Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Business routes

Should we cover business routes that do not have concurrencies with state highways / have their own articles, besides Business 80 in Sacramento? Please see List of Business Routes of the Interstate Highway System; some Business Routes of 5, 205, 8, 10, 40, and 80 are within California. An example: Interstate 8 Business (El Centro, California) -- should it have the project tag on its talk page? Other Business Loops are already covered by concurrent State Route articles, like California State Route 265, for example (Business Loop of I-5) (err, that Business Loop is also covered by US 97, but US 97 does not have a CA specific article yet). --Geopgeop 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox discussion, time 3

This discussion is intended as the discussion to deal with the infobox mess.

History

A brief summary of the problem: Back in February 2006, at California State Route 15, {{routeboxca2}} was removed from the page. After a revert war started, the same user tried to modify {{routeboxca2}} to his own liking, but was reverted again. He then proceeded to TFD {{routeboxca2}}: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 2, where consensus was to keep. Thus his alternative was to create {{Infobox CA Route}} and switch articles over to it, starting a massive revert war. However, subsequent debates have upheld the use of {{routeboxca2}}: /Archive3 for example. Finally, the page move wars took over, and RFC, ArbCom, and WP:SRNC came into being. So now that the dust has cleared, it is time to address this issue again.

Proposals

Rschen7754

I propose that we use the current routebox with a few modifications: a) Potentially updating the framework to integrate it with {{Infobox road}}, b) Splitting out the terminii and putting them in the special terminii fields, c) Updating support for lengths and maps. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Geopgeop

Remember the junction box (which is still in use in many articles)? How it would be too long, such as an implementation in the California State Route 1 or 99 articles? I propose to officially include it again, and also have it hide automatically, then add a "click to show" link that would, well, "click to show". Other infoboxes are using something like this now, such as WP:Anime's with the secondary channels and publishers hiding in its infoboxes, for instance. Of course, I guess this also depends on whether or not it already has a separate exit list. --Geopgeop 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish

I propose changing completely over to {{infobox road}}. None of this "click to show" stuff. Major junctions can be included in the infobox; a complete list of all junctions with other state highways can be included in the article text -- similar to WP:NYSR, and to a lesser extent other WikiProjects as well.

The Washington WikiProject had a similar issue (albeit without ugly revert warring), and this was the consensus reached there. -- NORTH talk 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Votes and comments (votes bolded please)

Comment: Sure, an integration with {{Infobox road}} would be great, considering we have 50 states and there aren't much differences between them except with shields, names, and types. If I were to view California State Route 88, which uses {{routeboxca2}}, and then move on to view Nevada State Route 88, which uses plain {{Infobox road}} and srbox, I wouldn't want to see a stark contrast as they really are just continuations of each other. I would like to see examples of what the infobox would look like compared to the other infoboxes as well. Remember, our project is part of WP:USRD and we need some collaboration with that and the other states' WikiProjects (especially neighbor Oregon) and also the other states as well (especially neighbors Nevada, Arizona, and possibly Baja California/Mexico). --Geopgeop 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm intrigued by the "click to show idea." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish: I like integration with the Infobox road --- uniformity over large number of articles is good! hike395 04:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Question If Northenglish's proposal was adopted, would junction lists also be created? Would the information be saved for the junction lists? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't add the junctions to the infobox, because it makes certain infoboxes much larger than the others. A good idea would be to create a separate table for the junctions. As the junction lists are now in regards to infoboxes, they become confusing since it incorporates table code in the infobox. --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what I meant... just making sure the old infoboxes would be saved on the talk for help in creating the junction lists. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish: Originally, I was thinking of a hybrid of the infobox seen in California State Route 37, but I think the use of infobox roads would be best, since it would be helpful for those who edit route articles for other states as well. --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish: Hidden data doesn't appeal to me. I prefer Infobox road and moving the junction table out to the article body. Doing so removes the box space constraints, and allows the list/table to be tailored for special cases without finding a creative way to stuff it into infobox parameter terms. —RandallJones 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: We haven't forgotten about the mini routebox, like what's in use in the Richmond Parkway article or California State Route 210, haven't we? Could we have the full routebox use optional parameters instead so we wouldn't need the mini routebox? If we still use the mini routebox, located at {{routeboxcamini}} (also, a certain user made {{Infobox CA Route small}}), we definitely need it to match the full routebox. --Geopgeop 12:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The main purpose of that was for browsing, and we can just create another browse row in the infobox. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

