Jump to content

Talk:Street layout of Seattle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dsokal (talk | contribs) at 23:43, 14 October 2016 (→Updated Map of Seattle Directionals: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kirkland and Renton

On the Kirkland thing: not a big deal, but if anyone were to be using this as a reference source for navigation (unlikely), they could be seriously confused by Kirkland's dual-grid system, which leads people to get lost fairly regularly (unlike Bellevue and Redmond, which, as far as I remember, have no other grid). Maybe just nix it, as the sentence already falls to mention plenty of other suburbs which use the numbering system? Radicalsubversiv 02:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Renton now uses its own grid system which is unfortunately orthogonal to the system used in Seattle and unincorporated King County. Issaquah, I believe, has also made a similar change. --Wac 17:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copied from article verbatim:
Addressing in Seattle (and throughout King County) keeps a uniform numbering plan. On streets that run north and south, odd numbered addresses are on the west side of the street with even to the east. <!-- is that true even south of downtown? -->

Provisional answer: "in Seattle (and throughout King County)", though ref. not yet cited.

Style

+, cit, so cl, rephrased; see Talk. MoS
Added verified relevant text and added citations, so cleaned up and rephrased as needed, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:MoS). Existing writing was retained as much as could. Summary per Wikipedia:Edit summary legend. --GoDot 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grid layout and arterials defined are referenced by neighborhoods articles. (ToC should generate automatically with more than three headings (TOC).)

+ "street grid layout" for search engine key phrase permutations.

(SW) does not link to particular relevance to article. Replaced with northeast.

Compass points as such do not have periods, as, for example neither does NATO or the element Al. [Chicago Style, Wikipedia Boxing the compass and Cardinal direction ]. Ordinal points are single words. The official designations on maps and on actual official street signs use the standard convention. The official designations in USPS addresses use the standard convention. Another way to think of this may be to consider the compass points as symbols ilke those of the Periodic Table.

Deleted: "There is no consistency about affixing dots in the designation. For example, 45th Avenue NE is used interchangeably with 45th Avenue N.E." This doesn't have to do with the official street name but the normal variation of abbreviations. NE, N.E., and "Northeast" are all the same. Some people also write "1st Ave So" instead of "1st Ave S". Sluggoster (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is "/" a good grammatical character?
Recommendation by WP:MoS: Slashes. --GoDot 06:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (Ed. --05:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Avoid joining two words by a slash, as it suggests that they are related, but does not say how. Spell it out to avoid ambiguities. Also, the construct and/or is awkward outside of legalese. Use "x or y, or both," to explicitly conjoin with the inclusive or, or "either x or y, but not both," to explicitly specify the exclusive or.

"Include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation" (WP:MoS#Quotation marks).

--GoDot 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Seattle, Citing sources.
"External Links" -> "Further Reading", per MoS Further reading/external links.
"Retrieved [date]", since on-line reference links can break (per Embedded links). --GoDot 06:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC) --GoDot 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Citation needed}} noted where needed to distinguish from citation following.
Delete <!-- whatever --> in article when okay.
Bug: ref="multiple, [name]" command per Multiple uses DNF ((Does Not Function, acronym). Kludge: "ref" command used instead, duplicates in "References" section use http://URL only.
Citations may refer to Bibliography, manually generated. Format per MoS. (Ed. --GoDot 05:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

--GoDot 06:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bug: ref="multiple, Samson", etc. DNF (Does Not Function).
See Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources specific links above and also the "Style" section in Talk:Seattle, Citing sources.
A further explication is provided at the "See 'Style' section in", preceding paragraph, rather than multiple postings of the same text. (Above addendum (edited) was pending this next cycle of edits : ) --GoDot 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy

Jesus Christ MSUP, "six alphabetic pairs"? What is the alphabetic pattern? "JCMSUP" for search engine key word. Does anyone know a good device for remembering the order within each pair?

What is the relation of "Metro Memories Scrapbook" to the article? The page seems to be testimonials by bus patrons.

Street grid layout

For all I know, the section on street grid layout may be accurate, but it is almost indecipherable. Admittedly, I'm tired, it's late, and I'm about to call it a night, but even knowing the city well it is unclear what areas it is saying are oriented which way. It's the kind of passage where I feel like I know less when I finish than when I started. Could someone consider rewriting, or adding a map? - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samson, Karl. "Frommer's: Seattle (Orientation)". Samson's selection from Samson, Karl (2006). Frommer's Seattle 2006. The text of this section was pre-existing, I added source reference.
See article, section Street grid layout. Added =Why=. --GoDot 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (Ed. --05:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Speaking of incoherence

In the Notes and references section, there is an HTML comment "Bug: ref='multiple, [name]' DNF". I have no idea what this might mean, and I doubt I am uniquely ignorant. Would someone please explain this or reword it coherently? It seems to have been added as part of this edit by User:GoDot, who appears to remark on it above, but in a manner every bit as cryptic as the phrase itself. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See addendum in "Bug: ref='multiple, Samson', etc. DNF", above. --GoDot 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather comical exchange :) GoDot, you do now see that I am not the only one confused by your particular style of recordkeeping? --Lukobe 06:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A unique use of footnotes I must say. First question is the need to list "Samson" no less than 4 times when <ref name=Samson>Samson</ref> on the first listing and then <ref name=Samson/> on subsequent references would have done the same thing without eating up valuable real estate.. Or are these entries just place holders until page numbers can be found? The comment quoted above is repeated every time a footnote is created and seems to add no value to the article itself. I'd suggest not including it at all, or at least translate it into a form of English. --Bobblehead 06:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no idea what "Bug: ref='multiple, Samson', etc. DNF" means. OK, "DNF" is "does not function". So what? What is the bug? What is it that you are trying to do? (And if someone other than GoDot can explain this, please do, because I suspect from the foregoing that there is a better chance that I will better understand someone else's explanation.) - Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see (but only by looking at article history). Dead links have been removed from references. May I suggest reading Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead"? It's pretty clear on what to do, and this isn't it. Once you've thrown away a link, there is very little chance that someone will reproduce it from the Web Archive, unless (as I just did) the excavate the history, which they shouldn't have to do. - Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I was wrong. The link is perfectly good. I see no problem at all, other than the failure to use "name=" in the references, which is easily fixed by editing. - Jmabel | Talk 03:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style

A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used. (WP: Citing sources # "References" section in addition to "Notes")

Seattle neighborhoods reference this article, so {{Seattle neighborhoods}} would be useful since this article pertains.

