Talk:Built-up area

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles

focus on Built-up area as defined by the Vienna convention on road traffic

It has been suggested that this article could focus on Built-up area as defined by the Vienna convention on road traffic. See Talk:Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)#British_Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)_vs_European_Built-up_area_(Highway_Code). The content to import would be this one: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Built-up_area_(Highway_Code)&oldid=925261577

Strong oppose. Built-up areas are primarily about places where people live and often include areas that are impassable to motorised traffic. Typically, traffic laws define a built-up area 'within the meaning of the Act' to provide a generic rule about speed, give-way-to-the-right and so on. Traffic is just a tiny panel in the tapestry of a built-up area. So anything more than a hat note pointing readers to an article about usage of the term in traffic law would be wp:undue, IMO, but I suppose a three line paragraph might gain consensus. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Built-up areas are primarily about places where people live" : yes
"often include areas that are impassable to motorised traffic": possible but not relevant, because not contradictory with the fact that "motorised traffic" can some roads/streets open to motorised traffic within built-in areas (according to British code and Vienna convention)
"an article about usage of the term in traffic law", Yes, that is what we need. That is why it was added to Built-up_area_(Highway_Code), but it was removed because Built-up_area_(Highway_Code) is about Highway Code and not about highway code. The first one is British only due to the capital H and the capital C! But British is a tiny panel, in the lands of the Vienna conventions. For this reason, the solution was to add some stuff just here.

If you do not agree you need to talk this question with him first. I assume you can contact him and ask him where should be inserted the text he removed. In the meantime we are free to readd the text you removed, or a more complete one... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.228 (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with me where it goes. I removed it from one place I thought it didn't belong, and apparently it doesn't belong here either. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only solution that I can suggest is that you create a new article called Built-up area (Vienna Convention highway code). The topic is far too deep in the tree to go in an overview article like this. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new article is one thing. But a title such a "Vienna Convention highway code" risk to be too much specific: Australia and Ireland have road rules for built-up area without being a member of the Vienna convention. Highway code might be too specific too, some countries might not codify their laws (which one?). Additionally, Vienna Convention is not a code of a national law.

Also the common OECD / EU / UN glossary defines the within/outside built-up area without having each of their member to be also member of the Vienna convention.

Might be we could imagine a title such as Built-up area (road rules) or Road rules within built-up area. This need to be agreed. I just like to remember that for creating an article, it needs to be admissible. That means that you would need to have something to write in sections for history, definitions, safety issues, lighting, specific rules, ...

Anyway, I am unsure an anon IP would be allowed creating an article on the English language wikipedia. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.228 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good suggestions. Anyone may create an article provided only that the topic is wp:notable (which this certainly is). There are many wp:stub articles: obviously not desirable but some topics don't have a lot to say but are needed for completeness. Obviously for a first article it would be sensible to create a WP:draft version first and invite comment. They don't have to get a wikipedia account, (which they may do anonymously if they wish [just don't forget password]) but it makes life a lot easier. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted recent contributions by 88.136

I deleted a set of edits by an anon editor (mostly 88.136.nnn.nnn) because they were poorly written (see Wikipedia:Writing better articles), broke the formatting (which admittedly was poor to start) and gave disproportionate space to just one facet of the built environment: traffic. One of the editor's edit notes gave a clue: "if there are more motorists than urbanists": there are never more motorists than urbanists! Certainly some of the material was valid but it was so bundled in motor-lobby WP:POV as to become incidental. (Full disclosure: I drive regularly but I also walk and take the bus/train, whichever is appropriate. I am not an eco-warrior.)

Please try again, write in text not slogans, and stay within the topic which is the totality of the built environment (of which roads, as well as other infrastructure like sewers, are certainly an important aspect but just one aspect). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the material belongs (if anywhere) to urban area, not to this overview article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are rather unfair when you say article broke the formatting: it was yet poor to start. Please consider that sentences were added while the list which are not sentence were yet it previously. Added content is verifiable and source-able, which is the key for wikipedia. This is not the case for the previous content which is a not understandable mess, with no source for no country and no datation.

The fact that the built-up area is a concept which exist in the Vienna convention was added, fact which is applicable to many countries, and which disappear completely in your version. You just kept "An illuminated section of a road". Light-lobby WP:POV! Might be the light of the sun does not reach England and Wales but there is probably no so much lights in the street of the built-up area of some other countries, and there are section of roads which are illuminated without being built-up area: (light outside built-in area) https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/images/1/1e/M25_J5_Chevening_Anti-clockwise_TOTSO_-_Coppermine_-_18224.jpg (no light within built-in area) https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/apr/14/ghana-development-improve-streetlights

For the question of "disproportionate space" the minimum (and not all the text) was added for road traffic: a sentence for the concept and countries were using it, a sentence about the Vienna convention, and a sentence for the British part. The last one was not necessary but kept because it is a bad practice to remove other's writings. Some even call it vandalism!

Disproportion is due to the lack of information about things which are not road related, not about the minimal set of information provided for traffic regulations. Please add the missing parts

The difference between traffic regulations and sewers are:

Every drivers is assumed to know traffic regulations while few people might know rules about sewers. But again, please add the missing parts.
The Vienna convention is also important because it means the entry and the exit of the built-up area is always sign-posted on the European continent. Sewers and other regulations do not provided such a feature.
Also, "58 % (223) of the cyclists were killed in built-up areas. If all cyclists injured and killed are taken together, as many as 90 % were recorded in built-up areas." We cannot say the same about sewers https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/20151210_2_germany_road-safety-programme-2011.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.228 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not dispute for a moment that the material that you want to add has value, validity and notability. The issue is that this is the wrong article for it, for exactly the same reason as Built-up area (Highway Code) has its own article rather than here. (My mention of sewers was to give you an example of another kind of infrastructure that you would see that obviously doesn't belong. But to a drainage engineer, it is one of the most important aspects of a built-up area, far more critical than road traffic). International standards for road traffic regulation needs its own article as you have been advised. When it is done, a summary of it can go here, just as has been done for the UK highway code. I don't understand why you resist that idea, it would make a great article. So why don't you register for a user-name and have a go? You can start with a draft and, if you like, leave a note at talk:Built-up area (Highway Code) asking for advice, suggestions and even copy-editing. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]