Talk:List of unused highways/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Montreal

There's probably a few in Montreal, especially around or connected with the development of Mirabel Airport. I don't know the area well, but I know they exist. If anyone from Montreal or elsewhere know the specifics, please add them to the Canada section. They'd make excellent additions to the list.

-User:Ajbenj


This should be added some Ghost ramps and stubs are there for planed future work Joe The Dragon 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand

In Auckland’s Central Motorway Junction (Commonly known as Spaghetti Junction to the locals) a ghost ramp persisted for almost 30 years at the point where the junction passes through a constrained cutting underneath Karangahape Rd, on the southern side of the city centre. The ramp covered approximately half of the upper deck of this two deck portion of the junction, and was built to connect the city centre to the Dominion Motorway to the south. Connections between the Southern, Northern and Northwestern motorways, the central city access ramps from the south and west and a short branch to the port also intersect at the CMJ. The dominion motorway was never built due to financial cuts and public outcry of the destruction of a large swathe of historic housing. As of February 2006 work is underway to rebuild the ghost ramp to allow direct connections between the North-Western and Northern motorways, and to replace the current fast lane exit to the city from the busy Southern Motorway with a higher capacity exit from the slow lane. This will ironically result in a new ghost ramp being created from the old exit ramp, which will be closed but left in place to avoid the cost of demolition.


Ohio

Does someone from Cleveland know if there really are ghost ramps at I-77/490? The Google image [1] looks like there's a complete interchange, but that 490 ends a half-mile to the east at E 55th St. Every ramp visible in that stack interchange seems to be in use. Sam8 07:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The stubs to the east were planned to be an extension east, so those could count... Seicer (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No, there are no ghost ramps there. All existing pavement is in use. Mapsax 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody add any on Interstate 670 before reconstruction? There were multiple stubs at US 23, US 33, and in the whole interchange mess west of the downtown. Seicer (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The Youngstown stub was photographed in 2000 and the photo is in the middle of this page. Mapsax 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

California

I have a memory of two or three ghost on-ramps to Southbound 163 as it enters San Diego: two in the canyon where 163 is surrounded by Balboa Park (presumably originally intended to be from Richmond St and from Quince St if I look on Google Earth), and one on the connector from S 163 to N I-5. This last one now appears to be used as a storage area for Caltrans. On the other hand, it does not have an obvious intended source (maybe El Prado?). I've never been sure if these were truly ghost ramps. TimStilson 00:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Illinois ghost ramps

Someone added the following comment to the article (referring to the ghost ramp(s) listed in Illinois), I've moved it here:

Those ramps are not ghost ramps, they are just being rebuilt.

If they are current construction, they aren't ghost ramps. Anyone else from Illinois care to comment? --EngineerScotty 07:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the same area in google maps you can see map data that show the ramps are there. http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.84741,-87.630901&spn=0.00358,0.00721&t=h Joe The Dragon 04:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the entry as current construction [2]. The text was:

  • Near the northern terminus of I-55, there are several obvious ghost ramps east of the I-90/I-94 interchange. [3]

Sam8 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

North Carolina

I've also removed most of the North Carolina entries as current construction (as the entry itself notes). Sam8 06:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The text was:

There are many ghost ramps that tell of future highway projects in North Carolina.

  • West of Charlotte, there are ghost ramps at the interchange between I-85 and I-485. Also, north of Charlotte, ghost ramps exist at I-485's unfinished interchange with I-77.
  • South and west of Greensboro, there are ghost ramps marking the construction sites for the Greensboro Urban Loop. One of these interchanges is partially open at the Urban Loop's junction with I-85, and the other is situated at its future junction with I-40.
  • In Fayetteville, there are ghost ramps on I-295. When finished, this highway will serve as the outer loop around Fayetteville.
  • Near Raleigh, there are ghost ramps and overpasses of I-540 at its western terminus with I-40. The overpasses, not shown in aerial photos, are wide enough for the entire highway. The highway, which will someday be an outer loop around Raleigh, currently only heads east.
  • There are also ghost ramps on I-540 between US 70 and Leesville Road north of Raleigh.