Comment: The infoboxes below right now have inconsistent browse boxes, the one provided by {{Infobox road}} with the name "State Route", and the embedded {{ca browse}} using just "Route". For {{ca browse}}, I guess it should say State Route, especially for those users who cannot view images and can't tell if it's really a State Route or an Interstate. Also: Northenglish: that's right, I'll go with his proposal, as I realize we have to be realistic in that not everything can/should be crammed into an infobox. Besides, a junction box just can't give as much detail in a small infobox as an exit list can in the body of the article. --Geopgeop 12:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

For the browsing, I would prefer "SR" instead of the full "State Route"; other states almost exclusively use abbreviations. Regarding the mini-infobox, not being an active member of this project, I'm not sure what it was originally used for -- Rschen seems to indicate it's no longer necessary -- but {{infobox road}} is programmed with a plethora of if commands, all the parameters are optional. -- NORTH talk 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
With that, I'm confirming my vote for Northenglish. --Geopgeop 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish Yup. As long as we have a junction list so no data is lost. Also we might consider adding a section to infobox road for the state law section. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we close this soon? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's consider this closed and move on to the next issue (what we see for the browse section). However, let's only apply this new infobox to one or two articles (preferably a few of each type of older infobox). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Prototypes

What we have now

Template:Routeboxca2

With the mileposts and all junctions

Some info is fictionalized to get a full infobox.

State Route 78
Length: 192.46 mi (309.73 km)
Formed: 2100
West end:
I-5 SD 0.00
Major
junctions:
I-15 SD 16.54
SR-67 SD 35.52
SR-79 SD 51.11
SR-79 SD 58.13
SR-86 IMP 13.18
SR-86 IMP 13.19
SR-111 IMP 13.80
SR-115 IMP 18.65
East end:
I-10 RIV 16.41
Major cities: Oceanside
Vista
San Marcos
Escondido
Ramona
Julian
Brawley
Blythe
State highways in California (list - pre-1964)
County routes in California (list)
< SR 77 SR 79 >
< SR 1 2 SR 3 >
History - Unconstructed - Deleted - Freeway - Scenic


Without the mileposts and minor junctions

Some info is fictionalized to get a full infobox.

State Route 78
Defined by S&HC § 378
Length: 192.46 mi (309.73 km)
Formed: 2100
West end: I-5 in Oceanside
Major
junctions:		 I-15 in Escondido
SR-67 in Ramona
SR-79 in Julian
SR-86 in Brawley
SR-111 in Brawley
SR-115 in Imperial
East end: I-10 in Blythe
Major cities: Oceanside
Vista
San Marcos
Escondido
Blythe
State highways in California (list - pre-1964)
County routes in California (list)
< SR 77 SR 79 >
< SR 1 2 SR 3 >
History - Unconstructed - Deleted - Freeway - Scenic


