW and Wikipedia have gone separate ways. What one does does not affect what the other does.Dave (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Let me disabuse you of a misconception at the heart of your proposal, ChessEric. Per AASHTO definition, an auxiliary US Highway is a what is elsewhere called a special rout or a "bannered route". That is, Bus. US 31 is an auxiliary of US 31, and not US 131. US 131 is as much a mainline highway as US 31. You're attempting to graft the primary/auxiliary numbering scheme of the Interstates onto the older system, and that's not correct. The number of digits in the number doesn't determine status. Imzadi 1979 → 00:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
If that's the case, then why do the articles say they are auxiliary routes (i.e. US 395 is an auxiliary route of US 95)? Plus, even if that was the case, the bannered route is still associated with the main route, so it would just be List of Bannered United States Numbered Highways instead of List of Auxiliary United States Numbered Highways ChessEric 18:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Indeed the article for U.S. Route 395 has the wikilinked phrase auxiliary route. However, if you click that wikilink, it's obvious that US 395 is not an auxiliary route, as that article discusses business loops/truck routes/etc, and US 395 is neither of those. You found an error in a wikipedia article, of which there are several,but let's fix them not perpetuate them further. Getting back to the main topic, I do think the idea of splitting that list has merit. Why not make a mockup of your idea in your userpage?Dave (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@ChessEric: they're a handful of naming issues with these proposals. First: "bannered" is a neologism and generally should not appear in a Wikipedia article. Specifically, that word should never appear in an article title nor a section heading, although a single brief mention as an alternate word choice in the article on the concept would be appropriate. The best term to be used is "special route", although "auxiliary" could be used depending on context as a second choice. As the antonym for special, "mainline" would be a better choice than primary, although depending on context, no adjective might be the better option. Again, these are not the Interstates, and we should not be trying to conflate terminology from one system with another. We already have List of special routes of the United States Numbered Highway System, which does note that they are the auxiliary routes. (That mention needs some cleanup since that's AASHTO, not roadgeek, terminology.)
Second: the modifier in these cases should not be capitalized, so even if we did use your naming, it would be "List of primary United States Numbered Highways". The modifier isn't itself part of a proper name, so it doesn't take a capital letter. The Interstate lists do not capitalize primary/auxiliary/business/etc. for instance.
That brings us back to the point of contention that speaks against any such split at all. US 131 is just as much a mainline US Highway as US 31. Yes, it's related to US 31 as a branch through a numbering scheme used to reflect that relationship, but it is still a mainline highway. What you really propose doing is to split the table up and subdivide the mainline highways by how many digits are in the numbers. Such a split would make it impossible to sort the table by length or years. That means a reader can't figure out the longest or shortest or the most recently decommissioned highway, etc. in the system Such comparisons apply regardless of how many digits are in the numbers assigned.
As for your reason for the split, it's because you propose to make a long table longer through the use of additional notes. I strongly oppose the wordy notes and even reverted the addition of a few examples. The table is supposed to be a basic summary, and if readers want additional information, they will click the clink to the article. Notes are not supposed to be that comprehensive, and would likely be the subject of opposition at FLC were this list ever nominated. I would even question the need for such extensive notes in the Interstate list, but that's a topic for another discussion later. Imzadi 1979 → 06:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, what's wrong with putting the state articles in the list? ChessEric 19:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Unless I misunderstand, this is a completely separate question. However, I don't understand why you're asking it. The original complaint was List of United States Numbered Highways is long and difficult to maintain now. True, and splitting it may be a good idea. So why make it longer and messier by adding sub-pages? It's not difficult to navigate between the main article pages and the state detail subpages now, virtually all of them have hatnotes pointing back and forth.Dave (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Why do we need them? If anything, I'd argue that we don't need them in the Interstate list. Notes, IMHO, should be minimal and specific. These are not. Imzadi 1979 → 04:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Imzadi1979: ...you know its times like these that I really feel stupid and have no idea what the hell I'm doing (this is one of the reasons why when someone suggested to me that I become an admin I said no). To respond to your statements, I didn't know about all the AASHTO rules in terms of what the heck are the even doing these days with route logs and definitions. Route numbering is a whole lot more confusing than I thought it would be and I understand where you are coming from with it. On that note, I'm removing the wordy notes the interstate log (...maybe) and removing the wordiness from the other list as well. ChessEric 11:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't feel disparaged. Indeed the US road network is a complicated beast, and we're all learning as we go along. Also, when you've been working in Wikipedia for a few years you can get cranky about "rookie mistakes", which is unfortunate as we've all made them. But just keep at it, someday you'll be cranky at some new editor too. ;) Also keep in mind that there's soooooo much highway stuff on enwiki that needs to be re-written. We're slowly working on it, but it takes time. Any help you provide is welcome. At heart is when the first generation of wikipedia roadgeeks started writing articles, the only thing we had to rely on for sources was old maps and personal roadgeek sites. That wasn't ideal, but that's what we had. That's changing as DOT's publish more info online each year and our FOIA requests for meeting minutes from transportation committees have yielded good results. Obtaining the AASHTO minutes was a huge game changer, but few articles have been updated to use them. Unfortunately the larger Wikipedia community isn't much help anymore; the focus seems to have changed from rewarding content development to rewarding tagging, pruning and deleting. Let's hope that changes and before Wikipedia degrades much further from being the world's largest encyclopedia towards the world's largest collection of article flaw tags and online bureaucracy.Dave (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry on how specific we should be in junction list

