Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

ELG in the UK

There is a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Roads#ELG vs. current templates. --NE2 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Road names clarification

EXIT 900

Morgan Rd Hefner Rd

EXIT 910

Lake Hefner Pkwy W. Memorial Rd Portland Ave

How should we handle an exit like the one illustrated as Exit 900? Note that OK-3 is not on either Morgan or Hefner Rd, it is on its own alignment, but the three roads share an exit. See also Exit 910, where OK-74 is on both the Hefner Pkwy and Portland, but not on Memorial.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For Exit 900, I assume this means that there are three separate roads. There's a similar exit on I-91 in Connecticut (Exit 6). In that case I used the actual roadway the exit leads to as the main destination and a "to" to mark the other roadways separated by a comma, e.g. "Morgan Rd to OK-3, Hefner Rd" or "OK-3, Hefner Rd to Morgan Rd". In the 2nd case, how about Memorial Rd to OK-74 (Hefner Pkwy, Portland Ave) or something like it. --Polaron | Talk 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. On futher reflection, for Exit 900, how does " State Highway 3, Morgan Rd, Hefner Rd" using commas sound? And for Exit 910, would " State Highway 74 (Lake Hefner Pkwy, Portland Ave), W. Memorial Rd" sound? Should this be clarified in the guide? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd write it like this: " SH 74 — Lake Hefner Parkway, West Memorial Road, Portland Avenue". Then in the notes section, I would explain how this exit gets to all those roads. I've had 2-3 exits like this, but I can't think of any at the moment.—Rob (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I should read that more carefully. I'd write it like this:

SH 3 Morgan Road Hefner Road

SH 74 — Lake Hefner Parkway, Portland Avenue West Memorial Road

Still would explain in the notes section what's going on. :-) I use "To" only on signs that use "To". —Rob (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Typically, parentheses indicate the road name ( State Route 7 (Harry Byrd Highway)). If we have two numbered routes, it's used with a slash ( State Route 7 (Harry Byrd Highway)/State Route 9 (Charles Town Pike)). So logically, we'd use slashes for roads that aren't numbered ( State Route 5 (Main Street)/Centre Road). That makes the most sense to me. --MPD ^{T / C} 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's in the guideline or whether or not it is actually used in practice but my understanding is a slash is the separator for concurrent routes and a comma for separate routes. If so, Scott's method above should be good. --Polaron | Talk 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally use all slashes all the time, since that's how {{jct}} formats it. It'd also be a pain to recode the template to do selective commas/slashes, and would be (IMO) more incorrect if it used commas all the time. It should be noted that there's nothing in the guideline regarding this; the only thing close to it are the examples, which imply that the selective slash/comma is locked in the guideline when it isn't. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been using parentheses for secondary road names; names IDOT and ISTHA sometimes place on cross streets. For example, " I-290 (Eisenhower Expressway) — Rockford, Chicago". Sometimes "Eisenhower Expresway" is on the sign, generally it's not, but in either case it's common enough to include. Compare to " IL 64 — North Avenue", where North Avenue is prominently featured on the sign. I don't use slashes; I use mdashes. —Rob (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the guide say to use slashes?

SH-3 / Morgan Road / Hefner Road

Commas would separate destinations. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

So would the second example be " SH 74 — Lake Hefner Parkway, Portland Avenue / West Memorial Road"?

My personal preference is that it's confusing, and a line break would give more visual weight to the idea that the exit is for two roads, not one. —Rob (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the second example would be:

SH-74 (Lake Hefner Parkway, Portland Avenue) / West Memorial Road

--Holderca1 ^talk 18:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:jct includes a "road" parameter that produces I-5 / other roads – Los Angeles; the "name" parameters give I-5 (West Side Freeway) – Los Angeles. If there are multiple other roads, I've been using commas, but I don't see a problem with slashes; I also don't see a problem with manual usage of a comma instead of a slash between the route number and other roads. --NE2 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow...I wasn't expecting this many varied responses. We should probably hash the meanings of all our symbols out and add them to the guideline. I've always interpreted the rules as being that parens are for street names that carry the numbered route, while the "–" separates roads from the destinations, and slashes are for concurrent things. Hm. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what I've noticed though? I've never really seen anything different other than what I've used. And that's because we all work on separate parts of the country. And even when I go over and look at other random roads, I don't really notice it. I think we should save ourselves the trouble and just continue doing what we're doing the way we're doing it, and then handle changes on a case-by-case basis. Forget about all of us for a second and ask yourself: would the general public really care if there's a comma or a slash or a dash, as long as it's consistent within the same exit list? Even then...really? --MPD ^{T / C} 18:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Destinations

Maybe the standard is too firmly entrenched in Wikipedia by now, but I'd like to propose that the "destination" column be split in two. As it currently stands, the column indicates both which road the freeway interchanges with or exits onto, and where that road in particular might take you. This is somewhat confusing, especially when said destination is another road. I think we should have "Destinations" be a second column, with "Interchanges" or something as the first. -Branddobbe (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a bad idea to me. To me, all the "destinations" header means is "what's on the BGS (big green sign) for the exit", which matches current practice for the column. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 00:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember seeing some lists that did this, and there was a lot of whitespace, since exits that don't have numbered routes often have more text. --NE2 03:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundant abbreviations, again

So the dispute over county abbreviations in the postmile column isn't going away. Here are examples of a list

• without

and

• with

the abbreviations. My argument is that they're redundant; the county name and abbreviation are already in the county column, and the fact that they reset at county lines, if not obvious, is stated above the table. The other side argues (when not simply stating that they're "necessary") that they make it less confusing. So how about it? --NE2 03:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never liked the idea of having the mileposts for U.S. and state routes be county-oriented. I suppose it depends on the locale (maybe mileposts in Cali are largely identified county-to-county, whereas in Texas they are not) but personal preference leans towards using an absolute mileage system. Especially in the case of U.S. 50 in California, where the exit numbers and the county mileposts diverge significantly after the first county. That said, the county abbreviations make that particular column hard to read. —Rob (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem in California is that we don't have a complete list of postmile equations, so we cannot calculate precise mileage. With very few exceptions, California only uses county-based postmiles, even on Interstates. --NE2 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... that's certainly different. In that case it makes sense to keep it the way it is. But I agree, the redundant abbreviations need to go - the county name is *right there*. For readability, if it's possible to thicken the borders between counties on the exit list, that can be done, but obviously that's not an accessible solution, either. —Rob (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that they should not be in the postmile column. you already have the county name - and that abbreviation on the PM range below it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master son (talk • contribs) 23:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

County	Location	Blah	Blah blah
Orange	Anaheim	0	dirt road
	Orange	1	4x4 trail
Orange	Anaheim	0	dirt road
	Orange	1	4x4 trail
Los Angeles	Los Angeles	0	boulevard
	Honolulu	2551	WHAT?!?
earth	Manila	8000	!!!
	Mars	36000000	closed
space
	and back	72000000	whew!