Definition

In the second paragraph, it is stated that an unused stub that is intended to be used in the future is not a ghost ramp. Where did this qualification come from? Is there a source? If this condition disqualifies a "stub" from being a "ghost ramp," then does anbody know the name for these structures? "Stubs"? "Freeway stubs"? "Stub ramps"? Something else? The following sources call this type of structure a "ghost ramp" when refering to planned freeways/ramps: [4] [5] [6] There may be others that use the term "ghost ramp" in this way or there may not be, but it appears that the interpretation of "ghost ramp" given here is far from universal. At any rate, there appear to be several examples in this article that refer to planned freeways/ramps. If necessary, we could put these into a separate section, perhaps (?) within the same article. I would like to hear others' input on this. Thanks. Ufwuct 00:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

They aren't structures in a strict defination, but can be any reminant or indication that a highway or ramp was planned to continue along a desired path before being cancelled or scrubbed indefinately, for good, or to be installed later when funding comes in. It has been used for years on newsgroups like misc.transport.road and on multiple transportation related web-sites. Seicer (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User:SPUI has complained that the title of this article is a WP:Neologism, and he is correct, of course. So... any authorative (and independent of Wikipedia!) definitions for the term? I've located so far:
    • A definition on AARoads [7], a noted roadgeek page. The definition is pretty sparse though, and this site may not meet the criteria for a reliable source.
  • Any others? --EngineerScotty 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Other than AARoads, it has been commonly used on the newsgroup, misc.transport.road [8] [9] for many years and is a common enough term, with the addition of the word "ghost" to "ramp", that it should be plainly obvious to what its function is. "Dead ramp" is also a popular term. It is also used on Kurumi.com (to which many interchange names were derived from on this site if they were not blindingly obvious). A simple search on [10] gives many results from other sites that use the terminology. What else can you call it? Let's not be overly technical here, as it would serve only to confuse the general public. Seicer (talk) 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, maybe we shouldn't be overly technical. It might be confusing, and in addition, if we give a technical definition that isn't widely accepted, this might also constitute original research. I originally started the discussion to see if there was a source for this statement (that ramps for future freeways cannot be called ghost ramps). If there isn't a reliable source (or if some feel the above sources are not reliable enough), I would think we have several options:
  • Mention that some people believe the term "ghost ramp" only applies to cancelled freeways, although this is not a widely accepted definition.
  • Delete the mention of this disqualifying characteristic (that ramps for future freeways cannot be called ghost ramps).
  • Avoid defining "ghost ramp" entirely and instead rename the article to something else (to avoid being overly technical). Perhaps "stub ramps"? (or any better ideas that we can think of). "Stub" seems to be better defined, so I think it would be less likely to constitute original research.
In that case, we can still have ghost ramp redirect to stub ramp, so that it would be less confusing. A direct delete is not needed, just a redirect to a new page. Seicer (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds good to me. Ufwuct 01:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I always thought that a ghost ramp was a complete ramp that was not used, and a ramp stub was a short section off of a currently used ramp or road that was either built to connect to a ramp, or used to connect to a ramp. TEG 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Then again, we might all agree that Seicer's sources are reliable, in which case, they should be added to the article. I think there is a lot of valid information here that I think "road geeks" would find both encyclopedic and useful. Anyone have any thoughts on the above options? If you can think of a better option, I'd like to hear that as well. Thanks. Ufwuct 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Not all agree on the restriction requiring abandonment. "Ghost ramp" and "stub ramp" have been in synonymous use for at least the past four decades, and all that time I had never heard or read of that restriction until I found it on Wikipedia... and I think that unless we find a definitive source with the restriction in the definition, we should get rid of that. Then it shouldn't be as much in the WP:OR department, as then it would be as much OR in its definition as it would be for the obscenity article. NOTE: "stub ramp" has been used in legal cases ("stub ramp" a ruling from Australia is online). 147.70.242.40 20:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've boldly rewritten the definition to remove the abandonment restriction in light of the AfD. It would be a waste to see this get deleted after all the work that was put into this, but there's much more needed to do to save this. Unfortunately, since my work computer rejects cookies (and thus I can't sign in), I can't start the "stub ramp" redirect. It would also be nice if we can get all the references down below with the other four - this article has close to 160 external links in it! 147.70.242.40 21:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maryland

Anybody know anything about this off of I-695? [11] Seicer (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Texas

