Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (exit lists) page.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Shortcut:
WT:ELG
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Contents

[edit] Redundant abbreviations, again

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

and

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Unincorporated places

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)