How's either of these for a "thicker" line? --NE2 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as the notice stating that CA uses postmiles and they reset at the county line etc. is there, I would (reluctantly) agree to the removal of the county abbreviations. The thicker line would be helpful however. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking using style="border-top: 2px solid black" on the row, as per above. If an exit spans counties, of course, it won't quite work, but it'll still be an effective visual break. —Rob (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added one that spans counties. --NE2 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If California only uses county based postmiles on Interstates, how do they know which exit number to use? From what I can tell they use mileage based exit numbers. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They calculated them using the county-based postmiles and equations, but we lack the latter. --NE2 14:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this does not sound like me, but I'm agreeing with removing the county abbreviations just for the sake of reducing the size of the exit list. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I know AL2TB's been waiting to hear what I got to say about NE2's edits and all that other drama causing stuff, so here's my say: do whatever you want regarding the postmiles column. I just want to see accurate and consice major intersections/exit lists, but NE2 has to stop annihilating virtually every single edit from the rest of the Wikipedia community because it's not up to his "standards". I said this before to NE2 and i'll say it again: labeling my edits as "redundant" and "unneccessary" is a complete insult to my intelligence. I know what I saw and I know what should be included when it comes to the major intersections/exit lists whether he likes it or not. If I have to get photos to prove it, I will. In the meantime, i'll probably just cut back on my editing for awhile and deal with articles that I'm very sure of. PhATxPnOY916 (talk to me) 04:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about distances

What distance should be used if an exit is for two different cross roads? --Holderca1 ^talk 18:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably the distance to the gore point. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Then you would have different distances for each direction or would you just go with halfway between the two? --Holderca1 ^talk 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably just use the "primary" direction (northbound or eastbound). Of course if you have an "official" source like a DOT mileage guide, use whatever that says. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? We never use the gore point, but the bridge. If one of the crossroads is obviously the main one, I use it; otherwise I use 1.2-<br>1.5. --NE2 05:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There may be situations when the gore point or the off-ramp location is the appropriate milepost to use, e.g. when the exit is to a frontage road. --Polaron | Talk 17:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, what about the situation where there is an exit for a particular street, then the highway terminated into a different highway and never reaches the street for the prior exit. --Holderca1 ^talk 19:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Like [1] (SR 2 overlaps I-210 to the east). I've been using the mileage for the end of the route or that segment of route. Yes, that means that multiple interchanges have the same mileage, but that happens anyway if an interchange serves multiple roads that split off at the same place. --NE2 05:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Freeway names

I know we had something saying that a commonly-used freeway name can be included even if it's not on signs. Does anyone know what happened to this? --NE2 00:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Unincorporated places

See Talk:California State Route 58. --NE2 08:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Iowa county roads

Having recently done some traveling in Iowa, I've noticed some exits have signs with county roads and cities and some just have cities, even though the road is an official county road. So do we list everything, or just everything on the sign? If just everything on the sign, there's some I have to redo. DandyDan2007 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd list just what's on the sign, myself. You should probably note the official CR in the Notes column, however. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd list the county road in parentheses if it's not signed (it appears that's how the Japan example does it). --NE2 08:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Complicated mileposting

Are there any objections to the method I used in U.S. Route 30 in Oregon#Major intersections to deal with a single route using many different mileposted highways? I wouldn't do it on every route, only on the ones where this sort of thing happens frequently. (If we're lucky, ODOT will fix the issue soon.) --NE2 08:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused as to what the numbers actually mean. I am assuming the second of the two numbers is the actual milepost, but what is the first number? --Holderca1 ^talk 12:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The first number is the highway number; see Oregon highways and routes for an explanation. --NE2 13:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So Oregon numbers their highways a completely different number than what they sign them as? That seems just a bit odd. That column may need a bit more explanation since I am somewhat familiar with roads and I couldn't figure it out. The average reader would probably just stare at it crosseyed. --Holderca1 ^talk 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the text above the list? --NE2 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that basically is it - and many highways don't have signed numbers at all. (In theory all state highways got route numbers - not all of which have been signed since then - in 2002 and 2003, but they left out Highways 372 and 420, and many portions of other highways that already had route numbers elsewhere.) Oregon is the only state that does it to this extent, but other states such as California used to, and there are unsigned numbers that usually don't match the signed numbers in both Minnesota (legislative routes) and New York (state highway numbers), but in those states they are rarely used. ODOT's primary numbering system remains the unsigned highway numbers. --NE2 13:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I saw 2W and was wondering what it meant, I thought maybe it was a county code or something (from seeing the California mileposts on exit lists) but that wasn't it since it didn't change at the county lines. There was also no mention of a Highway 2W either, so I had no clue as to what exactly it meant. I think a mention that the state has an internal numbering system that differs from the highway designation should be mentioned in the note as well. You have to think who in their ultimate wisdom would come up with such a system. Also, how can you have a negative milepost? --Holderca1 ^talk 13:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A negative milepost happens when the highway is extended from the zero end. --NE2 13:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Shields in infobox/junction list

There is this whole debate going on about whether thumbnail shields should be included in infoboxes and junction lists in articles. The FA for New York State Route 32 passed only after these were removed, contrary to the over 10,000 articles in WP:USRD that already use thumbnail shields. There is a discussion going on at WT:USRD, if you would like to opine, feel free. CL — 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Shields in the exit number column

Are there objections to using shields in the exit list column at interchanges where a concurrency begins/ends and both routes have different numbers and on that concurrency? Here's what I mean: (from Interstate 70 in Illinois)

18	IL 162 – Troy
20 A-B 15 A-B	I-55 north / I-70 east / I-270 west – Chicago, Indianapolis, Kansas City	I-70 West joins I-55 South and eastern terminus of I-270. I-70 mileposts follow I-270 mileage.

It's I-70's exit list, but for the first 20 miles, it uses I-55's numbers. On the east side of this interchange, I-70 has a different number than it does on the west side, so the shield is added to let the reader know that's how the exit number was determined. I've seen this on a lot of Illinois interstate articles and I want to know if it's fine. --Fredddie (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I object, especially because it's implying that dual exit numbers are used. --NE2 20:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the exact implication: which route the exit numbers are for in a concurrency situation, and which exit number corresponds to which route when both numbers correspond to the same exit. We do that already, and it's not difficult to sort out in the head; this is just clarification. --MPD ^{T / C} 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

One idea, as an alternate to the shields, is to use a footnote (using {{cref}}/{{cnote}}, not reference syntax) attached to the first exit after the numbering system switches. If the exit list contains full-across rows denoting the beginning and end of the concurrency, of course, that would be the perfect place to note the change. One note: if you do use shields, you MUST specify alternate text (e.g. [[Image:I-55.svg|20px|I-55]]) so that the output is comprehensible to screen readers and other text-based browsers (like Lynx). That's why we rarely have shields without the link afterward. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well... no. The only exit numbers that I-70 actually has in this example are 20B for I-270 (eastbound only) and 15B for I-55 north (westbound only). There is certainly no exit on I-70 for I-70 east. Farther east, there is no exit 157 or 163 on I-70. Here we also have another issue - it's not I-70's mileage that's being used, but I-270's mileage. The only exits that actually correspond to I-70's mileage are those labeled as I-55. --NE2 23:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Peach-orange color no access