  • I added bits for Spur 5 and Highway 288 in Houston prior to reading the discussion here. I'm not aware of any ongoing construction plans with Spur 5, although it was almost certainly built the way it was to accomodate future expansion. As of my departure from the area in 2004, there were no active plans for improvement of 288, as it remained somewhat underutilized relative to other "spoke" freeways in the area. --Mr_Wednesday 15:39, 2 Aug 2006 (EDT)
  • I just looked at the satellite image that purports to be a "future Kirby Dr." exit on the Tollway. a) The location in the image has a blank underpass but no blank ramps. b) The location does not correspond to Kirby, but rather Hiram Clark. c) There is a blank underpass roughly where Kirby would come in, on the other side of Almeda, that Google has labeled as Kirby. The intersection is blanked both north and south of the tollway, but there are completed ramps in place. (Because of the nearby interchange with SH 288, it's only a west-facing half-diamond.) --Mr_Wednesday 00:51, 3 August (EDT)
  • Contracts have been awarded for the Crosby Freeway, including mainlane construction. Since the stub is now actively under construction, I have removed the entry. See the TxDOT release. --Mr Wednesday 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I stripped out the "future Kirby drive exit on the Belt" section, because there's no hope of finding references and (reportedly) there is construction in the area anyway. The original text read: On the South Sam Houston Tollway, there is a "Future Kirby Drive" exit that currently has only a stub on the north side of the tollway. [12] Note: Satellite image is outdated due to recent construction. --Mr Wednesday 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Maps/Images

Here are lists of mapping services you can use to reference the ghost ramps/stubs:

Hope this helps. Seicer (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

After more consideration, some of the ramps that I listed can't been seen with map or aerial photography. Even Google's best imagery doesn't show the detail. Furthermore, area around the stub ramp at War Memorial Drive (US 150) & Adams (US 24) has only low res imagery. It is tough enough just to see the intersection. Forget the stub (which is only about 20 feet wide at its widest).

Unlike some other locations, I have been there many times. I would upload a photo, but I always seem to leave my camera behind. So how do we cite that? Will (Talk - contribs) 23:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily the presence of stub or ghost ramps that should be the issue. If they're there, they're there. If we have pictures, either aerial or otherwise, fantastic, but we're going to have to trust our editors to see if something's not right. However, the speculation about where the ramps may have gone is what should be cited. A cloverleaf ramp from one road to another that is there but not open is an obvious thing, but ramps that may have connected to a road from across the city needs a citation. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pruning needed here!

This article is about twice the "desired size" - we need to prune some of the deadwood here. Some of the descriptions and pictures don't even come close to the most general meaning of "ghost ramp" and "stub ramp" as some of these entries appear more to be histories without any evidence of stub production. One of these has been removed, but I'm sure others need to go, too. 147.70.242.40 21:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Grand Parkway

I reverted the edit because the Grand Parkway is built, to various degrees, between just north of U.S. 59 and Franz Road (/Saums Road), a little less than 1 mile north of I-10. The only other place where any portion of the Grand Parkway exists is section I-2[13].

In fact, the only parts of the Grand Parkway that are controlled access are north of Westpark Tollway (see these interchages [14][15][16]). This might all be moot, depending on what we decide for the scope of this article. Ufwuct 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

What is needed, is, for each ramp, a cite from a WP:RS (not including roadgeek websites unless unusually notable) that it is a ghost ramp or stub ramp (or another synomym). A cite that merely states that the ramp is not going to be completed is not adequate.

I'll come back to this in a month to see if anything has been done. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How, exactly, is a reliable source stating that there are no current plans for a stub insufficient? Take, as an example, the Houston entries that I put some effort into sourcing... if those aren't good enough, what more do you want? --Mr Wednesday 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that showing the location of a ghost ramp/stub ramp is necessarily OR. To state why there is a ghost/stub ramp there and give a reason would need a source; speculation would be OR. To ask for sources is to ask for things that may have been there ten years or more and thus they're there "because they are." I do not believe that stating there is a ramp remnant and providing a link to Google or another imagery site is OR, as it can't be (you state there is something, there is proof). But to say "it wasn't completed because etc..." I agree does need a somewhat reliable source. Now as for what to include in this list, as the "scope" under this section asks, I'm not entirely sure yet. I'm still thinking of the best way to explain that. --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
To Mr Wednesday: This article was supposed to be about "ghost ramp"s. It requires that a WP:RS specifically call it a "ghost ramp". If it were at "(freeway) ramps unlikely to be completed", I'd agree with you. But perhaps I'm being pedantic.
To MPD01605: No. An uncompleted ramp might be under construction, and, even if it is (in fact) a ghost ramp, the interpretation of the image would constitute WP:OR.
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's the title of the article, but the article itself lays out a definition of a "ghost ramp". It seems to me that adequate sourcing of the definition itself, plus adequate sourcing to indicate that the individual entries meet the definition, should be sufficient, rather than the more strenuous requirement that sources indicate that an individual entry is outright a "ghost ramp" (which I believe would be an impossible standard to meet).
I realize that this might suggest issues with the name of the article, but I think that debate should be independent of the OR question. --Mr Wednesday 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Scope