Browse box

On urgent matters, what happened to the browse box in the routebox? For example, I'm getting links to State 2 (California) from the California State Route 1 page. Either all pages have to have the "type" parameter in the routebox set to "State Route" from "State", or the routebox code has to be fixed. --Geopgeop 12:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, this is happening specifically with {{Infobox CA Route}} and {{Infobox CA Route small}} by the way, not {{Routeboxca2}}. --Geopgeop 12:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what happened. A change with {{Infobox CA Route/browse route}} and {{Infobox CA Route/browse no route}} did it. Hold on. --Geopgeop 12:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's fixed for now. --Geopgeop 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... I was creating the prototype and must have broken it... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the proposal boxes (see above for infoboxes), they're using {{ca browse}} for those with additional routes, and that also has that problem. I'm going to change that right now. --Geopgeop 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's just the values in the above proposals, not {{ca browse}} by itself. --Geopgeop 04:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, they're proposals anyway, I'm not going to change them... --Geopgeop 04:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah we'll need to fix that when we close the poll and get the coding working. Someone will need to look my work over I think, I'm not sure if I made a mess. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

{{SoCalFwy}}

We haven't forgotten about {{SoCalFwy}}, have we? Except for a minor edit in October, this template, it seems, is largely forgotten. This, as well as the articles on Southern California freeways. Also, San Diego Freeway has a lot of cities in its infobox that could be better represented as a list in the body of the article. --Geopgeop 10:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And it already has. --Geopgeop 10:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

State Route 1 exit list

A near complete exit list for State Route 1 has been completed by me, Geopgeop, in my user space. See User:Geopgeop/Exit list of California State Route 1. All I'm missing is the statewide mileposts, plus any additional checks. Oh, as for exit 510 (Mission Street), is the Cal-Nexus data correct on that? SR 1 does not touch Mission Street at all, likely ramps that connect to it are the Alemany Boulevard and Brotherhood Way ramps. Please check that. --Geopgeop 10:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, any chance of implementing this in the main article in some way? --Geopgeop 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It probably can just go in like an Interstate list. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, does it match the new WP:IH standards? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Exit list - entrances?

There's an anonIP editing Interstate 580 (California), removing information on entrances for one-directional exits - for example, he's edited the 35th Avenue exit from Eastbound exit and westbound entrance to Eastbound exit only. Is this correct usage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Why remove the info? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:CAFESAlt and Template:CAScenicAlt

California highway articles can be changed to uniformly refer to Template:CAFES and Template:CAScenic to comply with the TfD outcome, since these are now changed to handle the "Alt" cases too.

How about changing WP:CASH to reflect this? -- Paddu 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are subtle link differences... does the coding account for this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
That's of course the point of "changed to handle the 'Alt' cases too". Please see for yourself: CAFES and CAScenic. "{{#switch:}}" is described at m:ParserFunctions##switch:. -- Paddu 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but since I am not aware of how it exactly works, I can't do the changes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The anchor (i.e. the part after the #) in the wikisource link in Template:CAScenic is generated from:
                                {{#switch: {{{route}}}
                                | 28| 35| 38| 52| 53| 62| 74| 75| 76| 89
                                | 96| 97|127|150|151|154|156|158|161|173
                                |197|199|203|209|221|236|239|243|247|254
                                |330 = Section_{{{sec}}}
                                |Route_{{{route}}}
                                }}
If {{{route}}} is 28, 35, 38, 52, 53, 62, 74, 75, 76, 89, 96, 97, 127, 150, 151, 154, 156, 158, 161, 173, 197, 199, 203, 209, 221, 236, 239, 243, 247, 254 or 330, the link generated is "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/California_Streets_and_Highways_Code%2C_Section_260-284#Section_{{{sec}}}" else the link generated is "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/California_Streets_and_Highways_Code%2C_Section_260-284#Route_{{{route}}}". Similarly the wikisource link in Template:CAFES is generated. -- Paddu 17:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Another alternative for CAScenic is to replace the {{#switch:}} with:

{{#ifeq: {{{sec}}}|263.1
|Section_{{{sec}}}      <!-- used if {{{sec}}} = 263.1 -->
|Route_{{{route}}}      <!-- used otherwise -->
}}

and similarly for CAFES:

{{#ifeq: {{{sec}}}|253.1|Section_{{{sec}}}|Route_{{{route}}}}}

This code is smaller and requires no modification if sections 253.1/263.1 get amended. -- Paddu 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and updated WP:CASH to recommend the use of only {{CAFES}} and {{CAScenic}}. -- Paddu 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you are interested in photos like this? Historic US 40 sign

Historic U.S. 40 highway route sign at the intersection of Del Paso Blvd and Arden Way in Sacramento, CA
Historic U.S. 40 highway route sign at the intersection of Del Paso Blvd and Arden Way in Sacramento, CA
Historic U.S. Hwy 40 sign
Historic U.S. Hwy 40 sign

Hello, I am a member of the WP:CAL project and saw your project sign on one of our pages. I uploaded a copy of the thumbnail at Wiki:Commons. If you would like to use it, you are welcome. This sign (and more in Sacramento, CA) have been placed along Historic US routes that passed on major thoroughfares. This one is as per its description, at the intersection of Del Paso Blvd. and Arden Way as per the pic. The sign is actually on Del Paso Blvd. which I guess was part of US 40. Please contact me on my talkpage if you have any questions. Cheers. Ronbo76 00:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Some neat definitions, history and trivia found on the Caltrans website

I am doing some work for a WP:CAL article, Alemany Maze that was recently prod'ed. Today's research found the term maze defined in that article along with its connotation to the MacArthur Maze. Your project may wish to use this Caltrans Facts/Information in defining terms. Cheers, Ronbo76 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

68.126.243.162's edits

68.126.243.162 (talk · contribs) has been doing a bunch of edits to SoCal freeway articles as well as many other road articles. For example, they changed many of the dates in the Interstate 710. Since I know that you guys are pretty fanatical about such details, I was just going to revert, but decided to bring the issue here for you guys to look at. It looks like that also edited several road templates. BlankVerse 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing on Interstate 705 (Washington). There s/he edited a referenced date (for the year established) in the infobox, and also added a completion date to the article text. The established date was clearly wrong, contradicting the reference, so I reverted that, but I was nice and tacked {{fact}} on the date in the article text, since I can find very little information at the moment on the short little freeway in Tacoma.
In general, I would go ahead and just revert for the most part, unless it's new information – in which case, tag it and verify it when you get the chance. -- NORTH talk 09:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
An anon IP from Orange County, California PacBell/AT&T DSL IPs keeps editing SoCal freeway articles. The latest IP is 68.126.240.219 (talk · contribs), but there have been at least one or two more besides the IP I listed at the beginning of this section. The obviously bad thing in their edits is that I saw them remove the {{fact}} tags a couple of times. There are so many edits an admin is going to have to do all the rolbacks, and then should probably semi-protect the articles for awhile. BlankVerse 07:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
TMF and I (I think?) discussed this. It's hard to tell if the IP is vandalizing or telling the truth. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I caught one definately bogus edit: [1]. The Orange Crush is on the border of the city of Orange, California and 2-3 miles from downtown Orange.
One edit the 68.126.*.* editor was doing regularly, and therefore originally creating redlinks, was editing 1964 renumbering to 1965 renumbering, which they then later re-edited, taking out the wikilink to read "1965 state highway renumbering". See [2]. BlankVerse 13:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox plans

Here's a proposed plan for fixing the infoboxes:

  1. Fix the browsing system (I'm working on right now).
  2. Put the new infobox on CA-78, CA-1, and CA-210 and CA-37 (as test cases).
  3. Rewrite WP:CASH to include directions for new infoboxes.
  4. Remove {{routeboxcamini}}. Make new infoboxes on the pages where needed. Save a copy of junction list to talk.
  5. Convert {{Infobox CA Route}} (not much conversion should be needed). Also go back in histories, find old junction list, and save a copy on talk.
  6. Convert {{routeboxca2}}. Save a copy of junction list to talk.
  7. TFD {{Infobox CA Route}} and subpages, {{routeboxca2}} and subpages, {{routeboxca}} and subpages, {{routeboxcamini}} and subpages.
  8. Contact MTF about making some maps.