Me and Washuotaku recently had a disagreement on the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway article about how specific we should be with listing towns in junction lists. I compromised on one of the two exits I changed, but we still don't agree on the other. The exit in question is the NC 66 interchange (exit 42). I say it should be Stanleyville because that community is designated right on the interchange. Listing most to all locations on maps, especially communities that have articles is a practice I take from contributing to the Severe Weather Project, especially when it comes to tornadoes. However, Washu believes that this is unnecessary since Stanleyville is an unincorporated community that is mostly located within the outskirts of Winston-Salem. Since the city limits of Winston-Salem include part of the interchange, they believe its best to just leave the location as Winston-Salem. Since we didn't want this to unnecessarily escalate into something bigger than it should be, we decided to bring it here. Should this interchange be labeled as Winston-Salem or Stanleyville? Additionally, how specific should we be when labeling locations in junction list of other articles? ChessEric 18:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 7#Interstate 63 in Alabama, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This RfD has been stalled for a month. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 06:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Interstate 585 northward extension

Although the FHWA doesn't reflect this, SCDOT officially dedicated a northward extension of I-585 in 2006. This was, for some reason, not added to that article, which was two years old at the time. I believe we need to rectify this situation now. ChessEric 00:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Officially SCDOT did not, otherwise it would be in their county/city maps and GIS website showing as such. That is why it is not reflected on the article. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Really? How odd. It should be mentioned though. ChessEric 05:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Request for new shields

I'm not sure who makes shield, but we need to make some for future routes that don't have them. They include I-14N (Texas), I-14S (Texas), I-214 (Texas), I-344 (Oklahoma), and I-335 (Oklahoma). ChessEric 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge - Little Ferry Circle

I propose merging Little Ferry Circle to U.S. Highway 46, since the circle doesn't even exist anymore, and it is a stub article, so there isn't much more to say about it. See the discussion on the talk page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Better navigation on WP:AASHTO

I propose splitting the WP:AASHTO table by decade. The current layout of the table is very, very long (and will only get even longer) and is quite difficult to navigate. Splitting the table into sections could save several seconds finding a particular AASHTO report. AlphaBeta135talk 18:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

So the section can be broken out in sections, like this for 2020s, and the main article just grabs each section into one list. So a by decade option is available, just not easily linked. If you can think of other options we could use, that are within the ability of Wikipedia to handle, please suggest. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
The table is combined to allow editors to sort to find all of decisions for a state. It would be nice if we could sort/isolate the one column by state, but that would require some updates to MediaWiki, I'd think. Imzadi 1979 → 05:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Need to add major junctions

Hey all! Just letting you know I've finished most of the Draft:U.S. Route 83 in South Dakota page. The only thing I haven't done yet is add a major intersections box, since I'm still stumped by it. If any of you are willing to help, I've put the link right above. Thanks! NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Major intersections involve three templates: jcttop, jctbtm, and [State abbreviation]int (e.g. SDint; you can look through the documentation of [state abbr.]int on Template:Jctint). I've added major intersections (generally at-grade junctions with state, U.S., and/or Interstate highways and limited-access exits) on Todd, Mellette, and Jones counties on the draft in question. AlphaBeta135talk 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, when I was adding the template, it never showed, so I had a bit of trouble trying to do so. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge US 19 (TN) into US 11E (TN)