On junction list I think is better to not use crossing no access, because there is no way people can access from the interchange. It will be better if we eliminate noaccess color from junction list. About Concur terminus cyan color from what TwinsmetsFan talk about, I have no problem of eliminating color from junctions. But honestly; nobody sincerely cares about colors. I don't sincerely care about colors, I just go by WP:ELG guidelines on first sentence say "Do not add background color on exit list". I just want to eliminate crossing no access from all junction list; because its similar to normal exit list.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What? --MPD ^{T / C} 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On junction list should we not list the interchange when it just cross, and do not have any access ramps? Not even on {{Jctinttop}}?--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 23:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So the question is whether or not to continue adding crossovers/unders without access in junction lists? I don't feel we should, and I never have felt we should. However, I have never been very involved in junction lists (I'm an exit list person myself). So I will leave this to other editors. --MPD ^{T / C} 23:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur, if there is no access, it is not a junction. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you discussing exit lists, which are covered by this guide, or junction lists which are not? Exit lists are for freeways and not surface routes that don't have interchanges. Whole they look the same they are two different concepts. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, few people say no access shouldn't belong to junction list either. But now its a little late; since I went by your opinions, and I saw users want to eliminate colors from list. With overlapping route; i don't mind about keeping it, but from old discussion they said concur should not have a color. Bring this up with User:TwinsMetsFan because he made all those colors, and he wants it gone. I certainly don't care about colors, so I'm neutral about it.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 04:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

TMF retired. I don't think I can ask him much nor does his opinion outweigh consensus of the entire projects. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the current issue is simple and I'll just put it here for discussion in general (skip below for the summary): it seems that consensus on an exit list is that overpasses and underpasses with no access from the article route do not go in the exit list. That wouldn't exactly make sense, but it would expand an exit list unnecessarily long (imagine 200 crossings over or under a road). That's fine, and there is no question here to change that current standing. The question is should we apply this to junction lists as well. There's a road, another road passes over it, and without going dangerously off-roading, you're not accessing that road. Should that road be included in the junction list? Freewayguy's issue is that right now for those instances, there is a "peach-orange" colour used to denote that the road doesn't have access from the article's road. He wants to know if we can eliminate that colour. I feel eliminating that colour would make it less clear that that road doesn't have an intersection, and also that they shouldn't be included anyway.

Summary: Two issues:

A) Should we continue to use "peach-orange" colour in junction lists where there is no access?

B) Should we continue to list roads in junction lists that have no access to the article's route at all?

--MPD ^{T / C} 05:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to have this discussion without it being initiated by Freewayguy, since it's pretty hard to understand what he's saying. I'm pretty sure we discussed this before, though, and decided that a true "no access" (with no ramps or anything like a ramp) should not be listed, period. --NE2 05:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are instances where noaccess is needed. Take, for instance, Missouri Route 100, which has a terminus at a noaccess junction. I think that it's a good idea to keep noaccess junctions on non-freeway routes, because in most cases (i.e. in urban areas) while there's no direct access to the freeway, there's usually a junction nearby. Also, just like water features, freeways are major features that other highways must bridge. I am opposed to a wholesale mass-removal of junctions, but wouldn't mind seeing criteria that limits when noaccess should be used. (I wouldn't care if we threw out any instances where the route just bridges the freeway and continues merrily on its way, with no entrance ramp in 20 miles in either direction.) We definitely need to get WP:CASH involved in this, though, since the color scheme was derived from Caltrans milepost logs, which include noaccess junctions, I think.

I am absolutely opposed to removal of all colors from junction lists. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[2] (big PDF) and [3] (smaller PDF) show that Route 100 actually ends at Wharf Street, so apparently the end sign is incorrect; even if it did end under I-55 we'd list 3rd Street. As for the comparison to rivers, we did recently decide that only bridges that are likely to have articles should be listed. --NE2 05:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Peach-orange for no access is list on 1000s of pages, so we shouldn't erase it right now. Unless we operate a bot; can help us erase all noaccess at once. Should delete route in gray be list too? Caltrans has play with numbering around, over time, the routes die. Some postmiles was calcualte as in 1964 when massive changes of highway assignments. --Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 14:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets wait until TMF gets back, but originally he put black tag on userpage, means he graduate. I don't know if he will come back and contribution actively again. TMF start with those colors; Nobody cares about color peroid, and he wants those colors gone. TMF possibly left, and graduate.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes but TMF != consensus. He may now want them gone, but consensus may want them to stay. Just because you started something doesn't mean you can just undo it all. Also, I keep trying to help you, and you don't help me help you. I'm trying to get progress made on the issue you brought up and you keep dragging it in different directions. Forget it; I'm done. --MPD ^{T / C} 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually junction list is not exit list. Other states highways might not work the same as Califoria. Colors actually do not matter to junction list; because is just intersections. No access should not be use anyways because no ramps; no way to exit or enter. Some states actually mark noaccess in log; while California don't. Ohter states might have lot fewer of thrown away routes than California have. California have 1000s of thrown away routes; even if the sign still exit on green tour like SR 42 still exit, but SHC code eliminate it. Part of SR 72 west of I-605 I believe assignment is thrown away, alot of others. Actually I didn't start with eliminating color consensus. Somebody else start this. I don't have problme living without colors. Anyways. Earlier of discussion, I dont see any consensus wants color to stay.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to expand ELG's scope to non-freeways

Currently, ELG covers only freeway (motorway) exit lists and not tables of junctions on surface roads. This has caused confusion, especially since USRD has no de jure standard for junction tables ({{jctint}} and friends are only a de facto standard, but many of the various USRD subprojects have varying implementations of it). NE2 has recently said this division is "silly", and for once, I agree with him. The two method approach breaks down when you're trying to do a junction list for a surface route that has freeway sections, since the jctint templates and ELG are mutually incompatible with different columns. I propose that ELG be expanded to also cover non-freeway routes. This would also have the benefit of allowing the UK's A roads to have a true junction table and allow them to get the long junction list out of the infobox. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Interchanges versus intersections

The biggest thing that we will need to deal with if we go forward with this is how to differentiate between a freeway interchange and a non-freeway intersection. I have two ideas as to how to do this. One possibility is to add a new "IC" (interchange) column that would be left blank for at-grade intersections. For interchanges, we could insert a symbol for the type of interchange ("◊" could be a diamond interchange, "⌘" could be a cloverleaf, etc, or we could use small SVG icons). Another option would be to simply place a "–" (en dash) in the exit number column for intersections. Unnumbered interchanges would then be left blank, and numbered interchanges would have the number. (This is a pretty elegant solution to the problem, but has the disadvantage of having no way to denote an interchange where the article route is the non-freeway. Maybe an asterisk or dagger or something could be used?) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How about just placing "Interchange" in the notes column? I've been doing this for a while with no complaints. If there's an actual freeway section, I use colspans that state that the freeway begins and ends. Both can be seen at Utah State Route 201#Major intersections. --NE2 09:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's an option (and one that I've used before), but in cases like Missouri where you have an expressway that turns into a freeway bypass of a city and then drops down to expressway again several times, having multiple colspans (or Interchange. Interchange. Interchange. in the notes column) makes the list a bit cluttered (and if the colspans are close together the reader has to slow down and closely look at the text to parse which colspans go with which). How do you feel about using "–" in the exit column for at-grade junctions? (P.S. I have to say, having the exit column present at all times looks like a pretty good deal the more I think about it; I just realized it would provide a convenient place to display exit numbers on concurrencies with Interstates...)—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be clear to the reader what "-" means - if I saw it I'd probably think it means that there's no access or something. (For the record, sometimes the column is included only for Interstate concurrencies, such as on U.S. Route 50 in Utah.) --NE2 12:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Would "n/a" be clearer? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd interpret that as "no exit number". --NE2 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So you would interpret a blank cell as an intersection? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No; I'd also interpret it as "no exit number". --NE2 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What wouldn't you interpret as "no exit number"? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A number :) --NE2 09:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Another problem, unrelated to reader confusion: sometimes intersections have exit numbers; see Image:NY 9A north exit 5.jpg and New York State Route 17 (exit 98, and I believe there used to be more). --NE2 13:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What if we put "at-grade" in the notes column and leave the exit number blank if it's majority expressway exits, and if it's majority at-grade exits, we put "exit" or "interchange"? --MPD ^{T / C} 05:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Works for me - Interstate 70 in Pennsylvania#Exit list. --NE2 09:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Reconciling USRD's jctint templates against the ELG