Sound good? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by making new infoboxes for the ones which used {{routeboxcamini}}? Substing them, or just use {{Infobox road}} with much less variables? --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 08:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Using infobox road with an additional browse parameter. (So there is only one infobox per article).--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Infobox has been put on California State Route 78. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
CA-37 can be infoboxed too since it's undergoing GA... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

{{routeboxcamini}} has been sent to TFD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And it was deleted. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox CA Route small}} sent to TFD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC) {{Infobox CA Route}} sent to TFD. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Exits

I have an idea!! Why don't we make exit lists for all state highways!! You see, I'm doing a project of all intersections of state, federal, and interstate highways in Google Earth!! (By the way, you can check out the blog for this project at [3]!!) It would provide a service to me and other people!!

---Happy 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You probably noticed that some articles do have exit lists, just not all of them yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
There's also some state routes have no exits, because they don't have freeways. --wL<speak·check·chill> 04:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case, I will make a junction list format instead. As for the exit lists, you really don't need a blog for the project. Back to the original subject, most of the exit lists aren't WP:USRD/ELG compliant, so we need some people to start fixing. I don't really have time for that, so we need some people to do that.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I can help eventually, the exit lists are on my to do list. The Calnexus site is wonderful. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Award

There is curently a proposal for a WikiProject California Award. I proposed expanding it to include this WP. Check out the link and feel free to comment. --evrik (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a final vote being held on a WikiProject Award for all California related projects. You may wish to give your input here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox shields

Is anyone having difficulties with the latest SVG shields not ever loading. I'm finding this happening quite often in the California routes in particular.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue we've been having with shields. WP:USRD/S might have more info. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 16:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of All USRD Clean-up Templates

All of the USRD Clean-up Templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 16:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:FEUS

Template:FEUS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. master sonT - C 23:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cal-NExUS exit lists

Is it me, or does the PDF lists for I-5 and I-80 on the Cal-NExUS site look like they were partially copied and modified from the lists on Wikipedia? --Geopgeop 00:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How so? (not that it isn't possible). --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, never mind; apparently, the state postmiles for I-80 are wrong on the article by 0.46 miles, as they are given on the PDF. Since I-80 "begins" at US 101 and its junction is at county postmile 3.95 in the route log, and the next exit, Seventh Street is given as county 3.98, state 0.49 in the Cal-NExUS, and arggh... (I have a headache again) ...Central Avenue, CC 0.22 bridge log and Cal-NExUS, state 13.16 in Wikipedia, 13.57 Cal-NExUS... difference of 0.41 now? Didn't I put the calculations in the exit list as comment codes? Where does it add up???? I'm getting the idea that we shouldn't even try putting state postmiles if they haven't been given... --Geopgeop 00:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, I'll just say "possibly inspired"... --Geopgeop (T) 01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the thing that caught my eye was how they put by county and city on the left side. Seems they grouped the interchanges by common destinations, if one side has multiple exits and the other only one, as well as how the exit numbers once were blacked out, which WP:ELG didn't like... --Geopgeop (T) 01:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Southern California freeways

Currently articles exist such as Golden State Freeway that are redundant. They are collecting dust and getting ruined with various IP edits messing them up. My proposal is to redirect them to the corresponding routes (for example, Interstate 5 in California for GSF). --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When there is enough detail that overwhelms the route articles, we should fork them back out. However, that's another story. O2 (息 • 吹) 04:01, 05 November 2007 (GMT)
Then what should be done with something like Hollywood Freeway, San Diego Freeway‎, and Ventura Freeway where it has two route numbers? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This probably should be taken care of on a case by case situation. I would convert Hollywood and Ventura to disambig pages. I would redirect SD freeway to I-405 and put a note at the top indicating that part of it is on I-5.
I was originally for articles such as this. However, two years later, they are resulting in content forking, and they are becoming a mess very quickly. You can throw out the bottom half of San Diego Freeway and still have a good article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reminder from USRD

