Talk:Interchange (road)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Should not have been split from Road junction

The split of this article from Road junction was a bad idea. The original article was compact and informative. Both parts are now ugly stubs. We should merge (and rename) back. −Woodstone 20:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Since your comments, both articles have been tidied up to better reflect their titles. This article is now no longer a stub, but a fully fledged article. Ae-a 18:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merge Interchange (road), Junction (traffic) and Intersection (road)

Both articles Junction (traffic) and Intersection (road) are still pretty lame stubs. This one "Interchange (road)" is good, but still lost from its separation from the general idea of junction. The most neutral name for the new 3-way merged page could be Junction (traffic) or Junction (road). −Woodstone 16:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Frankly, the old interchange article was a mess in terms of structure. An interchange is inherently different from an intersection due to the presence of a grade separation and ramps. A basic intersection might cost only $100,000 (the cost of paving the intersecting roads and adding a stop sign, limit lines, and perhaps a few other safety signs), while a full-fledged interchange costs anywhere from $20 million to $1 billion (e.g., the Macarthur Maze reconfiguration in Oakland after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake), depending upon the size and number of roads to be connected.

I supported the split, and I prefer to keep interchange and intersection separate. Pardon my bluntness, but this merge proposal is one of the dumbest I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I am also posting this response to the other articles' talk pages.--Coolcaesar 04:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Interchange (road) and Intersection (road) pages should remain separate in my opinion. There is plenty scope for addition to both and they complement one another nicely. Junction (traffic) is the problem - it's not much of an article and I'm lost as to what it could possibly provide that isn't covered in the Interchange and Intersection articles. All it can really do is point to them both... right now it's a mish-mash of nonsense. Erath 23:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

And now of course, I've defied myself by making just such an attempt. Thoughts please on the new Junction (traffic) article. I'm also considering moving it to Junction (transport) to alleviate the confustion over exactly what constitutes "traffic". Erath 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Junction (traffic)#Merge proposal revived for my response. Ae-a 15:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just place them back together and give them seperate sub headers. --Storms991 06:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So, it looks to me like the conclusion is to keep Interchange (road) seperate, but that the merger of Junction (traffic) and Intersection (road) is still undecided. In view of this I propose to remove the merge tag from Interchange (road) so the dicsussion can be focussed at Junction (traffic) and Intersection (road) in relation to those articles. Kcordina 09:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An unusual Interchange

I have seen a total of 2 of what I am going to arbituary call a Diverging Complete Interchange. It is when either 1 or both freeways flip thier normal flow of traffic by going over each other with ramps before and after the flip. This type of interchange is shown in Grand Rapids, Michigan at US 131/I 196 Interchange and in Maryland at I 695/I 95 Interchange and possible several others when I get a chance to find them. In anycase it offers significant space savings and has a height similar to a cloverleaf. --Mihsfbstadium 09:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)