Re. <ref>[...] [pdf note]</ref>
NB: "streetclassmaps.htm#pdfnote" is an editorial note enclosed in square brackets, a reference within a reference. --04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC), --05:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

--GoDot 04:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: + cite web, cl. print refs, wikify conurbation, punc pdf note, order of heads at end; see Talk
Explication: Clean up refs to print sources, make clear what the bracketed reference is. Order of headings at end per WP:MoS, 7 Standard appendices.) --GoDot 05:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an inherently dull topic, but it seems to me that there is no reason that the article should be this tedious. - Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

directionals

The directionals section is pretty well written in terms of describing the system of street and avenue designation with NW, N, NE, W, N/_, E, _, _/E, SW, S, (SE). However, that's a case where a picture saves 233 words – or really just illustrates them. It would be nice if someone created such an illustration. I'll put it on my own to-do list, but I won't complain if someone else jumps on the idea before I get around to it.—Steve98052 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started on an illustration, and put quite a bit of work into it, so it would duplicate efforts if others were to take up the same project.—Steve98052 (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, some of the directionals have changed at least once in the city's history (some Ns became Es); might be worth discussing if someone can track down details and dates. I've noticed this when consulting old maps, and it's mentioned at [1], which also has some other stuff that could be of interest for the article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the Seattle City Clerk's Office web site, I found a map that indicates that the directionals system changed in 1961: [2]. I was going to say that I had no idea how to find that sort of thing, but I stumbled across it while looking for something else. Besides addressing your observation, they'd be a good citation for the text of the directionals section.
The city's post-1961 map would be a nice illustration of the directionals topic (and the pre-1961 map for the historical change topic), but it's labeled with a 2007 copyright so it may not be usable directly. My illustrations are pretty close to done anyway, so maybe that's not a problem, assuming my map passes copyright muster and any other issues that might apply.—Steve98052 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that they should say "all rights reserved". See Commons:File:Seattle_downtown_neighborhoods.jpg and, in particular Commons:Template:Seattle Neighborhood Atlas disclaimer. I would expect this was covered by that OTRS; if not, you could contact them and almost certainly get an equivalent OTRS that would cover this document. - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received a comment about inconsistency between the map and the text on my user talk page. I'll copy the substance (without greetings and signatures, that is) of the comment and my reply here, so anyone interested in the topic can participate. (Incidentally, someone else created a map before I got around to finishing the one I worked on in 2011.)

Comment:
I see you have edited "Street Layout of Seattle." I noticed that the "map of directional zones" and the text are contradictory. The map shows the East section (below canal and above Denny) following Eastlake Ave. E. on its Western border all the way from Denny to the canal. However the text states: "... between Queen Anne Avenue N and a border defined by Eastlake Avenue E (south of E Nelson Place) and Lake Union (north of E Nelson Place),[7] the Avenue N section, in which avenues are suffixed N and in which streets have no prefix; east of the Eastlake Avenue E–Lake Union border, the E section." Based on the street naming I see in Google maps, it appears to me the text is correct and the map is wrong. Is this something that can be corrected?" How would that be done?
Reply:
I see that you asked me about Street layout of Seattle on my user talk page. I think you're right that the text is correct and the image is wrong. I visited the area you asked about in person a few years ago to look, and as well as I can remember the text is correct, or at least it was at the time.
To fix the map would require an SVG editor, such as Inkscape to change the image file. I am a novice with Inkscape, but I could do it – if I had time. I don't really have time right now, so if there's someone else who wants to do it and knows how, it's likely to happen sooner than if we wait until I get around to it.
I'm copying this to the article's talk page so others can see it. That's the best place to continue the discussion.

— Steve98052 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Island on map?

On the map it appears that Harbor Island is colored black with no indication of which directional section it's a part of; of course, on Google Maps it becomes obvious that it's part of the SW section, along with West Seattle (which you'd expect to be in the W section but c'est la Seattle). 98.232.17.85 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Map of Seattle Directionals

I received this message from Steve98052: _________________________________________________________

Hi David,

I see that you asked me about Street layout of Seattle on my user talk page. I think you're right that the text is correct and the image is wrong. I visited the area you asked about in person a few years ago to look, and as well as I can remember the text is correct, or at least it was at the time.

To fix the map would require an SVG editor, such as Inkscape to change the image file. I am a novice with Inkscape, but I could do it – if I had time. I don't really have time right now, so if there's someone else who wants to do it and knows how, it's likely to happen sooner than if we wait until I get around to it.

I'm copying this to the article's talk page so others can see it. That's the best place to continue the discussion. —Steve98052 (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________

I have little experience communicating via this system, so am doing my best. I have edited the map using Adobe Illustrator and replaced the previous map with the correction that Steve agrees in his above comment should be made. I have re-read the text and I do believe the map is a closer approximation of the text. Let me know if there are any problems.

David

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Street_layout_of_Seattle&oldid=744398966"