Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:CASH
Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4

Contents

[edit] County abbreviations before postmiles

Do we need these county abbreviations? In many places on California State Route 99#Exit list it's wrapping, causing each exit to take up two lines. There's already a county column to the left. --NE2 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we do because these are not normal mileposts. All the documentation I have seen puts the abbreviation before the postmile. I have never seen normal mileposts in California. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
In some places, they put the route number on the mileposts. I don't see how, in our case, it adds any information. If you want documentation that doesn't put the abbreviation first, look no further than the bridge logs. --NE2 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The route number is not part of the designation. The county abbreviation needs to be before the postmile. I'm actually from California; I know. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you please detail? Right now, what you're doing is an argument from authority, and your authority doesn't even seem to be right, given that Caltrans doesn't even put them before the numbers in the bridge logs. --NE2 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think Rschen means this. O2 (息 • 吹) 23:54, 11 November 2007 (GMT)
I understand that the postmiles include the county (and also the route number), but how does that mean it's "part of the designation", and what would be wrong with removing it? --NE2 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrapping? What display resolution are you using on your computer monitor? What font setting are using on your web browser? I am using 1024x768px on FireFox with normal text size and see no wrapping on that column. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have about that; it might depend on the specific rendering engine and version. Anyway, if you make it smaller, does it become two lines? --NE2 00:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's actually not wrapping any more for me, probably because I removed some excess information from the notes. Does this old version wrap for you? --NE2 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It would imply to the reader that these are mileposts, when they are not. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
(a) how does it do that, (b) how does it not currently imply they're not mileposts, and (c) how are they not mileposts (other than the name)? Other states, such as Nevada, reset mileposts at the county line. --NE2 00:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
A-b) The county abbreviation signifies that these are reset at the county line. c) They are not mileposts because they reset at the county line, Caltrans almost never uses statewide mileage, California does not use milepost signage on highways except for one small stretch of CA-59 that is less than 20 miles long, and because of postmile equations. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if you know California it signifies that, but to me it's just redundancy. They actually don't always reset; SR 120 crosses from Tuolumne into Mariposa and back and keeps the sequence through both crossings. --NE2 01:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
95% of the time, they do. SR-120 is probably like that because of the dip into another county. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
In regards to NV, it says they use the Ca system. I'd consider converting the NV lists to Postmiles (or whatver tehy're called there). --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
They apparently call them mileposts. --NE2 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be confusing to not have the county names in there. If I saw 56.10, 56.54, 57.58, 3.06, 6.15, I'd think there was a mistake or something in there (if I weren't aware of the CA system). Without the county names, the numbers would be duplicated as well, adding more chaos. —Scott5114↗ 00:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What should be done to fix Interstate 270 (Illinois-Missouri)? --NE2 01:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The IP should stop changing the page to be contrary to ELG. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yah, I agree with Scott, if I saw "1.23, 1.26, 3.24, 0.07" without the county abbreviations, it would confuse any non-road geek or anyone. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be just as confusing if the exit numbering system changes (Interstate 70 in Kansas) or if a milepost equation makes the numbers jump back (the beginning of U.S. Route 101 in California)? How about if the mileposts are based on unsigned highways that differ from the signed routes (Oregon, no examples handy because I don't know of any junction lists that demonstrate that)? --NE2 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Except for Interstaes, are there any jct lists in ORSH? Yes, it would be confusing, but then we put a equation colspan in. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I made one for OR 58, but I don't know of any others. So you're saying an equation colspan is an acceptable alternative to the county abbreviations? --NE2 01:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that is only how we would deal with it in another state. The abbreviations signify that California uses a different system tahn teh rest of the U.S. NV should probably be switched over to this system. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If Nevada does it too, it's hardly different from the rest of the country; Other states also do mileage by county; for instance the single exit number on KY 9 is measured from the county line. California is just the only one that doesn't post continuous mileposts on Interstates, so they're the best-known. --NE2 01:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is why CA should be done with postmiles, including the county abbreviation to denote the difference. CA almost never uses statewide mileage, so that would be incorrect, and statewide mileage should be removed from all CASH pages (except for maybe CA-58). --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Unless you include milepost equations at the county line, that would leave no way to know the distance between two junctions on opposite sides of a county line; does an overlap that begins at mile A8 and ends at mile B1 stretch only one mile, since the county line is just after mile A8, or is it 20 miles long, since the county line is at A27? Without either statewide mileage or milepost equations, the reader won't know.
Which brings up a question: why do we have mileposts on the exit/junction lists? The only reason I can think of is so you can see how far it is between intersections. Are there other reasons? --NE2 01:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The mileposts reset at the state line. --NE2 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
So? That's the norm in teh US. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) In this way, an absolute location can be given for an exit. If we included postmile equations at the county line, would you be happy? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked you on WT:ELG how this serves the reader; please reply there. --NE2 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A similar discussion has started at WT:ELG. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