The biggest problem here are the colors, and what to leave in and take out. Currently, we have colors for concurrency termini, crossing no access, unconstructed, deleted, and closed. I have no opinion on what to do about unconstructed and deleted, and I've already elaborated my position above with regards to crossing no access. As for closed, I think it shouldn't be a big deal if we keep the color for closed junctions (those that have been built and are still signed but are closed off temporarily) and would even be beneficial for freeways with closed exits. As to concurrencies, I think that simply giving the direction (e.g.
SH-24 south) would do the trick without having to specifically point it out in the notes column. (Obviously, that would mean that the direction shouldn't be used where some other route terminates at the article route mean there is only SH-24 south, since it would be confused for a concurrency.) Anyway, that's my thoughts. What do you guys say? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem with using directions only on overlaps: it can be useful to give the direction on a business route so it's clear which end of the loop it is. There are also situations where you can only access one direction of a route, but it goes both ways. What's wrong with using the notes column? --NE2 09:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, for long routes it gets tiresome typing out "SH-6 joins westbound and splits eastbound" dozens of times. That's one good thing about the concurrency color: "|type=mplex" is short to type. I also like to reserve the notes column for more unusual things that require explanation, concurrencies just seem too run-of-the-mill to 'waste' a note on. Using notes sparingly helps draw the reader's attention to important stuff when it pops up. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

"East end of SH-6 overlap" is shorter, and avoids problems with more complicated situations where there is more than one route intersecting. --NE2 10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. The "SH-6 joins westbound and splits eastbound" form was SPUI's preferred form, so it's the one I've seen most. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

For the U.S. Route 127 in Michigan article I created {{MIexit}} based on {{MIint}} to do an exit list. I used notes to indicate where the freeway ended and lwft the exit number blank fir intersections. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You're on your iPhone again, aren't you, Michael? :P I think when we get everything all merged together, we can modify the old jctint templates to produce ELG output. Which would seriously speed up exit list making, too. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was. I only created the templates to help speed up the creation of the list since I'm so used to the {{MIint}} syntax. I'd welcome a combined set of templates in the future. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO colors are overused. The use of colors as a means of status indication is discouraged in many circles as they are subject to regional differences of interpretation and can even be a safety issue (i.e. red-green color-blindness).Dave (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Hollywood Freeway (US 101) exit list and the like

This was made so the same section of the list can be shown on two exit lists, but I see it as a problem. There's been little discussion on WT:CASH after these were made. Can we please get more comments? --NE2 07:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of non-standard shields to exit lists

Awaiting a statement from 66.66.117.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) regarding the placement of non-standard shields in exit lists. See the user's talk page for warnings and other statements. Sswonk (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• This user keeps doing it to many I-40s article as well. Please discuss the situation here and do not make anymore similar edits until the matter is dicussed here.--I-405 (Freeway) 00:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I feel that plates such as "Business", "To", and "ALT" should be allowed or is up to discretion. The reason is that it may not be I-40, but "To I-40" and if you're like me and skim the images, seeing "I-40" four or five times requires further investigation. But I believe previous consensus was "don't ask don't tell" on "To" plates at least, and I don't think there's been many problems with "Business" plates either. Thoughts? --MPD ^{T / C} 01:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

i-40 shouldn't have a blue plate. Sometimes dirs is not too important since Wikipedia is not a yellow page or mapquest. Wikipedia is not a route planner guide. --I-405 (Freeway) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"66.66" has outdone himself on the Breezewood exit at Pennsylvania Turnpike#Exit list. Personally, I think the previous revision exit list is great, very clean looking with generally evenly spaced table rows. The real issue is that he is pouring in the extra shields at a tremendous pace and often making several edits in a row that are difficult to undo, all while ignoring the reverts and requests to talk about this here. The same IP is also adding shields showing the name of the state above the route number on interstate shields which is not shown by MUTCD and is no longer the standard in PA (according to this [4]). I am concerned that this may not meet the criteria for vandalism but that the style guidelines, consistency and accuracy of signage are all taking a severe hit. I am considering putting a level 3 warning on his page but I don't know if the block warning will be enforced, is valid or even if it will stop the abuse since it is probably a Road Runner DHCP account. Freewayguy has obviously put a lot of good work into the lists and should be given a chance to state his case to "66.66" without having to revert these ongoing edits. Sswonk (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You think that's bad? You ought to see what he's done with exit 74 on Interstate 68... - Algorerhythms (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only thing that would need to be removed from that example is the directional plate. "To" and "Scenic" can- and should- stay. Since otherwise, the implication is that it's US 40, which it is not. It's not even "To US 40". --MPD ^{T / C} 18:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the Scenic plate - in fact, I'm fairly certain it was there before. But the other plates are a bit much. - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been using rollback on them, which is great for removing all the edits at once, if you have it. Agree with all above in saying that these edits are undesirable. Random IP messing up exit lists, not replying to messages sent to it...it's like the St. Louis Signer all over again. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) 66.66.117.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked for one week. I have reverted the list at Pennsylvania Turnpike to the earlier version without supplemental shields of any kind. I think the time is right to formulate a guideline that explicitly mentions the use of the directional shields etc. I will be logging off for most of the day after this post, but will be adding input throughout the week. Just to get the discussion started, I have two opinions (rants?) to offer.

1. The exit list is not, as Freewayguy has pointed out, a route planner guide. The shields are in the list to help illustrate intersections, so no directional information needs to be included as part of the shield. Direction is stated in the text immediately following the shield. I see any addition of supplemental shields as clutter. I don't see a reason for the "TO" or "SCENIC" shields either. The question arises as to whether the actual overhead signs on the roads contain those extra descriptive shields. For the purposes of the encyclopedia, I support using the method of using only the route number sign in infoboxes and exit lists.
2. Although it might be a question for another day, the use of "state name" interstate shields in states where they are being replaced by generic "neutered" shields is wrong. Pennsylvania is among the majority of states that no longer produce "state name" shields. It strikes me as nostalgic at best and disinformative at worst that those shields are being used. In the last two years I have been on interstates ranging from St. Johnsbury, VT to West Palm Beach, the Chicago Skyway to Hampton Roads (Willin' and This Land is Your Land come to mind?), and the use of state names on shields has become a thing of the past in many places. I know from reading and the list at interstate-guide.com that this is not true in California and other western states. Still, in those states where it is not done any more, we shouldn't have those shields in the lists or boxes. I did an eyeball comparison of the MUTCD standard M1-1 versus Image:I-70.svg and Image:I-70_(PA).svg. The former, generic shield is identical to the MUTCD with respect to using a 5:12 / number:shield height ratio. The numbers on the latter, state name tagged shield are clearly too small. Within exit lists and infoboxes, when displayed at 20px high the number on the latter is dwarfed by numbers on state and US shields. So I recommend using the generic shield unless the state name shield is still the current standard in a state. Sswonk (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with not keeping the "Scenic" shield, as without it the road is not correctly identified: in the case I mentioned earlier, the road that the exit goes to is not U.S. Route 40, it's U.S. Route 40 Scenic. Without the Scenic banner, the reader may think that the exit goes to US 40, not US 40 Scenic. The same applies for other banners like "Business", and "Alternate". - Algorerhythms (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll go along with that if it is the name of the highway. I actually had second thoughts after I read my post and now I just struck that word from it. The only other scenic US route, U.S. Route 412 Scenic, has a nice brown shield with the word built into the shield.