Hello, there is a request to merge U.S. Route 19 in Tennessee into U.S. Route 11E in Tennessee; here is the talk page for it. I am opposed to it, but you are free to pick which way this should go or suggest a third option (possibly merge back into US 19 main article). I had to reverse a recent edit though from another editor, who supports the merge, on US 19 flagging it as not notable. I noted that by definition, all U.S. Routes are notable; the article is simply lacking love from the community is all. Please share your opinion, thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Same needed to be said to merge U.S. Route 76 in Tennessee into U.S. Route 41 in Tennessee since the entire length of US 76 in Tennessee is the first 8 miles of US 41 in Tennessee. 69.1.59.248 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I support this, especially since other concurrences with even longer highways are merged as such. There is no good reason for US 76 in Tennessee to have its own article. transgerman_ (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards not merging, since we now have AASHTO minutes cited on the article that confirm US 19 was once longer in Tennessee. My initial rationale was the fact that the Tennessee segment on US 19 is so short and entirely concurrent with US 11E; however, we could probably expand the history section to include more about the route's original alignment and split into US 19E and 19W. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix

Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Map request

I would like to replace the shoddy map in the infobox of APD-40 with Data:APD-40.map, but I don't know how to do this. Could someone who knows how please do this? Thank you. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I started but another editor beat me to it. But for future reference the key is to use the template maplink or it's roads specific variant maplink-roads to display the map, otherwise the infobox expects a static image.Dave (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. It was actually the GA reviewer that got it. But I'll remember how to do it for next time. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Map creation request

Hello, where can I request that a map be created for a road using OpenStreetMap? Thank you. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

New shields needed

I'm not sure who makes shield, but we need to make some for future routes that don't have them. They include I-14N (Texas), I-14S (Texas), I-214 (Texas), I-344 (Oklahoma), and I-335 (Oklahoma). The last two are of the up most urgency since the OTA will be adding these shields to the Kilpatrick and Kickapoo Turnpikes within the next two months. ChessEric 22:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

State highways categories

Is it true that categories for "state highways" must include all highways maintained by the state department of transportation, even if they are also part of the Interstate Highway System or United States Numbered Highway System? This question comes from this discussion. Kk.urban (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  • The discussion you mentioned is a bit out of scope since this took place on the Simple English Wikipedia; I have never interacted with this version. Either way, if state maintenance is the only standard, in my opinion, it is not a very great standard. There are state-maintained roads that are not assigned a route number (e.g. Illinois DOT). There are also sections of Interstates that are not maintained by the state DOT (e.g. Indiana Toll Road). But then again, this is just my take as an English Wikipedia (not Simple English Wikipedia) editor. AlphaBeta135talk 00:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    @AlphaBeta135 Simple English Wikipedia will mostly likely follow whatever precedent is decided here. I ask here because Imzadi1979 was stating the purpose of state highways categories, which would apply to English Wikipedia also. There are many more editors who contribute to highway articles here, so this is a better place to form consensus. Thanks for your input. Kk.urban (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Kk.urban: most of this project forked over to the AARRoads Wiki last year, so there really aren't "many more editors who contribute to highway articles here" anymore. Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kk.urban: you missed the second part of my point: state ownership. The two go together because there are unsigned highways. MDOT's definition is very simple from their website: "MDOT is responsible for Michigan's 9,669-mile state highway system, comprised of all M, I, and US routes." Thus, definitionally, the Interstate and US Highways are part of the combined State Trunkline Highway System they administer. They elide over mentioning unsigned state highways or connector routes, but all of those are clearly marked on the Truck Operator's Map or other mapping products published by the department. Imzadi 1979 → 01:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Interstate 20, Scroggins Draw, Texas

The western end of Interstate 20 in Texas is located at an uninhabited place called Scroggins Draw, Texas. The article for that place is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scroggins Draw, Texas. The location seems to have some notability as the place named for the western terminus of Interstate 20, but being generally unfamiliar with highway articles, I am not able to point out sources that use that place name. Is there someone here who can identify a few reliable sources for that location in their list of highway references? RecycledPixels (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@RecycledPixels: Post-deletion comment: The I-10/I-20 interchange was built on top of the old US-80/US-290 intersection. This OR webpage refers to the intersection and the surrounding settlement, such as it was, as "Davis Mountain Junction", though he also admits that the "toponym does not appear on most maps" including the one that he includes on that page (it's also not in the GNIS database), and, in fact, the description excerpt that he shows just above it simply says "west of San Martine". (A WP search for the latter brings up only a red link on TX-3, two instances of a fictional place, and a company name in a court case.) Bottom line, that solidifies the fact that Scroggins Draw was only ever a physical feature. Mapsax (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [Add] I fixed the I-20 articles, but there's still more to do. Mapsax (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

CR vs CSAH?

