Jump to content

Talk:Interstate 238: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Chriscf (talk | contribs)
5,611 edits
→Communication: should have struck this earlier
Line 119: Line 119:
*'''Support''' as it is the northern extension of SR238 to this day in most of Caltrans reporting and documentation such as Road Conditions and CALNEXUS. [[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as it is the northern extension of SR238 to this day in most of Caltrans reporting and documentation such as Road Conditions and CALNEXUS. [[User:Gateman1997|Gateman1997]] 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


2. AASHTO initially objected to the number.
<s>2. AASHTO initially objected to the number.</s>
*'''Support'''. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new whine]</small> 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] <small>[[User:Chriscf/The Wiki Factor|cheese]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chriscf&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new whine]</small> 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ''...the establishment of Route 880 and Route 238 have been approved.'' '''[[User:Vishwin60|<font color="orange"><span style="background-color: #303030">&nbsp;V</span></font><font color="cyan"><span style="background-color: #6E6E6E">6</span></font><font color="red"><span style="background-color: #8D8D8D">0</span></font>]]''' <sup><font color="black">[[User talk:Vishwin60|干什么？]]</font> · <font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Vishwin60|VDemolitions]]</font> · <font color="green">[[User:Vishwin60/Roads|VRoads (路)]]</font></sup> 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' ''...the establishment of Route 880 and Route 238 have been approved.'' '''[[User:Vishwin60|<font color="orange"><span style="background-color: #303030">&nbsp;V</span></font><font color="cyan"><span style="background-color: #6E6E6E">6</span></font><font color="red"><span style="background-color: #8D8D8D">0</span></font>]]''' <sup><font color="black">[[User talk:Vishwin60|干什么？]]</font> · <font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Vishwin60|VDemolitions]]</font> · <font color="green">[[User:Vishwin60/Roads|VRoads (路)]]</font></sup> 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:13, 31 March 2007

WikiProject iconCalifornia Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject Template:SFBA Project

Doesn't I-238 intersect with I-880 and I-580? Don't those count as intersections with interstates (or do spurs and loops not count in that section)? -- Ke4roh 14:12, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Has anyone proposed renumbering it I-480 now that the Embarcadero Freeway is gone? Or is there a California State Route 480 now? Bayberrylane 02:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Routebox

Despite the fact that it is a unique primary Interstate highway, shouldn't the routebox used be routeboxca2 instead of routeboxus? After all, the route never leaves the state, and that state being California in fact. I will change it to routeboxca2 if no one minds, and may make a stronger link to California State Route 238 (not redirect, I won't do that), as they are one and the same in the eyes of the California Legislature. --Geopgeop 07:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of the fact that it is a glorified state highway, it is officially a primary Interstate highway... and that's exactly what the routebox template is for. So I think people will mind. :-) Also, the directional parameters are for how the highway is signed, presuming that it is directionally signed. Northwest/southeast may not be an option (see Interstate 24 for a prime example). --Rob 14:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, the directional parameters are for how the highway is signed, presuming that it is directionally signed." It's officially signed north-south, with I-880 being the north end (consistent with CA 238 through Hayward, Union City and Fremont). However, since I-580 is signed east-west, and one makes a straight left exit to get onto I-238 (I-580 turns to the right), the directional designation is confusing and probably should be eliminatd. I don't believe it appears on the guide signs, just on a reassurance marker as one passes the on-ramp from I-580 east. 71.131.241.221 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is officially an auxiliary route. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Highway That Doesn't Exist"

I lived in this area for years and local people have been referring to I-238 as that for as log as I can remember. I added the note back in. --Darth Borehd 16:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a reliable source. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I-238 map

The current map is a placeholder, while accurate, I will redo it with a more accurate outline of the bay area. Stratosphere (T/C) 05:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Stratosphere (T/C) 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Parentage"