But with regard to "TO", I recall many signs which use the word in smaller letters next to or above the shield on overhead signs, but not as an actual shield as IP66.66 had been adding. On the Franconia Notch Parkway in the White Mountains, a section of two lane highway that used to be signed TO I-93 is now simply I-93. As the interstate system was being constructed in the sixties and seventies, you often saw signs like that along the at-grade sections of US highways that were used to continue the route during construction. I'll point to an article where I think the exit list is done correctly (assuming IP66.66 hasn't found a way to begin editing again): I-40 in NC. But with I-81 in PA I will nitpick a little. Those exits with supplemental shields are shown in excellent detail at this site, for example Exit 72A here. When you exit I-81 you travel about 1000 feet to a traffic light and there is US 22 [5]. There is no highway called "TO US 22" and in my opinion, the little white "TO" shield on our Wikipedia exit list is not necessary. The text after the shield can tell that story. Sswonk (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking with a 2000ft section of road is indeed not worth it, and I agree with that example. But in some instances like this, (the "before" picture, haha) a "to" shield can be a difference. Another example where a "To" shield would be useful; I-77 is a good 10+ miles away.

So it looks like there is a consensus that Business, Alternate, Scenic, and other plates like that are okay. But I'd still like to discuss the "To" plate. I still see no problem with it and would like to see the option of including it. --MPD ^{T / C} 23:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I just made an edit to the exit list at MA 3 which is similar to the US 52 example you are describing. I live close to this exit, the Braintree Split, which is currently receiving new overhead signs. The exit description I changed is 20A, which is not an exit from MA3 to I-95. But, the exit list we had before my edit gave that impression. Exit 20A is over 7 miles from I-95, and none of the reassurance shields on I-93 south, where the exit leads, say "TO I-95". But, the intent of the overhead sign is to point out that the best way to get to I-95, north or south, is to go "this way". Unfortunately, illustrating this intent using the junction template {{jct}} is not possible. So, I manually entered the shields, "TO" and links to show what I think is the cleanest and most informative way of illustrating the official signage. Sswonk (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly an option. I think there needs to be at least some way to distinguish "to" and not just put shields in there. Yeah, {{jct}} limits what we can do, which is why I feel that "to" plates are sometimes easiest. I have a few other ideas that we can look at. There are probably some complex examples (such as the I-85/40 example above), but nothing we couldn't figure out. I'm open to ideas, and I'd like to hear from others too. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

{{jct}} could be easily modified to place "to" in text between the shields, if we agree on that. Plates don't work because of the logistics of something like Business US 1 to SR 3. --NE2 05:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility would be omitting any shields that would appear after the "to". --NE2 05:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is a possibility of modifying the template to insert a "TO", that would be great. I would use a <small> tag for the word "TO" as I did in my MA 3 example. I am only starting to learn templates and parser functions so if anyone else has direct knowledge of the {{jct}}, they should work on this. The code might be something like: {{jct|state=MA|I|93|dir1=south|US|1|dir2=south|insto=yes|to3=to|I|95|city1=Canton}}, with "insto=yes" meaning "insert the formated word 'TO' here between shields". I really don't like using the "TO" plates as they clutter the layout and don't appear that way on the overhead signs, as in the I-81 example photo I linked to above. There could be an idealized limit on using the "insto=yes", say if the distance to the destination road is greater than a mile and other shields would appear before it, like the I-93 to I-95 and I-74 to I-77 examples. For short travel on a surface road to reach another road, like the I-81 Paxtonia example or Breezewood, PA, I think using the regular "to3=to", etc. to simply add the word "To" to the text after the shields would be correct. The I-40 in NC page illustrates use of that style for example at exits 123, 126 and 132. Sswonk (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but instead of both 'insto3=yes' and 'to3=to', the 'insto#=' could add both the shield and the TO in the description. Seems redundant otherwise. --Fredddie™ 22:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't redundant. Please reread my comment explaining "insto=yes". There is no need to number this as it would only occur between the shields based on the position it is found in the template code. It is supplemental, not redundant, because I am asking for two separate scenarios: A) those where the exit goes to one or more main routes which lead to another, e.g. "I-93/US 1 to I-95" or B) anything else where the exit leads to a short (<1 mile) surface or auxiliary road directly to the desination route, e.g. I-81 exit 72A in PA which goes 2000 feet down North Mountain Road "to US 22". See the I-40 in NC exits I mention above: 123, 126 and 132. There, the shield is displayed normally and the "To" text inserted in the text following the shield. We only want to use the "TO" text with shields in rarer cases where the main route exited to leads to another route much further (1 mile or more) down the road. Sswonk (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, another thing to edit war about. --NE2 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, NE2, I think that's why we have talk pages so we can get a strong consensus from steady editors to formulate the guidelines. If we can summarize the difference between an exit which is primarily signed to provide access to, but not a direct exit to, a route or routes such as "To US 22" versus one where there is an exit to one or more signed routes, like I-74 or I-93/US 1 that also leads to one or more other routes eventually, like I-77 or I-95 respectively, we can beat the edit war problem. Sswonk (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[reset] But it will happen, and I don't think it's necessarily up to us to decide what is "worthy" of "TO". That could be considered somewhat OR too I suppose. --MPD ^{T / C} 01:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, if we made it sound like a non-starter to defy the guidelines. So, what I am promoting is a strong preference to use the text "TO" instead of a plate over the route shield. I am not interested in trolling pages looking for a project or editor who wants the word "TO" in front of the shield even in the case of short access roads like the "To US 22" example, either. But, with adding this insto=yes option to the {{jct}}, we would allow both shield display styles ("TO" or no "TO" between or before shields) to coexist, whereas making it a built-in feature of to2=to would force the placement of text among the shields. That would also make the placement of a plated "TO" pretty bad looking if a project decided to go that way. So I guess I am changing my mind a little. I would like to have the option added and documented and we can see what happens after that. Sswonk (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I did misread earlier, my apologies. This is kinda what I was thinking. The to= argument could add a TO between the shields and act like it does now. --Fredddie™ 01:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm modifying my thought again. I can't get out of my head the spectre of an IP66.66 or some other wayward gnome blithely changing perfectly fine exit lists across the board to have plates instead of text. I would like to have the strong preference for text I suggested stated in the MoS/ELG – something like "unless the style guideline of a particular highway project exists for the use of plates to indicate "TO", use text". Sorry, I just think the statement needs to be made some way. Maybe not my way, but some way. Otherwise, there won't be a rationale for stopping an IP66.66 of the future. Sswonk (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't need to be written for it to be consensus, and just because it's written down doesn't mean it has to be followed 100%. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you mean I'm safe in assuming a history of repeated reverts by various editors will stop another (or the same) IP66.66. If so, then it doesn't need to be stated. Sswonk (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we can at least agree on inclusion of these statements in the "Shields" section of the guideline standard (italics for display of statements in this thread only, would be normal type in guidelines):

Do not use directional plates above highway number shields in infoboxes and exit lists. The use of a "TO" plate above highway number shields or inserting the word "TO" (using smaller type as in <small>TO</small>) before the shield for indication of an indirect junction between roads is optional.