While we're at it, can we decide on the scope? If we can't decide, let's split it into two sections (1. will never be completed 2. are simply not completed now, with no construction in progress). Ufwuct 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed for insufficient sourcing

Does it make sense to set this up as an area for preserving inadequately sourced info? I made a good-faith effort to find sources for the Alaska entries (google search for the highway in question, associated ramp, and "ramp", and there was nothing forthcoming. --Mr Wednesday 05:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt seem like a good idea to have Google maps be the only source. Having no secondary sources boarders a bit on OR territory. ---J.S (t|c) 20:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Alaska

  • There is a ghost ramp on the Johansen Expressway in Fairbanks for the planned Illinois Street ramp. It is unlikely that this ramp will be built due to the discovery of contaminated soil along the proposed route, leading to a steep increase in cost. [17]
  • On the George Parks Highway in Fairbanks, there is the remnant of a ramp coming off the highway eastbound at Airport Way. That ramp was demolished after the cloverleaf was constructed. [18]

pruning

I'm going to remove every entry that doesn't have a source besides a satellite image, because analyzing those images is original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the general principle, but I would hope that either some effort will be made to see if sources are available, or (failing that) the removed entries will be archived somewhere so that someone ambitious can attempt to source and restore any applicable items.
I checked Alaska last night, and I was planning to work on more sections as time permits. --Mr Wednesday 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This was well covered in the discussion, in which a few users tried to have the page deleted. I suggest Night Gyr you read through that, because there was no consensus on the removal of the items. The argument for removal is weak at best, as indicated through the discussions. Any removal will be reverted per pending discussion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:List guideline:

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit.

--NE2 23:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


You might try placing the {{fact}} tag (or cn if you are a really lazy typist) next to any claim you feel is inadequately sourced. Per Wikipedia:Accuracy disputes, outright removal of unsourced claims (without prior discussion or highlighting) is appropriate if:
  1. the claim is disputed (i.e. you think it's false)
  2. the claim is suspected to be original research; meaning that it cannot be adequately sourced (as opposed to things which may be unsourced but sources exist for)
  3. the claim violates WP:BLP or is otherwise obnoxious or harmful.

For unsourced claims which are likely sourceable, likely true, and not BLP issues, the fact tag is preferable to removal.

Nothing on this page, I think, violates #3. If you think that any particular ghost ramp claim is false, say so. If you think that any particular ghost ramp claim is OR, say so. Equating all unsourced claims with IR is specious at best, WP:POINT at worst.

And, as discussed in the RFC, I think satellite imagery is sufficient documentation that a ramp is indeed a ghost ramp. Satellite imagery doesn't document why, of course--claims as to why should be better sourced.

--EngineerScotty 23:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain then. We don't have a clear definition of the list's scope; someone thought the old roadways on the Harahan Bridge qualified. Before we can list ramps, we need to define what we are listing and avoid neologisms. Then we can determine what qualifies. Note that if our criteria are too broad, a complete list would include almost any place that a freeway once ended; most states would have tens or hundreds of entries. --NE2 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
But this doesn't state that "where a freeway once ended" anywhere in the scope of "ghost ramp." So that would be null. As for EngineerScotty's comments, an aerial image would be sufficent in this case for documentation as indicated per discussion. No conensus was achieved, so no action needs to be taken at the moment. Discussion first, consensus second, action third. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Many temporary ends for freeways are listed here. --NE2 23:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If they still qualify as ghost ramps, then they belong here unless there is sourcing that they will soon be a continuation of a highway. Temporary is relative in the transportation industry; it could be 20 years before something is built there. We need to define the scope of this list. Ghost ramps, such as the ramps to the non-existent I-70 extention on I-95 in Baltimore, should stay. So should half-completed ramps that extend a few hundred feet or so and then just stop. There are many other good examples. Stubs, little triangles extending a few feet out from the roadway, such as many of these are, probably should not be here, as they involve a great deal of speculation as to why they exist. Unless they are appropriately and accurately sourced. I think we should also include built/half-built highways that may not necessarily go anywhere (such as in Newport, Rhode Island, listed in the article). Perhaps we need to change the title of the article to reflect not only the ghost ramps, but also like "partially-constructed but abandoned roadway" or something to that effect. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
How are you going to avoid listing almost every place a freeway once ended with those criteria? --NE2 00:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm putting out ideas, and hoping that other editors will improve upon these ideas or submit their own. Clearly that hasn't happened yet, so I tried. Perhaps you could, instead of arguing the same point, improve upon the first step of defining what should be in this list. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be best to describe the factors that lead to these stubs and include only a few particularly notable ones. I don't think a list of all is a good idea, even if we can define the criteria well. --NE2 00:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that you keep stating "every place a freeway once ended". I clearified that this list should not include examples of where "highways once ended" in the sense that no reminants still exist. Otherwise, we'd be including hundreds upon hundreds where highways "once ended" but was extended a year later, for instance. I may be misinteperting your statement there, or looking too far into it, but ghost ramps should be defined as ramps or interchanges that clearly indicate incompleteness. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Currentness? --NE2 07:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