So now there's an explicit note above the table that says that numbers reset at county lines. Why do we still need the abbreviations? --NE2 22:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not go against consensus. They designate that they are postmiles - on the signs that is how they are referred to. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Look at the Caltrans bridge log, or the SR 190 report, or any number of other documents. --NE2 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Look at the signs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know the signs include it. So what? We're an encyclopedia. --NE2 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The county designations are needed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This is the exact problem I always have: your arguments don't have any meat behind them. Why are they "needed"? Caltrans gets along fine without them, and we can too. --NE2 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Your arguments don't have consensus backing them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus requires reasoning. What's your reasoning for including the abbreviations? --NE2 22:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It differentiates the differences between countywide mileage and countywide postmiles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean the fact that the postmiles were measured in 1964? That's explained at the top, and I doubt anyone who doesn't already know exactly how postmiles work would be able to figure that out from the addition of a county abbreviation. --NE2 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
(indent reset) That is not what i mean. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Then what do you mean? What are "the differences between countywide mileage and countywide postmiles"? --NE2 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Realignments, milepost equations... --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I said - changes since 1964. The fact that they don't represent current mileage is described at the top, and is a red herring, since adding the county abbreviation doesn't magically make that clearer. --NE2 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Keep one or the other. Both cannot be used simultaneously, as it is redundant when both are present, and FA reviewers will roll their eyes. Personally I'd prefer keeping the county abbreviations and trashing the reset note. We should go with what is present on the signs, since using raw postmiles may be too technical for a general audience. If, however, postmiles are shown on the signs, then by all means use them. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 22:50, 03 January 2008 (GMT)
What gives you the right to say that one or the other must be kept and not both? Furthermore, postmiles are shown on the signs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Where did I every say "must"? I only said "should", which is implying that it is a recommendation. Back to the original issue, a link to California postmile in the place of the top postmile cell of the exit/junction list should be sufficient, per Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. The postmile equations and other technicalities can go over there. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:00, 03 January 2008 (GMT)
Clarify what you mean by the last sentence. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Anything that has to do with defining what postmile equations are and how to solve them when found can be described in detail at the postmile article. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 23:27, 03 January 2008 (GMT)
Postmile equations are route specific. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And we don't list them, because we don't have all of them (and if we did, we still shouldn't list them, but should add a statewide column). --NE2 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
NE2, as you asked me to discuss my reasoning from my talk page, I'll do so. I believe we need county abbreviations so it's much easy for the reader to determine that the mileage is county-based, especially if they might forget to read that little note you created on the top of the exit list table. Bottom line, make it as clear as possible for the reader; don't confuse them. AL2TB Gab or Tab 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
That needs to be balanced against overwhelming the reader with information. In the recent junction lists, the postmile range in the county column will help remind the reader, as will the fact that, reading down the list, they actually do reset at county lines. Thank you for giving valid reasoning rather than proof by assertion. --NE2 00:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I guess I do see your method considered clear and concise. However, we all still need to listen to the current consensus. Yes, I'm aware that I do need to learn how to resist breaking the guidelines. I might seek an admin coach if i have time. But thanks for stating your reasons. :) AL2TB Gab or Tab 01:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about putting the abbreviation in the county column, like

