Talk:Millau Viaduct

Tallest vs. highest distinction, confusion re the Baluarte bridge

I've just reverted an edit by someone who wanted to switch the Millau Viaduct from tallest to second-tallest, in favour of Mexico's recently opened Baluarte bridge as the tallest. This claim is inconsistent with the careful distinction between tallest bridges and highest bridges made on the relevant pages. I note that the editor also did not attempt to modify the list of tallest-bridges-page, which still puts the Millau Viaduct at the top, making for an inconsistency.

Tallest, as defined elsewhere on Wikipedia, is talking about the distance from the base of the structure (where it emerges from the ground or the water) and the top of the structure, e.g., the top of a tower or pier. Highest, on the other hand, is talking about the distance from the road deck to the ground or water beneath. It is only on this second measure that the Baluarte bridge seems to be really remarkable, at 390m. The distance from the base of the Baluarte bridge's structure to the top of the piers is actually not listed anywhere in the news articles that I could see, but from the published diagrams here http://highestbridges.com/wiki/index.php?title=Baluarte_Bridge it seems that it is probably no more than 200m maximum.

So, as impressive as the Baluarte bridge is, it really should not be listed as the tallest. In fact it is not the highest bridge either, but I believe it possibly qualifies as the world's highest cable-stayed bridge?

Please don't revert the edit again without defending your reasoning here on the talk page.

81.159.49.168 (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

While you were penning this, I was in the process of improving the Baluarte Bridge article. The sources only say that the President inaugurated the bridge but say it is not complete! Hence the removal- which I would appreciate if you would restore- I don't edit war- and I am alway suspicious of ip-address edits. To me a bridge is a bridge when you can use it. Baluarte looks superb- but as you say the structure is quite simple. It is a pity we haven't seen, more about it in the past, and we can just hope they don't stick a 6 Euro 80 toll on it to prevent motorists from using it. Do go over to Baluarte Bridge and see if you can help build it up. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Look, I agree that the Baluarte bridge looks like a superb piece of engineering, and it's very spectacular. The wikipedia page for it could do with further development, I agree. But you really did not address the substantive reason behind my edit. Baluarte is *not* the tallest bridge in the sense that Wikipedia has defined "tallest". Tallest is all about the height of the structural parts of the bridge, i.e., the piers or pylons. "Highest" is the criterion that the Baluarte bridge can compete for; it seems to be about 400m from road deck down to the river below. Have you read the wikipedia pages listing "highest" and "tallest" bridges, and their accompanying definitions? Do you have any evidence that Baluarte qualifies for tallest rather than highest? From my inspection of all the images and engineering diagrams I could get my hands on, it looks nowhere near the Millau viaduct in terms of the *height of the structure* rather than the distance to the ground below the structure.

I'm sorry this has come from an IP address edit; you're right, I really should get a proper account. But I am not trying to do mindless vandalism here. I'm disagreeing with you on a very specific point of fact. You say you don't edit-war but someone (perhaps not you) seems to have changed the article straight back again. I will go and get an account now so you will take me more seriously -- although perhaps one would have hoped to be judged on the content rather than the signature! (I'm the same person as above, I've just moved computers in the intervening interval.)

152.78.64.28 (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, me again. Turns out I did have a proper account after all, I'd just forgotten about it. So, I don't want to start a mindless edit war, but I'm going to revert the article to clarify that the Millau viaduct is indeed the world's tallest bridge in terms of Wikipedia's own definition of "tallest". I quote here from the relevant page:

"The list of the world's tallest bridges ranks bridges around the world by the height of their structure. The structural height of a bridge is the maximum vertical distance from the uppermost point of a bridge, such as the top of a bridge tower in a suspension bridge, down to the lowest visible point of a bridge, where its piers emerge from the surface of the ground or water. Structural height should not be confused with deck height, which measures the maximum vertical drop distance from the bridge deck (the road bed of a bridge) down to the ground or water surface beneath the bridge span. A separate list of the world's highest bridges ranks bridges by deck height."

There is no evidence at all on the Baluarte bridge page or anywhere else, that the *structural height* of the B. bridge exceeds 343m.

JasonNoble (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added the line Later in 2012 it will be surpassed by Mexico's Baluarte bridge In an attempt to accurately report the facts. All of this should not be written in the lead but in a subsection below. I firmly believe we cannot go much farther until the Baluarte bridge page has been improved.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for showing good faith on that, Clem. But I'm concerned that you're not seeing my main point. The Baluarte bridge is *high* in the sense that it's a long way from the road deck to the bottom of the gorge. However, it is not particularly *tall*, in the sense that the distance from the bottom of the physical structure to the top is no more than 200 metres, and from what I can make out from the engineering diagrams, more like 150 metres. My objection has never been about the Baluarte Bridge's status as open or under construction. It's about the physical properties of the bridge. I'd really appreciate it if you could respond to this aspect of my comments. Have I missed something about the dimensions of the bridge? Do you have a source that indicates it's taller than I think it is?

152.78.64.28 (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)