I will look into having the template supplemented to allow an "insto=yes" parameter. Please add comments below so we can close this thread. Sswonk (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of routes into destinations column

Am I correct in saying this? [6] --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Guide signs are "BGSes". For instance, the cutout unbordered U.S. Route marker is "for guide sign use". That said, I'm not sure if it makes sense to exclude shields that are signed but not on guide signs. --NE2 06:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

South Carolina Interstate lists being vandalized

Would somebody send a message to Anonymous IP 71.234.165.62 to stop screwing up the notes and other features on Exit Lists of South Carolina interstate highways? The user has a bad habit of deleting notes from Interstate 20 in South Carolina and Interstate 95 in South Carolina. ----DanTD (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's an ongoing problem. Look at the histories. I've reverted SO MANY edits from many of those articles. Look at I-26 and I-77 in SC, too. I gave up. The problem is also on I-526, and probably on I-85, I-385, etc. I just don't have those watchlisted so I wouldn't know. We (Rschen) blocked an IP, and it didn't stop. It's the same edits over and over again. I've sent many messages to those IPs. I just don't have the time, will, or energy to revert the same articles day after day after day. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it might help if an admin semiprotected the pages in question? - Algorerhythms (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought about that. It would work, since the only IPs really working on it are the ones causing the problems. My computer broke over the Holidays so I couldn't do much. Here's what I think: we need to warn all the applicable IPs and we as a group need to revert all the changes as vandalism as the same edits have been reverted before. I personally am beyond AGF. Then, should it happen one more time, that could be a good reason for semip. I only say "should it happen again" because of the long time since the last round of reverts. But that's my opinion and should an admin decide otherwise, so be it. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know and I would be willing to semi should the IP come back. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It just did for Interstate 20 in South Carolina, and I reverted it... again. And I'll do it again if I have to, 3RR rule or no 3RR rule. Occasionally this user has had some constructive edits, or has tried to have some, but his/her insistence on removing notes is huge problem. I haven't checked for any other columns that may or may not have been eliminated, but I should do that. ----DanTD (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no way it's vandalism to remove questionable notes. "To North Carolina"? Really? Which way is Georgia? --NE2 01:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It IS vandalism when clearly most of the community opposes removing an entire section, and when the IP changes control cities- control cities- on exit lists, and the edits are reverted many times, and the same changes are made after the IP is warned that the edits are not constructive and is asked to talk about the changes, and doesn't communicate with anyone, and then makes the same changes again. That's not constructive to the community and is detrimental to the project's health. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to dig through the history, but the only thing I see that's wrong with this is the removal of the "notes" heading. Anyway, I've redone the exit list from scratch, so hopefully we can stop this silly war. --NE2 02:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, then let me explain the use of "To North Carolina": In this edit, the user added the northern destinations on I-95 as "Dillon North Carolina State." At first, I thought I was just fixing some kind of error. From what I've seen, this person tends to go from mistakes to vandalism. ----DanTD (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, if it is vandalism, 3RR does not apply. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, so 3RR does apply. --NE2 02:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's not vandalism, it's bad faith. This is (sort of) similar to the editors in California that were blocked - maybe it wasn't exactly "vandalism" but the edits were clearly bad faith (they were told to stop doing what they were doing many times) ... but anyway, it's getting off topic. I am willing to semiprotect if necessary. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Take it slow. Make sure that the IP knows what they are doing isn't what we'd like. Hammer it in on the talk page. Be nice. If they didn't stop, assume they didn't see the talk page notes. Leave HTML comments on the pages they're messing up. Leave links to the ELG page. If you've tried all that and they're still being a pain, then lock the pages down and let the blocking commence. That way you have evidence that you've tried repeatedly to (nicely) resolve the behavior if another (non USRD) admin comes in and disputes the actions. More work, but much less drama. This is how we handled the St Louis Signer, and in the end, since we went the extra distance, nobody could argue it wasn't vandalism, and we were able to get the anti-vandalism admins to help with determining IP ranges and such. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding county columns

There is a discussion at WT:USRD regarding county columns for single-county routes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Metric conversion and exit lists?

I'm here particularly because of edits made at Georgia State Route 400. An experienced editor added a "km" column to the exit list. Georgia 400 has sequential exit numbers, so the article already has exit and mile numbers. He cited WP:UNITS as the reason to add the column. However, MOS:CONVERSIONS—the section just below that—says the following:

When units are part of the subject of a topic - nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law, SI units in scientific articles, yards in articles about American football - it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It could be best to note that this topic will use the units and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs.

The article already converts the overall length of the highway. I think exit lists are covered under the item above, and we call it a "mileage" table. If anything, adding another column of numbers inhibits the readability of the table. Accordingly, I support keeping the exit list definition the way it is currently, "mile or km",^{[emphasis added]} and not "mile and km". Thoughts? —C.Fred (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --MPD ^{T / C} 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On an exit list, every line-item is a different unit: 1.7, 3.2, 4.4, etc. Only if those same numbers appear again further in the article is it the same unit. Also, since "Wikipedia is not country-specific" (WP:UNITS and elsewhere), and over 90% of the world is unlikely to have any idea how long a mile is, it is not appropriate here (or anywhere else) to have only non-metric units. The "or", if deliberate, is likely there so that miles do not have to be included for the rest of the world. If not included as a separate and equal column, I propose that it be included in smaller numbers in the same column and cell, directly below the miles. While worldwide metric units should not be subordinated to archaic local US/UK units, this would be okay as a compromise. I can make a template to do this easily, like {{ELmi|1.5}}, which would list a regular 1.5 and then a small 2.4 under it, maybe in a slightly lighter color.  –radiojon (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This adds way too much clutter to the exit list, especially when above 95% of U.S. roads are NOT signed using metric. This is unacceptable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MPD and Rschen7754. The tables look better with only one set of distances. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevant discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)/Archive_3#Kilometre_posts --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Multiple rows in Destination column

I encountered this on Connecticut Route 8 the other day:

Route 108 (Nichols Avenue) – Stratford To Route 15 north

I edited it to this below, but it was reverted shortly thereafter.

Route 108 (Nichols Avenue) to Route 15 north – Stratford

I thought the consensus was to use as few rows as possible. --Fredddie™ 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's not what the consensus is, that's what it should be. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I actually think the first way would be something to experiment with (not that it's perfect, but it sort of cleans it up some). But consensus right now is the latter example and I don't really want to disturb that. --MPD ^{T / C} 03:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The actual signage for the southbound exit is in two rows separated by a horizontal line. Northbound signage does not include the second row. One issue with the single row is that Route 15 north does not go to Stratford and the single row display implies that it does. --Polaron | Talk 12:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The response is going to be that a) We're not out to emulate signage and b)We just list what's on the sign because we're not actually following the roads on the exit. I personally feel a "TO" shield should be included when it's a "to" situation. The two lines do help with clarity, and like I said, I think we could experiment with it, but it's not going to be accepted here without a long, drawn out debate. Some examples: Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway) exit 50 (except US 29 and 50 go to both locations), and I know there are many others where it's "Route X to Route Y- Town" and Route Y doesn't go to that town, but Route X does. Perhaps we should treat shields and text separately "Shield X Shield Y (With a "TO" sign) Route X - Destination served by Route X, to Route Y - Destinations served by Route Y (if applicable)". Look at this:

US 15 / SR 7 – Warrenton, Winchester, Tysons Corner, Frederick, MD

US 15 doesn't go to Winchester or Tysons, and VA 7 doesn't go to Warrenton or Frederick, but they show up on the same line.

