Talk:Types of road

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

Split from Freeway

This was split from freeway and so refers mostly to freeways. It needs cleanup like mad, but first a clear idea of what it should cover. --SPUI (T - C) 13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's bloody full of original research. --SPUI (T - C) 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some examples? Original research is not the same as lack of references. Most articles in Wikipedia have no references.

This needs extra countries added, and some countries detailed in more concise but general terms - to avoid imbalance in the page makeup, and an oversized article if the extra countries are added. Such an ambition for improvement is not, however, in itself a reason to tag the section. zoney ♣ talk 14:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Ontario, while the definitions of freeway and expressway are consistent with that of the United States, highway is used far more often than freeway, especially inside the Greater Toronto Area. While this has caused some confusion because the province applies "highway" (The King's Highway) to principal roads in its network, whether freeway or non-freeway, it is usually resolved simply by using the 400-series number to distinguish the freeway.

Looks like OR to me. --SPUI (T - C) 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. So remove it, or add citation needed, or edit it. There's little point to tagging the whole article. zoney ♣ talk 14:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the OR tag now? I really don't think there's any original research in the Wikipedia sense on this page. AlexTiefling 09:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section "General"

I removed citation needed tags from General. The parent articles from whence the text was copied, and that detail the terms, are linked at head of section.

I disagree that further referencing is needed.

zoney ♣ talk 14:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Medium Capacity"

Removed citation need here too. Again, apart from the fact it's obvious that most countries use local terms, these are detailed on the parent article, linked at the top of the section.

zoney ♣ talk 14:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you chose specifically to include 2+1 road? There are many other types of surface highway - dual carriageway, super two, etc. Also, is there a reason the terms are bolded rather than linked? --SPUI (T - C) 15:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two-plus-one was just an article that I had to mind - and it is a good example of a type of road used for main routes (it would not be used ever on a low capacity route); as I had been editing it recently. I'm aware there are other types of road to include - the page is quite obviously a work in progress (in fact, I'd intended to create it just to illustrate what I had in mind). As for the bold style - well, the names are already linked at the "main article" line, and I just used bold to introduce the terms. Feel free to format differently, but I think it's good to highlight the terms being introduced. Italics may be more appropriate. zoney ♣ talk 17:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other citation needed requests

I agree these could do with references. But I do not agree with peppering the article with them. This is not done across the board on Wikipedia, most articles are unreferenced. I do not think this article deserves special treatment, and I think cutting down on the templates to just the major points would be more appropriate.

Also, some sections are clearly POV, rather than needing referenced, example from Australia:

and a few are called freeways by governments who built them toll-free to promote political advantage.

Such sections should probably be removed to the talk page, and ask for verification there.

zoney ♣ talk 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main road article

There has been some discussion in Talk:Freeway about using this article as the top level road aticle. As such, it would need to place all of the various types of roads into perspective. How much detail it would provide about each road type is completly open. Likewise how much time should be spent here on discussing the details of each type of road, especially for roads that can have different meanings or standards in different parts of the world.

To do this, there are a few questions that I see. One is how should this article be structured? Should this article go into a level of detail where whatever is claimed as a fact needs a citation? Should the article try to explain how a road can go by different names in different parts of the world. Can this article provide the fabric for grouping like types of roads without getting sidetracked in techno babble? Vegaswikian 19:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the overall structure of the article is a good start, though I would prefer the simpler heading "High capacity restricted access roads." The problem is that American expressways do have cross traffic, but I see no need to have a separate section for "High capacity roads with restrictions on access and cross traffic." Rather, we should discuss freeways, expressways, two-lane freeways, and the rest of the zoo under a single category.

Also, it's really important to explain the messy situation in the U.S., though I agree that the current section should be rewritten. After some reading over the past few months I have begun to realize how messy the situation is with regard to the actual terminology in use by ordinary laypersons versus the legal definitions on the books.

Most civil engineers nationwide appear to be using the MUTCD definitions because they were trained with them and they have to write construction specifications that conform to the MUTCD. Many Californians, particularly in Northern California, are at least vaguely familiar with the MUTCD dichotomy since it is based on California law and we have many freeways and expressways. But then, a large number of states still distinguish between "controlled access" and "limited access" in their statutes rather than between "freeways" and "expressways." And as the article currently notes, the actual terminology used by laypersons varies widely from state to state. So it is a huge mess. So it's not just about different parts of the world, it's a problem of how similar roads go by different names in the same country!

