Talk:List of Routes in Vermont
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the Vermont Routes WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to VTrans numbered routes in Vermont. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments) |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
See the completion list for coordinating redirects.
Contents |
[edit] F routes
- F1?
- F2?
- F3 Grand Isle Ferry (US 2 at Keeler Bay to US 2 south of Grand Isle via Gordon Landing) - now 314
- F4? Burlington Ferry
- F5 Essex Ferry (US 7 east of Charlotte to ferry)
- F6?
- F7 ? (US 7 in Vergennes to ferry?)
- F8?
- F9 (22A at Shoreham to 22A west of Orwell via Larrabees Point)
- F10 (22A west of Orwell to Chipman Point)
- Should these F route descriptions go into their own seperate pages? In other words, is there enough content to warrant a seperate page? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't think there's enough to warrant a separate page (as they are only ferry routes), but perhaps someone from Vermont could shed more light on this issue. On a related note, VT 67A connector is no longer a current route; it was decommissioned in
20032004 and is now part of VT 279. --TMF T - C 19:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think there's enough to warrant a separate page (as they are only ferry routes), but perhaps someone from Vermont could shed more light on this issue. On a related note, VT 67A connector is no longer a current route; it was decommissioned in
[edit] Reformat
The new format had the effect of making the table bigger for no reason, and split U.S. Routes from their spurs. I see no reason to use it. --SPUI (T - C) 06:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Now I see that under [Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography], you list as a reason:
- [Talk:List of Routes in Vermont] - should the table be bigger just for the sake of adding images? --SPUI (T - C) 06:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why could you not explain that above, or make a comment before doing a full revert? That circumvents the whole editing process, if a person's work is to be vandalised because of some false comment. For instance, you made no mention of the whole shield issue. You then stated that "F5 exists" - when it did exist on the new route listing. Take it to discussion first before vandalising or engaging in revert wars - something you should be well familar with by now. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, your format requires a lot of work to modify if a new route is added. --SPUI (T - C) 06:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- As does most tables. I'm quite certain that Vermont does not add new routes on a daily, weekly, or even a monthly basis. It takes only two minutes to do a full change, adding a route to the top of the list. (Trust me, I've had to go in and do that for Vermont.) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Sure it takes work. When one column becomes exaggerated in length and where a user cannot easily click on the highway because it is in a non-user friendly format, features a dated design, and uses "VT 5" as its only identifying marking, its not going to appeal to anyone other than "roadgeeks." The new format features logos which enables those who wish to see a graphical representation of the route to see it. It's also easier to find, now that the routes have been categorized, similar to what have been done for other state highway projects. If you are objecting to the "size" of the logo, note that a global search-and-replace can be done to reduce the size to something smaller, but still readable - 30 px? My other reasonings for the change are listed elsewhere. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I'll admit -- the idea of pictures does actually have some appeal, for me, but as they currently stand, they render the page very difficult to use. Having a more horizontal arrangement (rows instead of columns), along with smaller icons, might help. Given a strict choice between this and SPUI's previous version, I'm a bit more inclined to the latter of the two. Run with the pictures, see if you can make them work, but for the time being I don't think they are. Good luck, and I hope you two can solve this peacefully. :) Luna Santin 06:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That's nice. Wikipedia caters to all users, and as such, we must make every page on Wikipedia accessible to every user, whether they are old or young, "roadgeeks" or "tourists." See WP:MS:
- It is worth noting something which is obvious in one country or nation may not be so in another. Wikipedia is intended to be read by anyone over the world. If such things occur, that kind of style or formatting, even if it is standard, should not be used for clarity purposes.
- Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- So your issue is currently with the state route list? That was what Luna Santin was stating above, from what I inferred. My suggestion is, and this is to be discussed first for a period of one week or until we can come to a consensus: What should be done to improve the state route list? It is very difficult to organize the state route list, as long as it is, without having just a gigantic list that would degrade readability. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
By the way, California editors decided to remove images from their list a while back. --SPUI (T - C) 06:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
As the creator of the table used prior to the existing one and the leader of the Vermont Routes WikiProject, I feel that I have a say in this issue. Personally, I preferred the older format, which listed every road in Vermont by number regardless of status (Interstate, U.S. route, Vermont Route). Why do I prefer that? Mainly because there is no overlapping of numbers in the state of Vermont, so separating them makes no sense. It also makes it easier for me, as both a user and editor, to see the progression of route numbers in the state. The older version was also much more quick and concise, without the added complexity of shields or sections by highway type. I agree with SPUI on this, that if you can't identify a route by its number, then you shouldn't be on this page to begin with. --TMF T - C 14:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- While I do take your comments seriously, what would you suggest be done to improve the table? Citing WP:MS, the design must be made clear and concise to all users, not just those with "road knowledge" (e.g. "roadgeeks"). Would a design, spelling out "Vermont State Route XX" be more approperiate, broken down into three column headings? I'm hesistant to use "VT XX" here without a shield since some users may not understand that "VT" is meant to represent a state route. Ditto with "SR". Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Playing around with the table design and using the checkered layout that Atanamir suggested, what do you think of the wider tables and less prominence of the image? The route is also spelled out: User:Seicer/sandbox1#Current
A simpler table with at most 4 columns would be my preference. The columns could be grouped by number clusters, e.g. 1-29 / 30-99 / 100-199 / 200-399. Shield images might be ok if they aren't too big. Also, as in most New England states, all routes regardless of type are on equal footing and I would prefer to not separate out the Interstates and US Routes. --Polaron | Talk 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- My only qualm about mixing the classifications in, is you would lose the description field for the interstates and US highways. Plus by mixing in the routes together, I would think it would become very messy, similar to List of Washington State Routes, where they are categorized by first number only (e.g. 100 comes before 20). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- (post-edit conflict) There was never a description field for them in the previous table (referring to the original prior to the changes over the past few days), so that's not a concern. As for the messiness, I see no reason why that has to happen here. To me, listing the routes by number (...VT 3A, US 4, VT 4A...) makes the most sense. --TMF T - C 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Descriptions
Added Interstate descriptions to the page. Please correct any if they are a bit too short or stubby. If someone can, please add some for the US Highway list and any other names that the highway falls under while in the state of Vermont. Thanks! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Responding to RfC
I have looked over some of the other state route pages, and the only one that I see using icons of the route signs is Kansas. More importantly than consistency, though, these icons are fundamentally redundant. The user is left with the impression that the text should not be there, but the text is far easier to edit. I agree that a list of route numbers should not need to be edited very often, but I think it is essentially a bad policy for us to ossify a page on the grounds that no one will need to change it later. Ethan Mitchell 01:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- This position has also been echoed by SPUI, and to a lesser extent, myself, in the sections above this one. --TMF T - C 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just noticed that it was SPUI who posted the RfC, so that makes part of my comment moot. =) --TMF T - C 01:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VT F-5
The true route number of the ferry approach route in Charlotte is "Vermont Route F-5", not "Vermont Route F5". See [2]. More pictures proving this point can be found by typing in "vt f-5" into a Google image search. That said, I'll make the necessary changes on the list page. --TMF T - C 04:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.weather.brockport.edu/~forecast/F5.JPG){kind=link}