Given this runs between a 580 and an 880, and was assigned 238 because CalTrans did not have space in the x80 range, and is generally considered to be anomalously numbered contrary to the usual rules, that logically would suggest its de facto parent would be I-80, no? Chris cheese whine 06:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have a parent defacto or otherwise. True 80 would have been its parent in a perfect world, but it's well documented from many sources [1][2][3][4][5] that it technically doesn't have an existing parent until an I-38 comes about. Gateman1997 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are (in order), 404, 404, a personal home page, and 404. You can't argue that it doesn't have a parent purely based on its number. The statements from AASHTO and CalTrans suggest with very little doubt that it is part of the x80 family. Chris cheese whine 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the dead links. All 4 support my position on the matter. Also I'd like to see any evidence you have that says explicitly that AASHTO or Caltrans consider it a child of 80. I can find no such evidence. Gateman1997 08:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've also found this on the Caltrans site. [6]. You'll notice that Caltrans links to at least one site, AA Roads from link 1, that supports my view. Gateman1997 09:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RTFA. Chris cheese whine 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
238 is a family of its own. It is not related to I-80. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fine opinion, but what definitive source do you have to support this viewpoint. AASHTO and Caltrans are pretty definitive. -- KelleyCook 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the links are where? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make me take screenshots. RTFA. Chris cheese whine 19:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source SPUI gave does not support your view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In much the same way that my locak bus timetable doesn't support that view. The source above is a list, and gives no indication of parentage. Chris cheese whine 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So where are your sources? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes in the article beg to differ. AASHTO > you. Chris cheese whine 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just re-read the above comments. AARoads is a site run by a couple of roadgeeks. Why are they apparently a greater authority than the memos from the California DOT and AASHTO on the page? Chris cheese whine 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They wouldn't be if AASHTO and Caltrans actually had a position on the matter but I can't find any such position beyond AASHTO objecting to the numbering because it violates the numbering system (because 238 isn't a child of 80), and Caltrans not even acknowledging it being an interstate on many of their lists and still referring to it as SR 238 including its exit numbering on CAL NEXUS. However AARoads is provided as BY CALTRANS as a reliable source of information. I'd like to see this evidence you claim to have that AASHTO and Caltrans consider it a child of 80. Because the 238 article shows that the major objection AASHTO had to Caltrans numbering it that way was that 238 is NOT a child of 80, which is why they suggested it be numbered as an 80 child. Gateman1997 19:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(indent reset) To address your non-points:
AASHTO objecting to the numbering because it violates the numbering system (because 238 isn't a child of 80). No, their objection actually suggests the exact opposite, that it is a child of 80 (hence them suggesting alternatives to give it an x80 designation).
However AARoads is provided as BY CALTRANS as a reliable source of information. No, it is provided by a pair of road enthusiasts, and therefore not a reliable source of information.
I'd like to see this evidence you claim to have that AASHTO and Caltrans consider it a child of 80. IT'S IN THE ARTICLE. AASHTO suggest an x80 numbering, therefore they believe it is an auxiliary to 80. CalTrans say "We'd like to, but can't", therefore evidently they also believed it to be an auxiliary to 80. Then there's the insignificant fact of its endpoints being on 580 and 880. All the reliable evidence points to it being part of the x80 family. Saying that it isn't purely on the basis of the number is like saying a woman is not related to her parents because she married and took her husband's name. It's utter nonsense. Chris cheese whine 19:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All AASHTO implies there is that is SHOULD have been a child of 80. They objected to the numbering because by using 238 it isn't a child of 80 and thus violates the numbering scheme. Gateman1997 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it implies that it IS a child of 80, and SHOULD have been numbered x80. Chris cheese whine 19:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a jump of logic that's just not there. They would not have objected if it were actually a child of 80. However because it isn't they objected. But if you have ANY evidence other then RTFA please provide it. I've given at least one Caltrans endorsed link that supports my view and 3 roadgeek ones that also do. Gateman1997 19:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is flawed, and the wrong way around. They objected because the proposed number did not fit. They saw it as a child of 80, wanted it to have an x80 number, and suggested alternative solutions that would have given it an x80 number. It is logically impossible to reach your conclusion from the statement on this page. Chris cheese whine 20:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

m:Polls are evil, but I think it's important that we stop and ensure that we are all on the same page, and looking at the same reality here, so let's step back, ignore each other's opinions, and examine the substantive facts of the matter. Numbered statements in this section should be simple statements, or logical extensions thereof. Feel free to add alternative options, but do not remove any. Any combination of facts must state its derivation. If you oppose any suggested interpretation, you must state why you oppose. Chris cheese whine 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location

1. The endpoints of the road are junctions with I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.

1.1. The endpoints of the stretch of road documented in this article are junctions with I-580 and I-880, near the San Francisco Bay Area.


2. The numbering of I-238 is non-standard.

3. Following (2), the number I-238 would imply a spur of I-38, which does not exist.

4. The road is a little over 2 miles long.

5. Following (1) and (4), the road is part of the I-80 system.


6. Although I-238 may function as a spur of I-80 (functionally), it is not legislatively a spur of I-80. As Wikipedia is based on fact not opinion, I-238 should not be treated as a spur of I-80 on Wikipedia.

Communication

1. CalTrans proposed the number 238 based on, amongst other factors, the previous designation of the road as CA-238.

2. AASHTO initially objected to the number.

2.1. AASHTO initially expressed tacit objection to the number.

3. AASHTO suggested alternative options which would have numbered the road in the I-x80 series.

4. Following (2)(2.1) and (3), AASHTO's intention was to number it I-x80.

5. Following (4), AASHTO believed the road to be part of the I-80 system.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstate_238&oldid=119344430"