Well, that's enough rambling for tonight. Tomorrow I have a lot of lawyering to do. --Coolcaesar 07:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy with lawyer stuff (and thinking about how to fix the Lawyer article) but here are more thoughts. I think we need to more directly confront in the article the difference between what is legally in use versus what is colloquially in use, and then provide citations to particular examples. In a lot of articles I've seen, journalists usually reflect the current usages in their areas.

Another problem I have been thinking about is the section/main article relationship. Because the situation is so confused, I think that we will have to duplicate citations here and in the main articles. It is the only way to prevent people from making uninformed edits to one because they are unaware of the other. --Coolcaesar 02:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having just spent over 2 weeks driving around the US, I wonder if using the AAA map descriptions for roads might be a good starting point? Are there similar sources for other areas? Vegaswikian 02:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. I know that there are many regional mapmakers like Gousha that could be useful. But I think newspaper articles are a better source, since they are more widely accessible (especially older ones) on microfilm and online. In my experience finding old maps in libraries has been a hit and miss experience. The problem is that maps undergo much more wear and tear than books or magazines or newspapers (on microfilm) because map sheets are so large.

Also, I did some quick searches in the NYT newspaper archive on ProQuest recently. It looks like as if there was massive confusion from the very beginning (the 1930s) up to the present over whether expressway, freeway, or superhighway was the correct term, with all three showing up in the same article sometimes. When I have the time I will start compiling some citations to specific examples. At this point, the other key source I'm still looking for is an article by either an engineer or journalist explaining the divergence between the regional usages and the AASHTO official definitions. Once I have that, I'll have enough to start a major rewrite based on those sources.--Coolcaesar 18:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I recently noted on the Talk:Freeway page, the AASHTO Highway Definitions book is still extant but the only copies in my area are at UC Berkeley and CSU Sacramento according to CalCat. It will take me a long time to get over there and photocopy relevant portions of it. That book would really help with regard to resolving battles over when official definitions of freeway and expressway were formulated.

Anyway, since I am increasingly getting disgusted with the mess that a lot of immature road geeks have made of all the road articles while I have been working on Lawyer and prosecuting the arbitration against User:Ericsaindon2 (he was banned). I am thinking of purging a lot of the irrelevant garbage from Freeway, Expressway, and Motorway and simply noting in the second paragraph of each article that similar roads are discussed at Types of road. That is, everything not related to the countries in which each term is actually used should go. This would mean, for example, that Freeway would largely be trimmed down to Canada, the U.S., and Australia, with a strong focus on the U.S., while Expressway could be broadened somewhat since the term is so widely used. --Coolcaesar 08:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem. We need someone who can add some order these articles. The template seems to have articles for all but one of the road types currently listed so it should be able to guide readers through the maze. I think that the cleanup needs to start by moving a lot of text from this article into others and then writing this over.

OK, I just rewrote the article. I dropped most of the text that is already covered in the other articles or should be in those and kept this article as an overview. I also removed the cleanup tags since I belive this rewrite fixes the problems that required fixing. I do not think this is the end of changes, but rather a start of a series of changes that will result in a better set of articles on roads. Vegaswikian 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I have been so busy for a week I didn't see your reply until today. Now I just need to find the time (between all these depositions and motions) to rewrite the Freeway and Expressway articles again as I've described above. I did make the time last week to go up to Northern Regional Library Facility in Richmond (the regional archival depository for all Northern California UC campuses) to pull the 1962 copy of the AASHTO Highway Definitions book. It's actually a tiny 16-page pamphlet. I photocopied it but unfortunately I can't scan it in and post it because that might violate copyright law (which I took in law school). Unfortunately, the 1962 pamphlet raises more questions than it answers, because judging from the brief history given on its first page, it's impossible to understand how these definitions evolved unless I have the original 1949 pamphlet! But I think I can directly cite the 1962 version for some limited factual propositions for now. It looks like according to WorldCat that the 1949 pamphlet no longer exists and the only known copy of the 1953 version is at the Washington State Department of Transportation Library. But I am way too busy to visit Washington state for a long time (plus I hear the weather in Seattle is terrible rght now). --Coolcaesar 07:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]