Los Angeles
(LA 0.00-54.69)

? --NE2 02:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nevada

So is there any consensus on this subject? I ask as I'm working on several articles in Nevada. As mentioned above Nevada essentially uses the same standard for Postmiles as CA (except Nevada uses the term MP, which I assume is Mile Post). Currently there is no established standard. The project page is void of information on the subject, and except for freeways, no Nevada route article has a milemarkers. I'd like to start with an established standard and keep the routes consistent. From what I've seen there are 3 standards, use the white postmiles (CA) MP (NV) where the milage resets at each county line, 2 columns, one with MP milage, one with accumulated state wide milage, and state wide milage. Then there is this squabble about if the county abbreviation is part of the mile designation or not. Please advise on what is/will be the standard for CA so I can steal it=-) Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (exit lists)#Redundant abbreviations, again, and we shouldn't be using the county abbreviations in the mile column. Otherwise the problem with California is that we don't have all the equations so we can't calculate statewide mileage. What source are you using for Nevada mileage? --NE2 05:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for opening pandora's box, NE2. Getting milage's for NV routes has proved to be extremely difficult. The manual on NDOT's website called sm_book.pdf has some, repeat _SOME_. Some can also be derived from that pdf by comparing with other route entries, frontage roads etc. My 2nd choice has been personal experience (I'm jotting down the MP for routes I frequently use). So far I've not resorted to estimation via maps, I've just left gaps. But it may come to that. If you've got a better way, i'm all ears. Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How precise (# of decimal places) are NDOT's mileage book? 哦，是吗？(O-person) 05:11, 20 February 2008 (GMT)
3 decimal places, again, for the few that are noted. Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
How are miles marked on the road? Is there a sign at each bridge/junction that says the mileage? --NE2 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Usually, but not always. There is another difference, to the best of my knowledge NV does not have any milepost equations. NDOT is pretty religious about reposting miles for alignment changes. In fact for US 395, they already reflect alignment changes under construction that aren't expected to open for years.Davemeistermoab (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm. So the only problem (for continuous mileage) appears to be that mileposts don't reflect overlaps; would there be markers at the junctions? --NE2 05:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
For example the U.S. Route 6/U.S. Route 95 overlap from Coaldale Junction to Tonopah reflects US 6 milage, the MP make no mention of US95. I don't recall what is posted at the junctions.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you can get what the signs say, that can probably be cited <ref>signs posted at the intersection</ref>. Then you should be able to calculate the total mileage. --NE2 05:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at [1]? It doesn't seem to be working right now, but that's probably a temporary thing. --NE2 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I recall. I suspect it is an older version of this tool now at [2] which was at one time hosted on NDOT's web site, but I don't remember the name used. Thanks for the lead. I'll check in a couple of days and see if this is indeed still an active tool, and what can be derived from it.

Also, O? Where were you going with the significant digits? I was thinking use 3 decimal places for SM book miles. Then 0 decimal places for estimates, with a note. Is that what you were thinking, or something else?Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about [3] - it looks like it is still measured via the old route (SR 529)? Or have the CC posts been changed? Can you give an example of how markers are placed at a junction of two state highways? --NE2 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the County line between Carson City (which is a county) and Washoe County. Basically from that you can infer that US 395 is 7.70 miles long in Carson City. This includes the unconstructed alignment. In the downtown area that same sign would read SR529 CC XXX. Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually 7.70 is what you get when you add SR 529 to the two ends of US 395 on either side of it. US 395 is 10.64 if you include the unconstructed (and recently-constructed) bypass. --NE2 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
According to SM Book [4] US 395 when finished will be 9.611. That picture was taken during the construction phase of the 395 freeway bypass, on the portion where the old 395 right of way was widened rather than moved to a new alignment. I don't know if that sign is current or not, but the author of the website does mention the freeway was almost but not yet complete when he took it. I can check next time I'm there. I definitely give you the 7.70 is not correct given either the temporary or proposed alignment, and almost has to be using the alignment of 395 before any freeway portion was complete.