Perhaps it should look more like US 15 - Warrenton, Frederick, MD; VA 7 - Winchester, Tysons Corner

That wouldn't look too bad on two lines, it would clear a lot up. "Incongruities", if you will, such as this are prevalent in ALL our exit lists because the point is for readers to say "oh, if I wanted to go to this city, I could take Exit 8" because there are two routes, a "to" route, and/or four cities listed. From there, it'll be up to the reader being out in the field to figure it out. Would I like to see a different way, yes. I loved hardcoding the exit lists to make them as logical as possible. But we've moved away from that. My $0.18. --MPD ^{T / C} 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This MoS is very US based.

It should be made clear in this guideline that this MoS is generally aimed at US roads articles, or the UK variant of the exit lists should be included. As it stands it is misleading. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I do think that something needs to be done as the UK uses a vastly different format. (Unfortunately, I've been tied up with USRD matters). --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the UK example with what is used in reality. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What's used in reality is horribly redundant, and has no space for notes. --NE2 02:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But it works for them. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Care to explain? Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can someone update all the UK motorway lists to the American version. It's much better. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to do so. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the discussion and consensus for using a different standard for UK junction lists? I've got to agree that the UK tables have a lot of redundancy and don't leave room for additional notes. --LJ (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Right now this is the defacto standard. I'm not brushing off this issue and think that the discrepancy needs to be resolved--but we have some urgent things to take care of at the US project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the argument to keep a separate format for the UK? If it's that county boundaries aren't as definitively set as in the US, then eliminate the county column from the tables and keep the rest. In several US states, all land is incorporated into some municipal boundary. This means that in Michigan lists, for example, there should always be a township, city or village listed. In other states, not all land is incorporated, so Oklahoma lists have blanks for junctions between cities. There is an example of how to expand the format for Japanese roads with different ways to organize government. The benefit to the default layout is that there is a notes column. Exits that are numbered differently in the two directions can be listed once with a note in the last column. The format is extendable to surface routes or mixed highways as well. It's quite versatile for various situations. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently, since people want the discussion now... the color scheme of both tables is definitely not MOS compliant. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The UK example also violates WP:MOSBOLD. Links should not be bolded. In fact, bold text should not appear outside of the lead at all. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It may violate it but I think that the bold makes it easier to read in that specific case. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSBOLD overrides whatever standard we come up with. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This MoS entry appears to have been created primarily by US editors with very little input from the rest of the world. I will stand in the way as much as I can of any attempt to impose it on our articles without a wider and more appropriate discussion, there is more to the world than the USA. The US centric exit lists are wholly inappropriate for UK usage, counties and towns have varying boundaries depending on which system is chosen, and if you can get a group of people to agree on a specific system to use (traditional or ceremonial counties for example), then I'll applaud you, its rarely done. The system we use is that the destinations shown on the exit list match what is signed on the ground, and in many cases (probably more so than in the US) this can be completely different in either direction. Yes its not perfect, but iron out the problems rather than impose an inappropriate MoS. The colours can be sorted and space can be added for notes. The system we use gives more useful information than the US counterpart, and if (as suggested above) we were to use the US system and strip out the county and location columns, we'd too all intents and purposes be left with what we have now, except without differentiating what is signed in the appropriate direction, so overall we end up with less information, in a less aesthetically pleasing, and more confusing table. And as I understand it, the US articles use a different route diagram system for railways than what is used in European articles, so I'm not sure what the big issue is here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the Tomei Expressway article as well. The example on ELG is also different from what the article currently uses, so this "non-compliance" issue seems to be a bit more far reaching than just the UK articles. In the Tomei Expwy case, it is much closer to the WP:ELG standard than the UK model, appearing to have all the requisite columns (although not in the same order). I would argue that the UK system gives a lot of redundant information which should be avoided in tables like this, in my opinion. So obviously there are disagreements here and considerable work must be done if all country projects are to use a uniform model. By the way, I am a bit confused by your last sentence regarding "US route diagrams" and "railways to Europe"... --LJ (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified that final sentence. My biggest concern is having the biggest asset our system has removed, the fact that the destinations for both directions are given. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

But we do give destinations for both directions. Maybe it's not explicitly stated which direction is which, but that's extraneous information. If a reader is looking through the M-28 (Michigan highway) article, they'll find in Bruce Crossing the junction: US 45 – Ontonagon, Watersmeet or the junction in Dafter Township for I-75 – Sault Ste. Marie, St. Ignace. Destinations for both directions are listed. That's not a function of the table per se, but a function of the {{jct}} template used (or a hand-coded version of the output of the template). Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That certainly isn't clear! I can't even work out what you are referring to in the table! Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading from the left to the right, in the County of Ontonagon, in the location of Bruce Crossing, at mile post 39.99, there is a junction with US 45 that leads to Ontonagon or Watersmeet. What's unclear about that? Likewise, in the County of Chippewa, in Dafter Township, there is a junction at milepost 287.93 with H-63 that leads to either Sault Ste. Marie or St. Ignace. The notes indicate that this is the former US 2. What's unclear? Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Imzadi, he doesn't mean both directions for a junction, but for the separate directions of the carraigeway; the best way to illustrate this is: (on Capital Beltway for example)

Inner Loop (Northbound): Exit 45 VA 267 west — Dulles Airport / Leesburg (No exit to VA 267 east)

Outer Loop (Southbound): Exit 45A VA 267 west — Dulles Airport / Leesburg

Outer Loop (Southbound): Exit 45B VA 267 east to I-66 east — Washington

Well, I suppose the two Outer Loop exits could be combined but that should get the idea across. Except instead of on two lines, the UK lists show what you see from from the road both directions in two columns. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is compared to what exists right now and eliminates notes like "Inner Loop signed as Exit 45" etc. --MPD ^{T / C} 02:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) How do you tell which destinations are signed from which direction? Currently there is no reasonable consensus for using this MoS page for any article outside of the US. Editors from the US Roads WikiProject creating a standard and expecting other related pages to use it is not consensus, that is a dictatorship. No reasonable consensus can be reached until a selection of editors from varying related articles (in this case countries) have contributed to a discussion. Until said consensus can be reached, I strongly suggest moving this page to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (US road exit lists) to avoid confusion, as that is what this page is, it only relates to US articles. I also notice German, Italian and French exit lists are different again, have any editors involved in the German, Italian or French articles been involved in developing this? I doubt it. It will be next to impossible to create a standard for exit lists across different countries, the road networks and organisation vary so much, what is appropriate for one countries road network, will be completely inappropriate for another's, and it is massively inappropriate for a subset of editors from a particular country trying to impose their way of doing things on the rest of the world.Jenuk1985 | Talk 03:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the examples above, they are signed the same in both the eastbound and westbound directions. If there is a variation on signage in the two directions of traffic, a note would be used to that effect as MPD has stated above. As for allegations of a dictatorship, this is a guideline that's been raised to a part of the MOS. We're attempting to make a good-faith argument in favor of keeping the current standard with modifications as needed. Calling it a dictatorship though isn't assuming good faith. At least I'm attempting to find a middle ground here. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Using notes to that effect on UK articles would not be appropriate without making the exit list even harder to read and even more confusing due to the sheer number of differences we have over here. I'm not alleging a dictatorship, I'm pointing out what it would be if this guideline were to be imposed on articles outside of the US. I have made my suggestions on improving what we already have, how is that not attempting to find middle ground? Jenuk1985 | Talk 03:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To be fair, on the actual article I referenced, we're fortunate to have both A and B exits listed separately. Typically though, an exit like that would be listed as "(Exit) 45 |