In response to a few issues that came up, we are giving a reminder to all state highway wikiprojects and task forces:

  1. Each project needs to remain aware of developments at WT:USRD and subpages to ensure that each project is aware of decisions / discussions that affect that project. It is impossible to notify every single project about every single discussion that may affect it. Therefore, it is the state highway wikiproject's responsiblity to monitor discussions.
  2. If a project does not remain aware of such developments and complains later, then there is most likely nothing USRD can do about it.
  3. USRD, in most to nearly all cases, will not interfere with a properly functioning state highway wikiproject. All projects currently existing are "properly functioning" for the purposes mentioned here. All task forces currently existing are not "properly functioning" (that is why they are task forces). Departments of USRD (for example, MTF, shields, assessment, INNA) may have specific requirements for the state highway wikiprojects, but complaints regarding those need to be taken up with those departments.
  4. However, this is a reminder that USRD standards need to be followed by the state highway wikiprojects, regardless of the age of the wikiproject.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

US 101 exit list

I'm making a new Geopgeop/Exit list of U.S. Route 101 in California (whether it's going to be used in the article or not I don't care right now), can someone review how I'm doing so far? --Geopgeop 00:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Ok, some trouble spots with the Camarillo exits in US-101... some issue with SR 34 not on the Cal-NExUS list southbound even though it's physically there; a missing interchange for Camarillo Airport, which may be related to the planned Springville Drive interchange. See [4], [5] (September 2003), and [6]. See also, of course, [7]. --Geopgeop (T) 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Hmm... the section of US 101 from Camarillo through Ventura is or was under construction as far as images from Google Maps show, like here at the Santa Clara River bridge: [8]. Since many exits are/were being reconfigured, it's difficult to get an exit list with accurate postmiles (the route logs are currently from July 2007), and old exits, like Ventura Road on NB 101, are being replaced with new exits, like Oxnard Boulevard on NB 101. There's also that concurrency with SR 1. How does one work with exit lists on roads that are currently works in progress? --Geopgeop (T) 10:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


I made a full exit list for the article, and we have a problem: it's 43 KB. Not the article but the exit list itself. Should we split it out, like List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario), or split the article? I'm thinking a split at the Golden Gate Bridge might work; that's basically a barrier between the two halves, each of which has its own history. --NE2 17:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow... just wow... I'll see what I can merge in from the puny exit list I made, but good job, I didn't think I would've made a complete exit list in only three days like you did. All the way to Oregon! You definitely deserve a barnstar for that, which I'll give in just a moment. --Geopgeop (T) 12:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I find it fun to do. --NE2 15:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment categories

How would we go about making assessment categories for WP:CASH?? Should we take the model of Virginia or Texas, or go with something completely different?? Any opinions would be appreciated!!

-Happy5214 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Since all you have to do is change one line in the template, there's not much of a reason to do something completely different. --NE2 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:California Freeway and Expressway System

