Talk:List of primary destinations on the United Kingdom road network: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:01, 26 July 2010

Highways: United Kingdom Unassessed Mid‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways 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.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Scotland: Transport in Scotland List‑class Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland.

Redhill?

Is Redhill a Primary Destination? I would think it is to close to Reigate and so i have removed it from the list. please correct me if I am wrong. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 08:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It appears in the LTN 1/94 (the central government list of primary destination), which as far as I have found is the only official documentation. RTW and Uckfield are not, although they may appear on maps as such. They may well be primary destinations by virtue of another factor, but until a citation can be provided to substantiate it per wp:v, then they should not be included. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorset

Not sure about Wimborne... my road atlas doesn't show it as such. Signs on the A31 are signed Dorchester/Ringwood, but older ones do say Wimborne.

Portland definitely is though, despite not really being a town. 212.137.63.86 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road atlases do not always confer with the DfT guidance; unless, of course, some other reference was used published after LTN 1/94. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 19:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

Can Scotland be broken down into regions as has happened for England and Wales? Also, the introduction to the article describes Crianlarich and Scotch Corner as towns - they are villages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.12.7.4 (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually said "small towns" but if you want to debate semantics...

The national/regional subdivisions are as per the original Government document, which did not include any counties/regions in Scotland; this is probably because the DfT doesn't cover Scotland, so they may have lifted a pre-existing Scottish Office guidance. I have deliberately retained the original counties/regions from the referenced source to avoid any debates over whether historic counties or any other division should be used. I hope that clears that up. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 19:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Map references

Are there official OS map references for primary destinations? Or do, say, large urban areas and dispersed rural villages lack precise location? Laurel Bush (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

No, the reference document only lists places, or like "Teeside", areas. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Locations could be almost anywhere?
The official list might be practically meaningless?
Laurel Bush (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humberside

Why is Humberside listed, when it hasn't existed for over a decade. It should be split into East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.61.68 (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article's footnotes, the county structure is as at 1994, the date the list of destinations was published. This is to make it easier to compare destinations to the published source. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated list

An updated Primary Destination list has been published. [1]

Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list is now organised by region, instead of redundant local government divisions: the whole article needs to be reorganised. 195.200.159.2 (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 17:36, 9 February 2010 edit Laurel Bush (talk \| contribs) 24,373 edits →‎Map references: Official list might be practically meaningless? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:01, 26 July 2010 edit undo 195.200.159.2 (talk) →‎Updated list Next edit →
Line 42:		Line 42:

	Regards, [[User:Freakmighty\|FM]] <small>[ [[User_talk:Freakmighty\|<span style="color:#000000">talk to me</span>]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Freakmighty\|<span style="color:#000000">show contributions</span>]] ]</small>  20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)		Regards, [[User:Freakmighty\|FM]] <small>[ [[User_talk:Freakmighty\|<span style="color:#000000">talk to me</span>]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Freakmighty\|<span style="color:#000000">show contributions</span>]] ]</small>  20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

			:This list is now organised by region, instead of redundant local government divisions: the whole article needs to be reorganised. [[Special:Contributions/195.200.159.2\|195.200.159.2]] ([[User talk:195.200.159.2\|talk]]) 08:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)