<back to left>That's a good idea. I agree we need a much smaller list. Knowing more about how they come to be is a good place to start, particularly since this actually is an article and not a list, per se. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


Why don't we just include ones for which we can find sources describing them as such? Removing the ones that only have satellite pictures would bring this down to a reasonable size, and limiting it to ones with available sources is a simple way to ensure notability--it's the standard for articles. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We need a definition first. If we simply list any place a stub existed, then the list will be huge - it is possible to verify that a freeway once stopped somewhere. --NE2 00:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the definition on the article is good, provided we remove the "stub ramp" references. "Ramps to nowhere" is a good way to describe it. The ramps need to be at least something like a few car lengths long in order to qualify. --MPD01605 (T / C) 00:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"an incomplete onramp or offramp which does not connect a freeway or expressway with another road" arbitrarily eliminates some of the most notable ones, where the mainline itself is unused. But if we simply expand it to include that, there are problems with the scope being too large. --NE2 00:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edcon] Methinks there may be two articles here--an article describing ghost ramps, and one enumerating notable instances thereof. Currently, both things are in one article. Having both in the same article seems to be causing two separate issues to be confused:

  • What is a ghost ramp? (or whatever we want to call it--prior attempts to suggest a better name have not met with consensus)
  • Which ones merit inclusion in Wikipedia?

We must keep these separate, to avoid the trap of redefining a common term (and thus coining a neologism) to exclude instances that are sufficiently mundane that the don't merit consideration. The first question, as a definition of a real-world term, should be drawn from reliable sources (and for purposes of this discussion, I think roadgeek pages are reliable sources). "Ghost ramp" has a definition which is well-known at coarse levels, though a verifiable "bright line" definition is probably not to be found--big deal. Lots of topics on Wikipedia are difficult to define precisely, but are still suitable subjects for an encyclopedia article.

The second question is an internal issue, an editorial decision made by the Wikipedia community, and need not be externally sourced. Given the size of the list, I'd have no problem excluding small or unobvious ghost ramps from the list--not because they aren't ghost ramps, but because they aren't notable. EngineerScotty 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If we keep it at ghost ramp, we can't actually say anything about what a ghost ramp is, because there are no reliable sources that define the term. --NE2 00:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking above, several editors thought that AAroads was sufficient, and several DOTs have used the term. As this is a topic which isn't generally studied formally (at least until OED takes notice), that's probably as reliable as we'll get. Is the definition being disputed, or just objected to on the grounds that the sources mentioned aren't sufficiently reliable? Certainly, some of the sources mentioned in the talk page discussion have yet to appear in the article; this must be fixed. --EngineerScotty 00:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
AARoads is not a reliable source. I haven't seen any uses bf official bodies; can you point me to them? --NE2 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I've done searches, locatable within the discussion for the removal of ghost ramp as a page, that indicates that others outside of AARoads and Gribblenation, have used the term extensively. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any reliable sources. --NE2 07:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
"Reliable sources" is in the eye of the beholder, apparently. 147.70.242.40 18:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. We have had no consensus on these definations, no vote, and no discussion that came to a conclusion. But it hasn't stopped a few dedicated individuals to slap fact tags throughout, which is entirely their own opinion because there was no consensus. Therefore those tags should be removed until such consensus can be made. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You're conflating two issues with your complaint about the "fact" tags. The first is reliable sourcing for the title of the article, which I agree seems to be lacking consensus. The second is about reliable sourcing of individual items on the list, and I think you'll find you have considerably less support for your position on that point. At least some of the "fact" tags on the page are clearly appropriate, pointing as they do to speculation or other types of analytical conclusions that are not directly indicated by the satellite photos. In general, I think the fact tags are appropriate and should stay. --Mr Wednesday 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Original research"