Does this need to exist? I'm thinking it would be better to change its scope to only existing freeways, since we have the California Freeway and Expressway System to list all the routes. --NE2 02:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno here. We usually have category and list simultaneously with the state highway systems. Just a thought. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:21, 19 November 2007 (GMT)
This refers to a specific system as designated by law. Therefore, it needs to stay. There are routes in here that are not freeways or expressways but are still part of the CAFES. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, and we have a list for that. Why do we need a category just saying what the list says? I can't believe anyone would navigate via the category. --NE2 04:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It indicates that the article is in the system, from the article page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean like California State Route 120#State law? Note that we don't have a category for the scenic highways. We can (and should) also include details about which parts are on the F&E System, something we can't do with a category. --NE2 04:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I do see the point about three mechanisms being a bit much. Frankly, I thought you wouldn't like the template :) --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't, but it puts the information in the article body, where it belongs. All we have to do now is integrate it into the text, like in SR 37 (though those links should really be to the articles on Wikipedia, not to Wikisource). --NE2 05:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As long as it says something to the effect of the current template, I don't have a problem with it. However, although CAFES should link to Wikipedia, the code section should link to Wikisource. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the CAFES article itself links to Wikisource; this is a minor issue though, unrelated to the current discussion. Do you no longer have a problem with redefining (and of course renaming) the category? --NE2 06:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Redefining and renaming, I do not have a problem with that, as long as those are together. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Category:Freeways in California? I've made what I believe to be a full list on Talk:California Freeway and Expressway System. --NE2 08:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) Cat name is fine. I haven't been able to take a look at the list yet in depth. 56 might be a full freeway depending on what the exact definition of it is. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That won't make a difference for the category anyway, but the definition is "Route 56 is from Route 5 north of La Jolla to Route 67." It's only built to I-15. --NE2 05:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 20#Category:California Freeway and Expressway System --NE2 07:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody have a map from about 1930?

I'm looking for a map from before 1933, but as late as possible, that shows whether US 99 still takes the dogleg into Visalia that it did in 1928. Thank you. --NE2 00:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes on the history

I have completed several subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways/History relating to the history of the state highways. This is more accurate than the years given on cahighways.org. If you want a specific reference for any of these, or just have a general question, let me know; I can also tell you how sure I am that a certain change was made by the law listed. --NE2 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways/History/When each route was added to the state highway system should be 99.9% accurate now, and has enough information to look up and thus cite the laws. --NE2 19:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've completed a chronology of the Freeway and Expressway System. --NE2 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting input on a map

Before I make more maps in the same style, is there anything I should modify? Would it be a good idea to show the beginnings of connecting highways in other states, which I have the information to do? --NE2 13:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided to add these connecting highways as they were in 1930. --NE2 16:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Just one minor rant: how about graying out the connecting highways, as the main focus is the ones in California? 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 01:40, 24 November 2007 (GMT)
State and county lines are gray. --NE2 08:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How do the first five maps in commons:Category:Road maps of California look now? --NE2 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do these look good?

Image:California State Route 2.svgImage:California State Route 38.svg

--NE2 06:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they do, just double check with MTF (I'm not familiar with those standards). --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I followed the recommended standards except for dashing the county lines (I couldn't make that work with the data I had, which was areas rather than lines) and making U.S. Highways wider (given what's happened to them in California, it's probably not useful to give more prominence to US 101 and US 395 over SR 99 or SR 299). My plan is to use this zoom level for all routes that are entirely contained with it, for easy comparison of routes in the LA area. --NE2 06:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't have a problem with the maps, but map creation is not my specialty... --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you see any errors, including alignments that may be a bit off? --NE2 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No, no problems. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Checked against other maps, looks bueno to mi! Edit Centric (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo request

If anybody is near Sacramento and can get a photo of the new Riske Lane intersection on former State Route 275 in the next few days, it may be used on the main page as part of the did you know section. --NE2 11:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Scope

In writing about the history of state highways, I've found that the same sources deal with auto trails. For instance, California State Route 160 was part of the Victory Highway, and part of old U.S. Route 66 is still called the National Old Trails Highway. These highways were maintained by the state and coordinated by non-state associations, much like the U.S. Routes and Interstates. --NE2 00:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WT:USRD related to this. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Map request

Does anybody have a street-level map of eastern Los Angeles and Alhambra from about 1935-1955? I'm coming up blank on the original configuration of Ramona Boulevard before it became the San Bernardino Freeway. --NE2 00:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Freeway names and merging

Most articles about freeways have been merged into the article about the route it carries. I agree with this, and I don't believe there has been any recent disagreement. The question is what to do with the remaining ones; I also have some possible suggestions for other articles.