Davemeistermoab (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example of how markers are placed at a junction of two state highways? --NE2 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can say that many of the minor highways (Route numbers above about SR600) have no MP at the intersection. I'll get back to you on the majors (I.E. route number <600). My memory has already failed me too many times tonight to trust it again =-)

=-) Davemeistermoab (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK back from taking pictures of the Lunar Eclipse tonight... Field trip report. User:NE2: Yes, the picture you mention above is outdated. The current milepost at that spot reads 9.?? As far as MP's at intersections. It's not consistent. Some intersections have non-integer mileposts at both intersecting highways. Other intersections have mileposts at only one. I was not able to determine the criteria for choosing which intersections have mile markers on both highways. It seemed to be a combination of how major the highway was and how close was the next mile marker along the highway.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Bleh. That means there isn't necessarily enough to get all the information through overlaps. --NE2 08:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(intentionally resetting indent) OK now that I've wrapped the 15 tangents this got dragged into, back to the original question. If I understand correctly, the general opinion is that I should NOT copy the California standard for mileage in the major intersections table. If I understand correctly, the California project is using mileages that reset at the county lines as a last resort, due to no official source available on milepost equations. As it is possible to get true mileages in Nevada (although it may require field trips to do it), the Nevada project should stick to statewide mileages, not countywide mileages. If my understanding is not correct, please advise ASAP as I have already started to update Nevada State Route articles, again I'd like to start the effort off right with a consistent standard.Davemeistermoab (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to assume I have understood correctly and start fixing the articles I did with an mileage log. Please advise if their are any updates Davemeistermoab (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting trivia

SR 153, which is signed as "California's shortest state hwy", is actually the fourth-shortest, behind SR 77, SR 283, and SR 265; I believe SR 282 is the shortest that is signed normally (assuming SR 265 isn't signed; I believe SR 153 only has the one shield). This can be seen by sorting List of state highways in California by the length column. --NE2 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we use the exact definition of freeway that Caltrans uses?

This stems from US 395 and whether the single interchange with SR 70 makes that segment a freeway. Caltrans posts it as a freeway, and notes it in their 2005 traffic counts. There are also roads such as part of US 101 that don't have any interchanges, but are called freeways by Caltrans (MEN R42.96-T43.5). I suggest that we apply common sense - if there are very few interchanges, we probably shouldn't list it as a freeway in the junction list. There is also at least one place where a single RIRO interchange[5] makes a gap in the official freeway. As I understand it, Caltrans's definitions of freeways are a legal distinction, in that they can ban bicycles and pedestrians only if it's posted as a freeway. --NE2 04:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to think about this one - I do know that Caltrans also posts signs saying "Begin Freeway" and "End Freeway" on the routes as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, There are begin freeway/end freeway markers before and after the CA-70 junction, for what that's worth. Davemeistermoab (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry again, but what's an "IIRC"? ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 04:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
wikt:IIRC --NE2 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
After some thought, I think that we should use the Caltrans definition because a) it is official and we risk misrepresentation of legal status and b) one user's opinion of what is a freeway could differ from another's. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
One user's opinion of what is a separate interchange - and in fact which intersections to choose on a non-freeway - could differ from another's. We make judgment calls all the time. We have a definition of freeway that we can apply; we don't need Caltrans to hold our hand. --NE2 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's a question: if Caltrans says something's not officially a freeway but we want to indicate that it has only interchanges and actually is a freeway, what do we do? This would be an issue for US 101 on the Golden Gate Bridge approach in SF. --NE2 07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What should we do in this case?

A good point is brought up here - [6]. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. --NE2 07:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Links to San Bernardino should be changed to either San Bernardino, California or San Bernardino County, California, as the case may be. Peter Horn 19:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TFD

{{CAScenic}} and {{CAFES}} have been sent to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 09:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New photo request category

I created County subcategories for Wikipedia requested photographs in California and tagged each California road talk page with the appropriate photo request. See, e.g., Talk:California State Route 142 where the photo request covers the two counties that Route 142 travels over. GregManninLB (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)