Currently updating Minnesota State Highway 36, wondering what the convention is for whether to use CR or CSAH for county-operated roads, and when to do street name first and number in parentheses or the other way around. Thanks! NotDragonius (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@NotDragonius: well, there's two separate questions there. Some roads under county maintenance in Minnesota have support from the state, thus instead of just being a County Road, they are a County State-Aid Highway. That's the distinction between those two. Some counties further distinguish them by using the blue pentagons on the CSAHs and white squares on the CRs, but not all do.
As for the second, that depends on the context. If you're talking about how to present it in the junction list, we follow the signage. In the running prose, either is appropriate. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. NotDragonius (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Any one source to tell if a road is has support from the state? NotDragonius (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

67.243.41.15 edits

Could someone take a look at the edits 67.243.41.15 is making. All ok? Thanks in advance, -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Failed GA

I recently quickfailed the GA nomination of Interstate 485 because of several outstanding issues that I think need to be dealt with before the article is in a state where it is close to meeting the GA criteria. I provided extensive comments on the review page, but I think in particular it fails 1, 2a, and (partially) 3. However, the nominator has challenged my action, and I'd appreciate if other road editors could provide feedback and let me know if they think I made the right decision or not. In addition, I think the GA review of Interstate 85 in North Carolina was done in haste, and may have some of the same issues as this article. I'd actually raised these issues before the review. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Just from the GA side as input was requested at WT:GAN, while it would have been good for Talk:Interstate 485/GA1 to more explicitly cite the GA criteria, I do not believe this is technically a quickfail as it did receive extensive comments. I would categorise it as a normal fail. CMD (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok you're right, it wasn't technically a quickfail. I guess I should have cited the GA criteria, but I prefer to list individual issues when conducting GA reviews. Bneu2013 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@Bneu2013: if you're doing a GA review, you really need to refer to the criteria. If a comment doesn't specifically impact the criteria, strictly speaking, it's an optional improvement that can't be used to deny a promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 00:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The I-90 dispute

discussion started by a sock LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The RFC here left very unconvincing results and ended in no consensus, with no end in sight to the decades-long debate of I-90 junctions. I think a clear discussion of how to connect policies and guidelines is needed here, especially with WP:OWNership of that article. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how enforcing a guideline that has been in place for over a decade and used on hundreds of articles equates to ownership of a single article by a single person. I'll repeat what I said in the RFC. The point of the "10 junctions limit" is to keep the infobox at a manageable length so it doesn't crowd the body of the article. Maybe some of the longer road articles could support more than 10 and still keep the infobox from crowding out the article prose, I don't know. I think it would be a stronger argument to propose an alternative guideline and create sandbox copies of some o f our longer road articles with different infoboxes to demonstrate. I think that would be a more effective way to convince me. However what won't convince me is arguing for a one off exception to a guideline that's been in place for this long and on this many articles. As also I stated in the RFC, I'm so burned out on cleaning up after people who insert random junctions in the infobox that if I do vote to change the guideline I need to be convinced it's more workable, not less workable, or a one off special exemption. Otherwise, my vote will be to rid the infoboxes of the major junctions entirely. Dave (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I would probably come up with a guide regarding which highways should be included in the infobox. Here are my ideas:

Again, these are just my ideas for creating some sort of guide. AlphaBeta135talk 13:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I use a basic method, balancing a couple of considerations. The termini are always listed, period. For the intermediate junctions, I use a combination of:
  1. Prioritize by classifications: list all junctions with roadways of the same or higher classification, county road < state highway < US Highway < Interstate Highway; special routes may be one level lower than their parent.
  2. Prioritize by physical configuration: undivided highway < divided highway < expressway < freeway, dropping the lower classifications.
  3. Prioritize by geography, making sure they're spaced out.
  4. Prioritize by number, dropping less major designations of a classification. For US Highways, 2dUS numbers outrank 3dUS, and 2dUS that end in 1 or 0 are major. For Interstates, 2dIs outrank 3dIs, and 2dIs that end in a 5 or 0 are major. Another way to judge is by the length of the intersecting highway; longer intersecting highways win over shorter ones.
Imzadi 1979 → 21:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I'd say I-87 is better then the second I-80 junction, since I-87 is in the state of New York, which has no junctions, and I-75 already has an intersection in Ohio. Plus, we should not have the same interstate repeat twice.--RoadFan294857 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
What is your ultimate goal? Is it to change the guidelines to allow for more than 10 junctions on longer articles? Or is it to keep the 10 junction guideline, but replace some of the ones currently listed?Dave (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Personaly I'd prefer if we allowed more then ten, especially on highways over 3,000 miles - I feel that the amount of junctions allowed should be somewhat proportional to the length of the road. --RoadFan294857 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
As luck would have it, an IP vandal provided us with a preview of what the infobox would look like with a lot more junctions. [7] Here the infobox is indeed too long. It's causing stacking on my monitor with the table of contents (yes I still use the "old" skin. I don't like the Vector 2022 makeover) and the state lengths table. But is there an old revision that has, say 11 or 12 junctions we could look at? I'm not opposed to the idea that longer articles could have more junctions. But as I stated in the RFC, as problematic as this has been, we need a rock solid wording to the guideline, as I can guarantee you as soon as we say "ok these articles can have more" we'll have a rush of people adding more junctions to even short highway articles. Dave (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with leaving everything as status quo. By adding more junctions to the infobox, it makes everything too long and cluttered. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
It's worse on the new skin. That length of infobox on my screen pushes the first photo almost to the end of the first RD subsection.
I understand that 10 junctions is an arbitrary limit, but as Dave says, if we allow some articles to go to 12, people will put 12 in any article. I think for a while we silently allowed 11 on US 1 or I-95, but current revisions put them back at 10. Imzadi 1979 → 05:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Not only that, but if something like that happens, there might be a higher chance of edit-warring on the articles with subject A saying "There needs to be more than 10!" and subject B saying "No! It needs to cap at 10!" I'm not sure, but edit-warring will definitely increase if this happens. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
As said in the RFC, I dont think leaving the status quo that is widely objected to is a good idea. --RoadFan294857 (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ a b c d e unless such list would exceed ten junctions

An apparently prolonged problem with the welcome center article

Copied from the United States WikiProject talk page. I know this article isn’t categorized under this WikiProject (it should be) but I’m posting it here too. As evidenced by talk page threads on this subject going back to at least 2018 (which as of this writing was nearly six years ago), there is an issue with certain welcome centers that are listed as being located at an exit that doesn’t exist. I cite two examples in West Virginia, one was listed as “exit” 10 on I-64 eastbound, when the closest exits are exit 8 and exit 11, so the correct terminology would be “mile marker” or “milepost” 10. The other is on I-68 westbound on the first turn off after crossing out of Maryland, it is supposedly located at exit 31, only again, that exit doesn’t exist. The first actual signed exit you encounter going westbound after entering West Virginia is exit 29. Again, it needs to be written as “mile marker” or “milepost”, not “exit”, unless it is signed as an exit (some states do but not all of them, you can probably confirm that on Street View). I corrected those two errors. But someone needs to go and check every single entry on that list and then make sure that the exit actually exists; and if it doesn’t, replace with “mile marker” or the like. Because I imagine those aren’t the only two errors there are in that article. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 03:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Interstate 85 in North Carolina meeting GA criteria?

Hi, everybody. Today, I finished wrapping up what I needed to write for this article. After taking several long looks at it and reading the article over and over, I wasn't sure, but I felt like it might meet GA criteria now (and yes, I know it was stripped of its GA status a few days ago; see the talk page for more information and the reassessment), and it does indeed seem to address all the points in the criteria listed. I haven't nominated it for GAN yet, but if anybody has any comments or feedback, please ping me here. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Ohio River Bridges Project

I'd like to inquire whether the subject article should be covered by this wikiproject, in addition to the one for bridges. This project, despite its name, constructed miles of new Interstate Highway lanes and reconstructed the Kennedy Interchange (where three Interstates converge). I tried to add this to the U.S. Roads and Highways wikiprojects, but an editor who may be associated with these wikiprojects was not in agreement with its addition. Thank you for your consideration. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 23:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Need help

I'm busy creating a draft for I-59 in Mississippi, as seen here, and I need help trying to fix the exit list. If any of you can do that and properly format the list, I'll be extremely grateful. Thanks. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I've figured it out. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Pennsylvania Turnpike

Pennsylvania Turnpike has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Redlinked category

The latest run of Special:WantedCategories features a redlinked category for Category:File-Class U.S. road junction articles, populated by one file. This seems, however, like a category that would already have existed if you guys needed or wanted it, because it seems incredibly unlikely that there's only one file associated with this project, so I'm not prepared to just create it myself without bringing it here for discussion.

So since it isn't allowed to just sit there as a redlink, could you guys either create the category if it's desired, or edit the WikiProject banner template to prevent it outright if it isn't? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_25&oldid=1256788314"