Hollywood Freeway and Ventura Freeway are two similar cases: part of the freeway is part of US 101, a long road, but the rest is most or all of a short route. Both should certainly remain separate from US 101, but would it make sense, at least in the case of the Ventura, to merge SR 134 into that article? The only thing that would belong in an SR 134 article rather than the Ventura Freeway article is early history as a surface road, and that can still be placed in the history section of the Ventura Freeway article.

San Diego Freeway contains all of I-405 and part of I-5. I don't see what would be in the I-405 article that wouldn't also belong in the San Diego Freeway article; again it might make sense to merge I-405 into San Diego Freeway.

Two other routes might make more sense redone. SR 110 consists of two pieces: a short surface routing south of I-110 (deleted from the legislative definition but not relinquished), and a northern extension that includes the north end of the Harbor Freeway and the Pasadena Freeway. I would suggest moving SR 110 to Pasadena Freeway (or Arroyo Seco Parkway?), and repurposing the I-110 article to cover the entire length of Route 110. There's already ambiguity from the fact that Harbor Freeway redirects there, and I don't think this would cause any more. If the name is confusing, maybe it could be moved to Interstate/State Route 110 (California) or a similar compound name (it's certainly better than North Carolina Highway 106 - Georgia State Route 246).

Similarly, SR 210 is an eastern extension of I-210, and will supposedly become an extension. The entire route is also the Foothill Freeway. It might again make sense to merge the two under a compound name.

Are there any comments? --NE2 04:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The general rule I use is that if the article is short or has redundant info, I will merge it. In regards to I-110, I would leave the routes separate. In regards to I-210, it's all Interstate standard highway already, so I dunno what the holdup with Caltrans is. :| --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with 110 is that the Harbor Freeway and I-110 are two slightly different entities, and SR 110 has two disjointed segments that are not related; the one in San Pedro has more in common with the Harbor Freeway than the Pasadena Freeway. --NE2 05:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You're counting the San Pedro portion? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes; Caltrans still maintains it as SR 110. --NE2 06:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to look outside SoCal:

--NE2 14:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Route 110

After completing Pasadena Freeway, I've tagged Interstate 110 and State Route 110 for merging. Here's the general plan:

Route 110, signed partially as Interstate 110 and State Route 110, is a state highway...It consists of Gaffey Street, the Harbor Freeway, and the Pasadena Freeway...

Route description

Route 110 begins in San Pedro...Gaffey Street...becomes Interstate 110 at SR 47...becomes State Route 110 at I-10...the Harbor Freeway ends at the Four Level Interchange.

Main article: Pasadena Freeway

SR 110 continues along the Pasadena Freeway, the first freeway in California...

History

Figueroa Street...SR 11

See also: Pasadena Freeway

Upgraded to a freeway, starting with LA to Pasadena...then the Harbor Freeway...

Exit list

For exits north of US 101, see Pasadena Freeway.

--NE2 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Importance ratings

I have marked all "High Emphasis Routes" as High-importance, since this seems to be a good way to pick out the articles that are most likely to be viewed and thus make priorities for improvement. (You can see which high-importance articles are below B-class by sorting Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/California road transport articles by quality by importance.) However, these routes are all rural; other than Interstates, does anyone have a good suggestion for how to decide which urban routes are high-importance? --NE2 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the National Highway System and it matches the High Emphasis Routes pretty well; compare the two columns on Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways/History/Interregional Road System (the only non-NHS HEs are 17, 49, and 70, and parts of 95, 99, 138, and 905). And the NHS includes urban routes. If we go with the NHS, we'd be adding 2, 4, 12, 18, 22, 23, 24, 37, 47, 55, 57, 60, 65, 71, 73, 74, 78, 79, 84, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 118, 125, 132, 133, 134, 140, 160, 170, 180, 188, 210, and 241. This would be about 1/4 of the total system; does this seem like too much, and if so are there any other suggestions? --NE2 13:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#High importance = NHS? --NE2 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about state law sections

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#State law sections --NE2 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)