Note that it is not declared "original research" per discussion within the realms of the deletion discussion. There was no consensus on whether it is claimed that aerial imagry is "original research" or not, so the tag should be removed until such consensus can be obtained. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. There are several editors who assert that the article in its current form contains original research. Until a consensus otherwise can be achieved, it should remain. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree,with the first post in this section, both in that I feel there was consensus that using aerial/satellite imagery as the source that something is a "ghost ramp" is WP:OR, and that it clearly is WP:OR with or without consensus. Consensus cannot make WP:OR into WP:NOR. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There was a strong division between what constitutes WP:OR and what doesn't in the discussion that was within the whole "Delete Ghost Ramp" debate. That said, we never agreed upon it, there was no poll, and there was no consensus either way. Since there is a strong argument from both sides and no clear consensus, the only reasonable option is to put it to a poll and see if that can generate one; if not, we may have to broaden the scope and involve admins to help us decide. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Decide whether to put the tag on the article? No, the tag should stay until the concerns have been dealt with, since it's just there to represent that there are concerns. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Which unused ramps are the most notable?

As I suggested aove, I think this should be changed from a list that aims to list all unused ramps to a description of the factors that cause them and a list of a few particularly notable ones. Here are a few suggestions:

--NE2 16:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And what defines "notable" in this sense? Someone's favourite stub ramps? What is the criteria? Guidelines? Before we start culling out links, perhaps we should set up guidelines and come up with a strong consensus on how to approach all of this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
We often decide on a few examples of a common theme: video game character, vertical lift bridge, castle#Origins... --NE2 16:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying that before we go to that, and do major changes, we must come to a strong consensus on what should be acceptable by holding a full vote and discussion. A few "notable" examples in that case would work, with a link to say... List of ghost ramps seperate. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The SH 225 example in Houston may be of interest as basically the only proposed freeway in the city that has ever been canceled. --Mr Wednesday 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost every city has cancelled freeways. Does anything stand out about SH 225? --NE2 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
That a canceled freeway is exceptional in Houston. If Houston is unusual in terms of not scaling back freeway construction in recent years, then that might be noteworthy. --Mr Wednesday 04:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't that fit better in freeway revolts or another article that talks about the building of freeways? --NE2 04:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pennsylvania Route 23 "goat path" east of Lancaster might be another good example. --NE2 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:If you're going to add the Interstate 95/495 example, you might as well go with other DC highways, such as the end of I-395 approaching Penn Avenue SE [19]; that's a pretty good example right there of a highway that was meant to go through. I'll find the details to that a bit later. --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to add the Interstate 95/495 example, you might as well go with other DC highways, such as I-695 approaching Penn Avenue SE, which was suppsoed to continue as I-295 and connect to I-95 in the District. All that info is at commons:Category:Interstate 695 (District of Columbia) and a satellite image is here[20]; that's a pretty good example right there. --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (Edited, but edit confliced. Fixed)
See below - I-95/495 is an example of a specific type. The end of I-395 is just a T intersection - where are the unused roadways? --NE2 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you mean I-695. That's a pretty good example of the same thing; the unused part is used for stadium access rather than a park and ride lot. --NE2 23:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Different types

There are different ways in which unused roadways can exist:

--NE2 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to seem like a broken record, but... would you classify the SH 225 case as "interchange built and fully used, but not for the original intended purpose", "grading completed but no road built", "provisions made for a complicated urban highway but not used", or another category? Maybe something along the lines of "Freeway dead-ends" would also make sense—although in the case of SH 225, it also seems to fit "interchange built and fully used...". --Mr Wednesday 04:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably the first and second. --NE2 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to cull the list, don't get hung up on notability - your main criterion should be characteristic. Is the ramp in question a good example? Choose several that fit well, and don't worry about which one is best. -Freekee 04:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm trying to do; I'm just calling this "most notable". Maybe that's not the best term, but, for example, [23] is probably the best example of a completely-unused interchange. I'm using "notable" in the sense of "a good example to note". --NE2 05:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
For a temporary end (provided someone can find a source showing it will continue), the US 90 at what will someday be the Sam Houston Tollway around Houston [24]; you can even see the route it would take. --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Would we want to categorise the Ghost ramp page, then break it down by state? Or just put a general comment within that describes its type? The former would lead to a very lengthy page with lots of categories (states) with just one or two entires while the latter wouldn't make it as searachable by type. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we should have a list of all unused roadways. --NE2 05:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should have a simpler one - maybe the end of SR 71 near Knoxville. We should also probably have examples outside the US - the M8 one with a photo at the bottom looks like a good one. --NE2 05:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what the status of this is, but on I-35 in Texas at the future Loop 20 interchange (exit 8) there's some stub ramps, ghost ramps, and unused freeway it looks like. [25]. Don't know where that would fit in our plan, but it's there and kinda neat. --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Outside of the US, here's one on Autoroute 640 at the northern terminus of Autoroute 13 outside Montréal. The A13 article says it was to have continued north, and there are a lot of disused ramps there it appears.[26] --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's some disused roadway on and around the A10 around Paris, France. [27]. I'm not suggesting all the ones i put here should be on the list, just some that I think can be considered. I'm looking for a few more outside the US. Be back in a jiff. --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
There's a built cloverleaf interchange at the A45/A3 interchange outside Frankfurt, DE.[28] Somewhere in Japan...near some sort of Route 87...there's some lifeless roadway that will one day connect through.[29] And some interesting stuff...here in Japan...not sure at all where I am, what roads they are...or anything. But there. I'm calling it a night for now. --MPD01605 (T / C) 06:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
For reference, that interchange in Japan is the junction of the Kan-etsu Expressway and the partially constructed Ken-O Expressway in Saitama Prefecture (northwestern part of the Greater Tokyo Area). The Ken-O Expressway is supposed to be extended beyond that junction by about 2 km (to National Route 254) in 2007. I don't know if an interchange currently in active construction could be considered a ghost ramp. --Polaron | Talk 19:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Traditionally, we have not considered them ghost ramps. But I'm glad someone knew what was going on with it. --MPD01605 (T / C) 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
One last thing, I don't know where it would fit, but in Prince William County in Virginia on I-95, just south of where HOV ends/begins, between the northbound and southbound bridges of I-95 over Quantico Creek, there's a bridge. No roads lead to it, but it's for the eventual extension of HOV. It's been there for years, and this website estimates 2015 before that bridge is used. Here's a map. Just an interesting thing, and I have a photo of that from I-95 southbound. It's more like a ghost bridge, I suppose. I'll get the picture on the commons tomorrow either way. --MPD01605 (T / C) 06:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
How about here in Lisbon at IC16 and IC17. Cape Town, SA. --MPD01605 (T / C) 04:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think all this should be listed in the article. Probably before the examples. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Cite problem

Editors are using both citation systems: [link] and <ref>. Which one should be used? I like <ref> better as it adds the link to the References section for you. However, most editors have been using the other system. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the links are better for the overhead views and the refs are better for actual references. --Mr Wednesday 07:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I thought about crafting a template, i.e. {{cite satellite}}, for use with satellite imagery (which would then display an icon indicating it was an image), but didn't. If for no other reason than to get rid of the numbers which aren't really necessary... --EngineerScotty 19:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not use template:coor d? --NE2 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" poll

Question posed: Do you believe sources, such as AARoads and GribbleNation, among many other sources evidenced through Google searches, should be considered reliable sources for the definition of 'ghost ramp'?

Rules: Please sign your vote with three tildes (~~~) in the form of: # ~~~, and leave all comments in the comments section to avoid unnecessary clutter.

Agree that AARoads, Gribblenation, etc., and that common usage should be considered sources:

  1. Seicer (talk) (contribs)
  2. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log)
  3. B.Wind
  4. Lastusernameever

Disagree that AARoads, Gribblenation, etc., and that common usage should be considered sources:

  1. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia:reliable sources says that they are not reliable. --NE2 19:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Only as far as supporting "ghost ramp" as a term, I feel that these sources clearly do not meet the necessary standard. --Mr Wednesday 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Supports AARoads in some contexts but doesnt support Gribblenation and is unwilling to judge sites that aren't listed.

  1. Ummm right. Polls are evil. :) First of all, it's impossible to tell if a citation is acceptable unless the context is provided. A "reliable" source may still not be an acceptable one under every circumstances. As for the two sources listed:
  1. AARoads looks like a long-term collaboration with Travolocity. According to thier own page they have been around for nearly 10 years. That would make it ok for some things.
  2. Gribblenation looks self-published and wouldn't likely be an acceptable source.
  3. Other sites: How can we comment on random unspecified sites? ---J.S (t|c) 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
AARoads is just as self-published as Gribblenation. The articles at [30] make that clear. --NE2 22:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with J.S. - AARoads is ok, Gribble not ok, and no comment about the rest unless I see them. Blueboar 20:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • AAroads is OK. Don't know about GribbleNation or other unnamed sources. --EngineerScotty 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


No vote at this time:

Comments

  • Let's get a consensus before we start removing sources to these statements (intro paragraph). Note that no consensus was achieved on prior discussions and no consensus was achieved within this discussion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • AARoads is OK, as is any well-sourced site dealing with our nation's roads (such as www.kurumi.com). I tend to think it's a more reliable source than the one used in the roadgeek Wikipedia article (in the latter case, the paper quoted a man who describes himself as a "road geek", with his "definition"). B.Wind 22:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. We use Kurumi's definations for interchange descriptions, so what makes AARoads "less reliable"? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
      • We shouldn't use kurumi for references for interchanges; that leads to the use of neologisms like volleyball interchange, which should be at three-level diamond. Official sources such as [31] are more than adequate. I also agree about the sourcing of roadgeek; I've marked it as needing references. --NE2 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That works, as long as we remain consistent on the naming conventions throughout. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
        • At least to Kurumi's (or whatever his name is) credit, he admits that "volleyball interchange" his "contribution... to colloquial English." Since that page isn't well-sourced (how could it be?), I would give it far less weight than his page about SPUIs, which is well-sourced, as are the vast majority of his 3di articles. B.Wind 22:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree, but I would go one step further: we should be using the sources he uses, bypassing his site entirely for references. The AARoads page that defines a ghost ramp does not cite any sources for the term. --NE2 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is asphalt required?

Question: Do we require the ramp to still be paved for the listing here? It seems to me that the example in Hamilton [32] is no longer paved, and what is seen on the picture is simply a remnant of the foundation that once supported the ramp. Where do we draw the line; does this qualify? --user:Qviri 15:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No one knows, since there is no reliably-sourced definition. --NE2 17:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge back together

I've proposed to merge the articles back together again; the result of having the definition in a separate article is not working. Having a stub and a big article, and deleting references "from the wrong one" is bad WP policy. Georgewilliamherbert 20:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: See below. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: I still don't think a list of every highway segment that has been unused is a good idea, but it's better as a separate article from the one describing the concept. --NE2 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we haven't defined what can be listed as notable in this case, and it would be impractical to do so because there would be no real criteria to determine that. There are many lists that derive from main articles, such as rail trail. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also propose renaming the article from "List of unused highways" to "List of unused highway ramps", as there is not a single section of highway roadway in the article, which consists entirely of ramp listings. Georgewilliamherbert 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose: Perhaps you should contribute to the article by listing notable unused highway segments rather than complaining. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: I've already told George at User talk:Brianyoumans#Unused highway (though after he posted here) that there are in fact main lanes on this list. --NE2 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: NE2 is correct. There are actually some unused roads on the list. This list is majority ramps since that is the original list. So yes, it would be better to add some to the list or just wait; the list will be added to in time. --MPD (T / C) 02:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

From one "neologism" to another

Funny - one person calls a term that has been used for decades a neologism and through a dubious closing of an AfD (he is not an admin, and in fact he advocated the deletion prior to close) resulted in the moving of the information to a term that, frankly, has not been used in any form of official correspondence (at least the term "stub ramp" was used in court rulings - one was cited in the early Ghost ramp discussions. So we are back to a situation that needs to be undone... again. Either the use and definition of "unused highway" must be cited or the move should be reverted. 147.70.236.93 22:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the IPuser is being a jerk about discussions, please see Talk:Unused highway for the IPuser's original posts. Keep your discussions in one place, it makes it easier for others to follow and comment on. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It is also not proper Wikiquette to delete civil posts on talk pages. This specific topic/point has not been addressed save for a "plea agreement" between two editors, one of whom closed an AfD after advocation of deletion. More discussion is necessary, and for the time being, the tags should stay on until a wider population has had the opportunity to discuss and find the official source that shows the definition that is needed for both articles. 147.70.236.93 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The discussion was not deleted, it was moved because you are duplicating discussions here, at Talk:Unused highway, and on user talk pages. Keep it in one place and be civil about discussions. See Talk:Unused highway for a reply to your original topic. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, calling an editor a jerk is hardly being civil - please refrain from making personal attacks in a discussion.B.Wind 05:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Jerk is hardly a term for 'personal attacks'. If the IPvandal wants to stage unrest and wants to remain ignorant by ignoring two lengthy discussions (to that point), that's his case, not mine. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your tag, {{Noncompliant}}, is a duplication of the {{citations missing}} tag: see descriptions of both... It would be nice if you could remove one or the other since they are identical. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Michigan entry

In browsing satellite imagery of US 23 from the Ohio border to the junction with M-14, I was unable to identify an actual stub. The nearest match to what seems to be described is this wide spot: [33]. Pending more detail, I think this entry should be removed. --Mr Wednesday 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)