SR 267 to I-66 east – Leesburg, Dulles Airport, Washington | Signed 45A (west) and 45B (east) on Outer Loop. No exit from Inner Loop to VA 267 east." That is not always the case and exists in may instances throughout our exit lists. So it's not always clear, no. Imzadi, and anyone else, are you saying that the UK can keep their general setup (i.e. Southbound exits | Junction Number | Northbound exits), but they need a little work like adding notes? Do you feel they even need notes? Roads aren't signed in other parts of the world as they are in North America, lots of times they're much simpler. Jenuk, I feel it could be cleaned up a little bit but I think the general design isn't bad and it works for you guys. Can we restart a conversation in a new section and call it "How can we clean up the UK junction table?" and constructively give ideas and work on it? My first movement is here, create a "United States and Canada" section for now on the MOS page, and we can work on the UK here. Sound good? --MPD ^{T / C} 03:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I do concur with MPD - the general format of the exit lists should be the same, with alterations if necessary for European roads. As someone who has traveled to several European countries, it is ignorant to state that the North American standard should be exactly applied to the roads of the rest of the world. (For example, roads are rarely signed "north" and "south" but are signed with an emphasis on control cities instead.) --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said that the NA standard had to be applied, and that was never my intent. Instead, a single standard should be crafted that works equally well with flexibility to be altered on a regional basis. In other words, I should see a junction list in the US and one in the UK and they should look like siblings, not twins. Currently, they look like cousins, and a bit distant. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. When I looked at the Tomei Expressway example, it wasn't exactly like the ELG. There is enough of it there, though, to call those two "siblings". We're probably should have examples of all the junction/exit lists currently in use, before attempting to figure out any compromise or worldwide standard to adopt and adapt regionally... --LJ (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the M62 Motorway is an FA and has appeared as the featured article back in early 2008. The version that appeared on the main page [7] had an exit list that essentially complied with this Exit List Guide. Despite the assertions to the contrary, the members of the UK Roads wikiproject at the time DID help develop this standard and defended it through the FA process. Dave (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe it important that national flexibility be retained. Each country has its own characteristics. In the United Kingdom for example, unlike the United States, local government devisions are of little conseqence to the motorist (apart from the four principal divisions of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales). Moreover, with the introduction of driver location signs it is now possible to assign distances to junction numbers. The Highways Authority has published a map for the M25 that does just this. I believe that it is up to the Wiki community in the country concerend to agree a format. I have added the Highways Authority information to the article on the M25 and am awaiting user reaction. We could therefore require columns showing both junction number and distance. Martinvl (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that local variations should be allowed for regions where certain elements don't make sense. However, the proposed UK version of the exit list violates at least three parts of the MOS (WP:MOSBOLD, WP:ALLCAPS and WP:V (compare current and featured version on the M62 motorway article for the violations of the latter). This article runs the risk of loosing its FA status unless these are addressed, and in fact would fail if brought up to FAR today. I'd suggest to state what is and is not important for UK road articles, and lets together work on a revised standard that both meets everybody's needs and won't get anybody hacked to death when nominating an article for Featured Article status.Dave (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the exit lists in the version of the M62 article that was a featured article. Unfortunately it also shows how an inappropriate template can compromise an otherwise good article. The columns regarding county and locality have been dealt with at length elsewhere – in the UK they are unnecessary (and due to our complex structure of local government, often meaningless). The column on mileage, although produced by Chris Marshal who is quite knowledgeable, it is hardly authoritative. The original source is an unsigned, unreferenced html document.

As explained elsewhere the coloured icons for roads leading off the motorway do not appear on British road signs. Thus, providing Wikipedia links requires that the road number be replicated. Move onto the next column – On the old format, Junction 22 shows three exits (Ripponden, Saddleworth and Sowerby Bridge). Now look at the new format – the eastbound carriageway is signposted for Ripponden only and the westbound for Saddleworth and Sowerby Bridge only. The original format is again misleading. This leaves only the notes column. Apart from notes that there are restrictions at certain junctions and junction coordinates, there is very little of consequence. This analysis must really call into question the use of the MOS for British roads – the only column that I have not commented on is the junction number column. Martinvl (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree those aren't the best sources, and it begs the question, why didn't whomever did this just use Google Maps (or similar) as a source? It's not the best, but better than a personal website, both of which are better than nothing at all.Dave (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about sources for mileage? I don't thing Google Maps would be accurate for such data, and in any case I'm not sure how much "value" it would add to the article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Would calculating milages from Google Maps not be "original resesarch"?. British roads have marker posts which give readings down to 100 m. Each post is individually verifiable so quoting them does not represent research. However, since a junction often spans several hundred metres, this begs the question as to exactly which reading should be quoted. The values that I used in the M25 article are taken from a Highways Authority document and are therefore both authoritative and verifiable. I should also point out that the reference point for British motorways is often a point that is well removed from Junction 1. This mitigates against using Google Maps in conjunction with marker posts. Martinvl (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The question has been asked before (I don't remember where) and so far using google maps has held up. U.S. Route 50 in Nevada is an example where an article has passed an FAC scrutiny with Googlemaps used in conjunction with a state log as a source. I'll admit it's not the best, but when nothing else is available, I'll use it. As far as the U.S. goes, most states publish logs accurate to either .01 or .001 miles for highways. However, Nevada is an exception. They do post milemarker accurate to .01 miles, but I'm not driving US-50 at 5MPH across all 400 miles of the state to record them. To cross Nevada is close to 8 hours even at highway speeds =-)Dave (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Are the published logs the actual distances or the numbers shown on the marker posts? If a road is rerouted, then the distance might increase or decrease, but an adjustment is often made at the point where the new road was built so the marker posts further down the road are not changed. If I know the source of the data, I can at least check it to see how (or if) any adjustments were made.

The numbers published are those shown on the marker posts (and are therefore easily verifiable). I have recently been able to lay my hands on a number of documents that are internal to the Highways Authority which lists the values on markers posts in England (but not Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland) for selected motorways or portions of maotorways. I have added a column showing these values and cross-referenced the document concerend (even though it is not in the public domain). I believe that the documents that I saw will be made public within the next twelve months. (See M6_motorway as an example).

In the U.S., the federal government is, for the most part, not in the road building business, they mostly fund and regulate the state's road activities. Each state does things a little differently. Most states either keep the mileposts the same and publish a milepost equation log, or re-post the miles to account for the changed distance. For the states that publish a milepost equation log, I've seen both done, I've seen some wikipedia article that keep the mileposts, but note the equation in the notes, and I've seen some articles that use that milepost equation to "correct" the distance. The notable exception to this is California, which uses milepost equations, but nobody's found a public copy so far. So most California articles the milepost log in the wikipedia article does not reflect the actual distance of the feature from the origin of the highway.Dave (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)